York U: Flower Power, Pray for Peace!

[Zarathustra]

   The real irony, IMHO, is that the little band of fascists presume to decide what the vast majority of York students should be exposed to.   I've worked on a university campus for some years now and the so-called "student leaders" are some of the most undemocratic, intolerant goofs you'd ever find.   The real problem is that most students are far too busy getting on with business to spend their time doing campus politics.   The good news is that most of them don't pay any attention to their "leaders".  

I used to hang around with some students like that while I was at the university and I strongly agree with you. In their mind, they are holy and therefore they cannot sin. If you disagree with them, you are missinformed/brainwashed by the system. But they can't be Saints if there are no Demons, so they need make some if needed. The worst things are, the happier they are, because it makes them even holier. They are so negative about everything, it really sucks your energy. I keep them far from me now.

 

[DG-41]

While there are always holy rollers of various stripes on campus, who cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances, we cannot ignore the possibillity that there exist rational-minded student groups with legitimate concerns about overly-agressive (and often thinly justified) American foreign policy, and Canada's participation in same.

Where perhaps WE are failing is getting the message out about WHY we went into Afganistan, WHAT it is we intend to accomplish there, HOW we are going about doing it, and WHEN we expect the mission will be complete and we will be withdrawing.

Canada has a very good record about avoiding moral quagmires and only getting involved in "just" operations. I think Afganistan (as opposed to Vietnam and Iraq 2) falls squarely into the "just" category, and that any reasonably rational person would see that as self-evident once the particulars are explained to them.

Wiether or not this particular group qualifies a "reasonably rational"... I dunno. But I do think we and the government at large could be a better job of telling the general public the whys and wherefores of the mission in Afganistan.

DG

 

[48Highlander]

Canada has a very good record about avoiding moral quagmires and only getting involved in "just" operations. I think Afganistan (as opposed to Vietnam and Iraq 2) falls squarely into the "just" category, and that any reasonably rational person would see that as self-evident once the particulars are explained to them.

:

I would absolutely LOVE to hear your explanation as to what factors make the Afghan campaign "just" as opposed to the Iraq campaign.

 

[mo-litia]

:

I would absolutely LOVE to hear your explanation as to what factors make the Afghan campaign "just" as opposed to the Iraq campaign.

That makes two of us.

 

[Slim]

Canada has a very good record about avoiding moral quagmires and only getting involved in "just" operations. I think Afganistan (as opposed to Vietnam and Iraq 2) falls squarely into the "just" category, and that any reasonably rational person would see that as self-evident once the particulars are explained to them.

Three...?!

 

[NavalGent]

I'll jump in here.
There was one main difference that I saw. For Afghanistan, the day after 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack against one is an attack against all. In that case, there was a clear reason, a clear enemy, widespread agreement on the justification (16 of the 19 NATO countries supported it, and 14 sent troops there).  See http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/14627.htm for details.

With Iraq, it seemed that one day, with no real provocation that any of us saw. There was nothing clear, and nothing tangible that the world could see as a strong case for war, it was more of just a "trust me, we have unspecified evidence" sort of case. The evidence suggesting WMDs was clearly not good enough to base a war on, as there were none there! My personal feeling is that war should be avoided, unless there is a REALLY REALLY REALLY good reason. I feel that the reasons for the war in Iraq aren't good enough.

On the other hand, I recognize that some good has come out of that war, such as the fact that Iraq is now a democracy, but on the whole, I think the whole situation was poorly thought out.

And for the sake of transparency, yes, I am at University.

 

[career_radio-checker]

:

I would absolutely LOVE to hear your explanation as to what factors make the Afghan campaign "just" as opposed to the Iraq campaign.

1. Bush and Blair grossly exaggerated their claims of WMDs, which in the end, have prooven to be non existent.

2. Once the claim to WMDs had been falsified, the coalition's principle mandate to occupy Iraq changed overnight to 'protecting the people of Iraq from Saddam and promoting democracy.' (or something like that)

3. The powers that be who controlled the invasion of Iraq entered the war too quickly -- never receiving the "blessing" of the UN. Many scholars on both ends of the political spectrum will tell you that a "blessing" from the UN is necessary to any war to be deemed legitimate and thus "legal". However, the invasion of Afghanistan was debated and approved by the security council on numerous occasions

4. While both Afghanistan and Iraq are experiencing an insurgency, the velocity and magnitude of attacks in Iraq: "where Iraqi civilians will pelt American soldiers with rocks after they arrive at a suicide bomber scene to help those very Iraqis who were the intended target of the suicide bomber." (taken from the movie Gunner Palace) -- indicates that Coalition forces are not welcome.

I'm not a hippie and I like serving with American troops. You just asked how the 'stan' war is more just than the Iraq war.

