“War doesn’t determine who is right, it determines who is left”–author unknown to me
I’m as Canadian as the next guy and there is no way that I want anyone-ANYONE-to threaten the stability, safety, cultural heritage or the freedoms of my country,children,friends or my neighbours. I don’t question the decision to stand up and say enough is enough. If folks can’t sort this crap amongst themselves then the rest of the world, who seems to want a more peaceful co-existence, will do it for them. But is dropping bombs the only way to validate this statement? To listen to our PM stand up in the House and try to sell us a rancid bill so goods about how we must join the fray and do our part makes me retch. If he were the first one to jump into the cock pit of the first Canadian war plane to travel to enemy territory and hit the trigger that unleashes the first bombs/missiles of the next part of the same war I might feel differently. Perhaps if the decision makers had to send in their kids first there might be a different ‘will’ to waging war. Isn’t this the same war we declared having won-the same war that just keeps coming back to haunt us-the same war that costs us billions of dollars that we are told don’t exist or we don’t have and yet there always seems to be enough to wage war? We have demonstrated that we, the allied forces, can’t win using the strategy we have adopted but we keep trying anyway. Isn’t that the definition of insanity–to keep doing the same things over and over again expecting a different result each time? Here we have a government who can’t fall over itself fast enough to please our U.S. neighbours. I wonder if they have even thought about ‘collateral’ damage and what that means. How much or how many are acceptable?
So who is/are the enemy? Can anyone explain this to me so I can grasp what is happening? In some cases we are supporting those who are our enemies but who are also the enemies of our enemies. But then we are supporting our allies who are enemies of those we are supporting who are our enemies. Are you more clear now? And now we have agreed to fly over there and start dropping bombs–on who? Will that be our enemies or our allies who are supporting our enemies? In the end we are going to kill innocent people who just want to live in harmony and enjoy a full belly each day. But then we’ll hear that war does produce ‘collateral’damage and casualties. It can’t be helped. It’s part of the sacrifice that must be made. Really? It’s a much easier decision to make when you don’t have to worry about whose going first.
We have some of the best thinkers, planners and visionaries in the free world at our disposal and yet we can’t come up with a plan that brings us some peace and stability outside of blowing other people to smitherines. How well has that worked so far? We are fighting people on their own turf–a no-no apparently but we march ahead anyway. Fear of dying usually brings acquiescence but in this case it doesn’t seem to count for much in the Middle East.
So why don’t we ‘starve’ them out. Them/they being the ‘enemy’. Where does their money come from? Well-much of it comes from us. They use our petro dollars to finance attacks against us and we continue to do business with them. What would happen to the warring tribes and factions if the money dried up? What would happen if they woke up one day and there were trillions upon trillions of barrels of oil sitting on the docks or in pipelines going nowhere? Likely our enemies would up their purchase of oil but if THEIR supply of petro dollars was dramatically reduced how would they finance those who want us dead? What if we stopped doing business with our enemies or those who support our enemies? Where would the money come from then? I understand that big business in the free world would never abide this. Patriotism is a fickle commodity that comes with a price it seems. Multinationals are not prepared to make this sacrifice. They are familiar with making money from war not having money go the other way.
Have a look at the following photo and read the messages on the placards and then ask yourself-Are these our allies or our enemies? We need to come up with a long term solution instead of trying to bomb them into the next century. We can, however, agree on this: this group needs to be stopped before we no longer have the domestic strength to defend ourselves.
Like any good revolution or uprising it takes passion and fervor to be successful but it also takes truckloads of money and without money I doubt the fervor and passion would continue to manifest itself as it does currently. A bigger concern to me is what are we teaching our children–the next generation of thinkers and citizens–about how to co-exist with those who have other ideas regarding how the world should be run. The current message is ‘might is right–the bigger the problem the bigger the bomb’. We need to be teaching them about developing long term global solutions. We have a better chance to affect change if this becomes a war of money. At least we would be going to our strength. At best the current plan is a short term solution and a good number of innocent human beings are about to be slaughtered only because they have the misfortune of living in a different part of the world.
That’s how I see it anyways, Jim
Imagine you are the leader of the allied forces. What would you do to win this war? Please send your ideas to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please pass this article on to your friends and if you like the page then please’like the page’.