Is Canada a peaceful country?

[Colpy]

Education for Colpy

Germany: 58 Years of US Occupation

Christopher Bollyn​

POTSDAM, Germany – The Allied occupation of Germany began 58 years ago this month and in the eyes of many Germans has not yet ended. Foreign armies are still based on German soil and Europe’s largest and most prosperous “democracy” still lacks a constitution and a peace treaty putting a formal end to the Second World War.

For Germany, World War II, like the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks formal legal closure because a peace treaty has never been signed between the Allies and Germany.

The stated goal of the Anglo-American forces in Iraq is to liberate the Iraqi people and establish democracy. However, if the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq follows the pattern set by the Allied occupation of Germany, a sovereign democracy in Iraq is not likely to appear in the near future.

Uh huh. How about an education for Einmensch?

Germany's peace treaty was unconditional surrender. Period. No treaty necessary.

Since that time, ALL the Allies have allowed Germany to become a completely sovereign nation (although it took until 1989 for the Russians to let up...)....as I said, Germany has been a sovereign nation, not only freed by the Allies, but REBUILT by American money under the Marshall Plan.......

Germany has no constitution?

Than WHAT is this?

http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/germany/constitution/constitution01.php

Perhaps you should find some sources that have some faint connection with reality......

 

[Zzarchov]

Hey Colpy , quite being such a meany!


Your getting your facts all of his delusions! Do you know how hard it is to get out those stubborn hard to remove facts!

Show a little compassion, he probably worked very hard trying to weave that delusion and now you've got it all tangled up and full of holes when you threw all those facts at him.

Sheesh.

 

[alypipes]

Canada is a peaceful country and meek too. Sure were fighting a war in Afganistan letting our voulunteer sevicemen do the job we pay them but, only to appease the US after we opted out of the missle defence plan.

If history can teach us anything, and usually it doesn't, we should have a small but highly trained army, lots of good officers. If we needed we could quickly expand this "army of officers", using it to train others. We would need to keep all commands a seperate entity, ensuring it can operate on its own and answers to the PM or Min of Def.
We need to keep a close eye on the world and know who is doing what to who and how that might effect us.
We need an overhaul of the UN, that would help to keep all nations in the picture. It doesn't work right now but it is a good idea, it just needs improvement. Canada invented peace keeping, but peace keeping needs strength and resolve, it needs the US too.

 

[karrie]

Canada invented peace keeping, but peace keeping needs strength and resolve, it needs the US too.

Is having muscle waiting any more peaceful that not doing the fighting ourselves? I know I wouldn't think highly of the mobster who pleads that he's innocent and an upstanding member of the community, because he never hit or killed anyone. Would the fact that he cultivated the relationships which brought about such things make his hands any cleaner?

 

[Lineman]

"Traditional peacekeeping", as so many like to refer to, is Mr Pearson's version of placing an agreed upon neutral party's army between the armies of 2 warring nations. Israel and Egypt for example. As long as you have governments of nations that respect "traditional" diplomacy then you have a chance at a good and proper peacekeeping mission.
Where are the "traditional" warring nations in today's conflicts? How and where do you place peacekeepers between the Taliban and the Afghani army?
There are thousands of peacekeepers in Darfur right now. Has their "peacekeeping" mandate stopped the murdering? Would the Janjaweed continue their unopposed slaughter if they ran into the PPCLI or some Marines and got their asses kicked by a force who actually fought to protect the civilians under their care?
Peacekeeping requires that you first have peace. In today's world to have peace you most often have to impose peace.

 

[Curiosity]

More Navel Gazing I see

There are some Canadians who still remind and challenge the U.S. for entering the European World Wars LATE when the U.S. was in deep depression and had little military buildup of armament and troops during the second World War.....
........and now you all preen and call yourselves pacifists and the U.S. warmongers.

Canada a peaceful country?

Confused perhaps.

 

[MikeyDB]

Curiosity

And besides the Nazis needed an aerodrome in Lakehurst New Jersey right!?

 

[karrie]

........and now you all preen and call yourselves pacifists and the U.S. warmongers.

While I saw one or two people say they WANT to be pacifists, I didn't see many references to the US at all. And even more who discuss Canada in terms of what they'd like to see versus what they are seeing.

Is it wrong to discuss our view of ourselves, and where we'd like to see our country's policy going? I don't think so.

 

[Curiosity]

While I saw one or two people say they WANT to be pacifists, I didn't see many references to the US at all. And even more who discuss Canada in terms of what they'd like to see versus what they are seeing.

Is it wrong to discuss our view of ourselves, and where we'd like to see our country's policy going? I don't think so.

Of course you would like that Karrie - I have no control over what people want to say - nor do you dictate what I wish to write either or what I have read on this and other Canadian forums for ten years.

While your point is understandably pacific, you miss entirely that Canadians seem to be unable to discuss their desire for peace without bringing into the picture their feelings about the U.S.

Discuss away the ideal of peace - but don't forget your nation or the one into which you were born was at war in Europe long before the U.S. was twice requested to assist.

That was my point - why did you feel it necessary to alter it?

Perhaps the Canadian socialist environment will always desire peace - and I wish Canada all the peace they can achieve - however comparatives with the U.S. don't belong on this thread if you are as you say discussing your wishes for the future of Canada. Whether you saw many references to the U.S. or none at all - they don't belong here in a discussion of how peaceful Canadians want to be. Apparently an impossible feat.