 

[Slim]

And for the sake of transparency, yes, I am at University.

That doesn't automatically make you evil...But I guess that 's the difference between students and the service...Ironically of the two the CF tends to think a bit more about what its doing.

As for the rest of your statement...War should never be taken lightly but should be well thought out and all options considered.

What I don't think that the US thought out was the response from the AQ and the Taliban...I sometimes get the feeling that the US expected them to fold when Saddam was brought in.

the truth (the way I see it) is that we have several generations of de-programming of an entire population to achieve.

 

[Britney Spears]

In the sense of natural law, The  removal of Saddam's regime was definetly a just cause.

 

[NavalGent]

Devil's Advocate Speaking:

How was Saddam's regime worse than the other dictatorships around the world?

 

[Britney Spears]

How was Saddam's regime worse than the other dictatorships around the world?

How is that relevent to whether his removal was "just" or not?

 

[Donut]

Career_Radio_Checker,

I'll leave most of your unsubstantiated (or domestic political issue)  claims alone, but wrt your number 3,  how many UNSC resolutions are required to authorize force?  It was a case of "just one more, just one more" from the UN for months leading up to the operation.

How many is enough?

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm

provides a list of several dozen UN resolutions Iraq was in violation of.  One more would have made a difference?

Realize that the UN is nothing more then the longest running continuous diplomatic conference;  in the absence of a will to use force and real commitment and engagement by member nations, the UN is quiet often LESS then the sum of it's parts, and has lost much of the credibility it once had.

Canadians are somehow, with our multilateralist view of the world, wedded to the idea of an overarching body with a mandate and authority to intervene in state internal affairs.  What a crock o' shite.  The single most important actor on the world stage is, and will probably continue to be, the Westphalian model of a State.  States cannot abrogate their responsibilities on the world stage, and cannot expect their unwillingness to act to deter other state actors from actions they deem necessary.

The UN was clearly unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to achieve the end-state they had set out in multiple (Dozens!) of UNSC Resolutions, despite the fact that those resolutions clearly included the threat and real possiblity of the use of force to compell compliance.

To address your number 4 point, both Iraq and Afghanistan have (moderately) effective, internationally recognized (which makes them legitimate) governments which speak for their populations.  They are free to pass legislation calling for the withdrawal of NATO and Coalition forces, neither of which have done so.

You are, like the morons at York, entitled to your opinion, but when you lay it out here for the world to see, expect them to get picked apart, especially when they're misinformed.


DF

 

[vangemeren]

Could we change the direction of this thread, I think we've had enough of threads already about the  moral/legal/safety reasons/justification for both Iraq and A'stan

I'm interested to know how preventing recruiters onto campuses would affect recruiting because a large portion of the reserves are students.

Coincidently, the recruiters came to Nipissing U (and Canadore College too I guess) today and I didn't see any hecklers, just interested people. I've seen them at the school 3 times already this year.

 

[48Highlander]

I'll address NavalGent first:

I'll jump in here.
There was one main difference that I saw. For Afghanistan, the day after 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack against one is an attack against all. In that case, there was a clear reason, a clear enemy, widespread agreement on the justification (16 of the 19 NATO countries supported it, and 14 sent troops there).   See http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/14627.htm for details.

Bad logic there - realisticaly there's plenty of evidence that indicated Al Qaeda having ties with both Afghanistan and Iraq, so the "clear reason, clear enemy" argument applies to both countries.  Either getting rid of the Al Qaeda is a reason to attack both countries, or it's not a reason to attack either.

As to the "wide-spread agreement" bit, 48 countires initialy supported the invasion of Iraq.  So, we can scrap that argument too - if having enough other countries support you is all it takes to have a "just" war, then the war in Iraq was also just.


NEXT, Radio Checker:

1. Bush and Blair grossly exaggerated their claims of WMDs, which in the end, have prooven to be non existent.

This has nothing to do with Iraq being or not being a "just war".  All you're doing is voicing your opinion about something Bush and Blair said.  It's irrelevant to my question.

2. Once the claim to WMDs had been falsified, the coalition's principle mandate to occupy Iraq changed overnight to 'protecting the people of Iraq from Saddam and promoting democracy.' (or something like that)

I'm pretty sure that wasn't an actual sentence...

At least, not in the ENGLISH language.

3. The powers that be who controlled the invasion of Iraq entered the war too quickly -- never receiving the "blessing" of the UN. Many scholars on both ends of the political spectrum will tell you that a "blessing" from the UN is necessary to any war to be deemed legitimate and thus "legal". However, the invasion of Afghanistan was debated and approved by the security council on numerous occasions

This was already addressed by ParaMed.

To his post I'll add that UN blessing is irrelevant to my question as well.  There is a difference between the word "just" and the word "legal".  UN may or may not get to dictate legality (depending on whom you ask), but they deffinitely don't get to dictate morality.

4. While both Afghanistan and Iraq are experiencing an insurgency, the velocity and magnitude of attacks in Iraq: "where Iraqi civilians will pelt American soldiers with rocks after they arrive at a suicide bomber scene to help those very Iraqis who were the intended target of the suicide bomber." (taken from the movie Gunner Palace) -- indicates that Coalition forces are not welcome.

That's a load of horse-shit.  Iraq is a country heavily devided along religious and political lines.  If you knew anything about the history of the place, you'd understand that roughly 20% of the country has a good reason to be pissed at the Yanks, however, the other 80% are quite grateful for the opportunity they've been given.


The reason I think it's important to compare the two wars is because, in a sense, these "idiot" protestors at York U are the only ones being consistant.  Realisticaly, if you look at the justification for the two wars, either both are wrong, or both are right.  You cannot logicaly conclude that the Afghanistan campaign is somehow moraly superior to the Iraq campaign.

 

[Slim]

Gents (and ladies)

This is a good topic and I would like the thread to stay within it please.

Lets get back to discussing the York U situation.

Thanks

Slim
STAFF

 

[Brad Sallows]

The bottom line at York U is that by presuming to dictate what may or should be seen and heard and spoken of in the interests of the students and institution of a public university, the activists are contradicting their own ideals.  To resort to censorship and bans is to admit defeat in the arena of competing ideas.

 

[48Highlander]

The bottom line at York U is that by presuming to dictate what may or should be seen and heard and spoken of in the interests of the students and institution of a public university, the activists are contradicting their own ideals.   To resort to censorship and bans is to admit defeat in the arena of competing ideas.

This is nothing new - it's an ongoing problem that's only recently garnered any opposition.  www.campus-watch.org used to have a good movie on the subject, but I've been unable to find it since they redid their website.  Still some good articles on there though.

 

[Slim]

Having been to, and worked under cover at, a number of activist demonstrations I can say that the reocurring theme (as far as I can tell) is the desire to act out and flaunt the law.

The one that comes to mind is a"rally" (if you could call it that) of roughly 10,000 people (so said the press but there were quite a few protesters present) that took place in downtown Toronto about three years ago.

It was organized by OCAP and started with a pancake breakfast at City Hall and then speeches...To be followed by a "march" through downtown with the aim of closing the business district for the few hours that it took for the march to wind down.

I and my partner at the time were right in the midst of the speeches and the march and I can say that with very few exceptions;
-The speeches made no sense what so ever.
-The speakers themselves didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
-Of all the people present 40 charges were laid against 24 people, 19 of wheom were from out of town.
-Most of those present just wanted to go for a walk (I think)

Very little damage was done during the march (some spraypainting and whatnot) but the one event that sticks in my mind was some little s**thead from out of town (he was later charged for breaking something else) tipped over a newspaper box. A number of others came right up behind him and set the thing back on its feet again despite being threatened by this little twerp who had kicked it over to begin with.

There are allottt less of them thean they make themselves out to be...And for that I'm glad.

Slim

 

[linus]

education is a poor substitute for intelligence.  MAybe they should see what it is really like

 

[Cpl.Banks]

Its funny that this should come up actually, on tuesday night I was invited by a friends of a  friend   to go join in on a debate about the CF role in Afghanistan at a university I shall not name. Little did I know this was a meeting of marxists, socialists and all around commies that were going to bash the CF and Gen. Hillier after his recent aprearence at this very same university. This in no way is reflective of X university this is an independent organisation which I will not name. I show up there and there are about a dozen people, the head speaker shows up twenty minutes late and has a sheet all laid out with anti Western jargon. Saying all sortes of crazy things such as :"Canadian soldiers are running around Afghanistan with machineguns killing hundred of people." and "The Canadians are building an empire for the united-States, we (Canada) is just an extension of the US armed forces" and other such non-sence. I obliviously was not feeling very comfortable at this time seeing as I had my combat wrist watch(drab olive of course ;D) and had an army sticker on my binder in which I was jotting down all this garbage.

So question period comes around and obliviously I correct this would-be Commisar about all the half truths and just complete garbage. Usually after having said a comment people clap...one person clapped once, then realised that he was alone. He some how managed to turn what I said about the reconstruction of this country by soldiers and goverment agencies as well as several charities into a negative statement... . The best part of my evening was that another guy pops up and tries to calm theses guys by saying and I quote "Comrades, all of our points of vue blablabla" I almost burst out laughing, I was surprised they didn't have a picture of "Comrade" Stalin, so I went down to another room and watched the end of Gunner's Palace...laughing all the way there... Flower power my ***...hippies...

UBIQUE!!!