 

[MikeyDB]

I wonder if it's foolish or ignorant or what exactly when discussing the notion of Canada as a nation of "peace"....to completely ignore the rest of the world! Facts are facts and the fact is that Canada is involved in Afghanistan because some other nation invoked consideration of obligations and committments under the NATO accord..... Canada has been involved in many actions around the world for a very long time, but always at the behest of either a state seeking support of a military variety...or as subsriber to the United Nations peace keeping missions. It's been a long loooooong time since Canada fired a cruise missile into the Sudan....or supplied arms to the Mahujadeen in Afghanistan....or invaded some other nation on a pretext of lies and misdirection. Just because Curiosity has a problem with Canadians discussing the nature or quality of the "peace" being considered by this nation, the argument can't realistically be limited to how individual Canadians "feel" about men and women serving combat roles in various locations around the world in a vacuum! The reason why Canada makes committments that includes military involvement is because the fundamental principle of any people wishing to live in peace must be based on a real-world-view of both necessity and principle. We have as a peace-loving nation an obligation to respond (under lawfully establish necessity) to conditions of turmoil and conflict that threaten the peace of neighboring nations and trusted allies around the world. What Canadians regard as "urgent necessity" to use the framework of the most recent American administrations zeal for invading Iraq, simply doesn't stand the test of informed scrutiny of the dynamics at play.

Now you (Curiosity) can whine and bitch and thump your fists on the floor all you like, that won't change the dynamics brought into play by on-going insurgencies and conflicts that are happening all over the world! You enjoy the freedom to throw rocks at Canadians because you're a transplanted Winnepegger....? You embrace the philosophy and eagerness for militarism that you've watched around you as your loved ones went to war in the name of lies and counterfeit "necessity"...well that's up to you my child. But those who exercise something like considered intelligence and verifiable evidence might draw some other conclusions than an "urgent necessity" to kill thousands and bomb a nation into oblivion.

This hardly speaks to a nation of people peacefully living under the "rule of law" happy to denegrate and disparage international agreements when they fail to appease a corporate defense structure salivating after profits regardless of the costs in blood and the financial future of unborn children.

 

[Curiosity]

Mikey

Thank you for making the point I was trying to make.

I didn't realize I was whining and bitching - my remark was that Canadians do not seem to be able to discuss the beautiful thought of "peace in your lifetimes" without bringing the U.S. into the discussion.

Should I have left out the historical fact that Britain (of which Canada was a valuable member at the time) requested the assistance of the U.S. who had no immediate war
plans thus the late entrance into military action during WWII regardless that many U.S. service people had already gone into the theater with the Canadian and British military?

That is fact - but that Canadians continue to bring it makes me wonder what this continual musing over 'vive la difference' must be and of what possible use is it?

Yes it is naval gazing - for it accomplishes little unless you intend to keep it strictly Canadian and what you can effect in the way of remedial change. I find it distressing Mikey your low opinion of me when I am merely expressing mine.

We are allowed individual thought are we not?

 

[alypipes]

Is having muscle waiting any more peaceful that not doing the fighting ourselves? I know I wouldn't think highly of the mobster who pleads that he's innocent and an upstanding member of the community, because he never hit or killed anyone. Would the fact that he cultivated the relationships which brought about such things make his hands any cleaner?

Let's take the Balkans for example. The UN forces there were only allowed to bring their standard rifle and 30 rounds of ammo. We wanted to stop all three sides from killing each other, we were doing a fair job and had taken possesion of many heavy weapons.

Our peace keeping outpost was overrun one day by Croat forces armed with everything from T-72, heavy arty, ground attack aircraft, and armoured personel carriers. The people who we were there to keep safe were attacked without mercy. Of course the Serbs then moved in an impressive display of firepower and professional soldiers. War broke out all over the country not only killing many but it also made us look useless.

Had the peacekeeping force had attained a balance of power, ie we had heavy weapons, this most likely would have been avoided. I would like to see you stand in the middle of a road and tell someone driving a T-72 to stop. Of course you wouldn't need anything other than your high morals; because you aren't a "gangster".

 

[karrie]

Had the peacekeeping force had attained a balance of power, ie we had heavy weapons, this most likely would have been avoided. I would like to see you stand in the middle of a road and tell someone driving a T-72 to stop. Of course you wouldn't need anything other than your high morals; because you aren't a "gangster".

I think you misread my view on it. I think it's preferable to be up front and honest about where we stand, than to put on the peacekeeper hat and expect 'the muscle' to bail us out if our efforts fail. I think peacekeeping is great, but I also think it sometimes isn't enough, or sometimes needs to be bulkier, and I'd like to see us be able to provide BOTH.

 

[talloola]

I think you misread my view on it. I think it's preferable to be up front and honest about where we stand, than to put on the peacekeeper hat and expect 'the muscle' to bail us out if our efforts fail. I think peacekeeping is great, but I also think it sometimes isn't enough, or sometimes needs to be bulkier, and I'd like to see us be able to provide BOTH.

You're right Karrie, There must be peace for peacekeepers to do their job, if not, they need peacemakers along with them, like we have in Afghanistan, to support the troops who are building schools, etc. It's pretty hard to do that work while people are shooting
at you.

 

[lone wolf]

First thing a peacekeeper has to understand is sometimes, that peace just doesn't want to be kept. When war is the only life you know, peace is a challenge to life.

 

[Lineman]

I think the peacekeeper understands it's his government and countrymen that needs convincing.