Canada's New War Campaign

[Captain Awesome]

There really is no "solution" to the extremist problem, as there will always be extremists. However, there is a way to limit an extremists opportunities to conduct extremist operations, which is done by taking failed states and building them to a point of being able to secure themselves. If, say, Afghanistan could secure themselves, the chances of al-Queda or another extremist organization conducting training in that nation is considerably slim.

You can never eliminate a crime all together. What you can do, though, is limit and control the opportunity of whether or not that crime can, in fact, take place.

You're absolutely right.

[WhatThe]

With the topic of failed states fostering extremism- what's the best way of bolstering orfostering legitmate govts? Should we do it by military action or through humble means of education and raising of standards of living? Let's take two prime examples, Iraq and Afghanistan. Through military action what hav we gained?

[sooperphreek]

trying to create things through the facade of democracy and education is an insult to the people that we are supposedly trying to help. throwing red tape at things is probably less effective than military action by far. at least the military action is progressive and has tangible cause/effect. red tape and politics is rhetoric and agendas by the person who wants the power the most and can hoodwink the masses. but in the end both solutions are not ideal.

[sobrohusfat]

whatever bago, and maybe you perceive the sky as green and the trees blue as well. - am i bothered?

Blue and Green?

Did or didnt the United States and a bunch of other 1st world countries just come out and say exactly what I just said? About the fact there wont be peace unless Israel accepts 1967 borders? That they cant treat Palestinians like sub-human POW's anymore?

You seem "bothered" when you generalize and call a entire county/people that has been illegally oppressed "terrorists".

You certainly do have a very strange way of analyzing facts.
The discussion was turning to the causes of extremists and terrorists and how that might be affected by western policy changes. My post was refering to a broader view of what drives extremists in general - independent of what "the west" does or doesn't do. This affects no one more directly than the Israelis so of course i mentioned them and what they are up against. My point applies to them specifically since they are pressured to overlook and ignore certain critical facts - which they wont, even if you wish they would. The very real threat Israel faces from extremists (wherever they come from) precedes and is independent from anything they have or have not done - will or will not do. (that's been so clearly proven over and over)

Notice in my post i actually didn't generalize or even mention any specific country/people as terrorists since the real issue is broader than that.

No informed person (1st world head of state or otherwise) would seriously suggest Israel could find blissfull peace if only they would return to the 1948 cease-fire lines (aka 1967 "borders") - Obama himself backpeddled and qualified his 1967 borders remarks with talk of defensible land swaps because he knows full well Israel wont have peace even if they were to settle for borders only 10 yards outside BenGurion airport.
Now If you want to continue to discuss/bash/"generalize" israel i think there's another place for that.

It does looks like Canada will maintain a rational perspective on things - for a few more years anyway.
Harper certainly hasn't behaved as a mere puppet following the U.S. every whim.

[FreeRights]

With the topic of failed states fostering extremism- what's the best way of bolstering orfostering legitmate govts? Should we do it by military action or through humble means of education and raising of standards of living? Let's take two prime examples, Iraq and Afghanistan. Through military action what hav we gained?

I don't think we can make a perfect guideline for fixing failed states that would apply to every nation, but remember that Iraq wasn't a failed state. It had strong government, and there was very little, if any, terrorist training being conducted in that country. You can read into a variety of accurate or inaccurate reasons that the United States went there, he UN and NATO did not, and Iraq really doesn't relate to the topic of failed states.

Afghanistan, though, was a failed state and military action was needed because they had a very weak government that was uninterested in rebuilding their nation, and Afghanistan had a very strong core of extremists in that country already. Through military action, we are being successful in pushing these extremists out of that country so that rebuilding can occur. Afghanistan, or another failed state, would never obtain a higher standard of living as long as the saturation of extremists within the country was as high as it was.

Let's take Pakistan as an example of targeting extremists diplomatically. It has been common knowledge that Pakistan is, and has been, either directly or indirectly fostering extremist groups for a long time. After Afghanistan fell, a lot of al-Queda and other extremists crossed the border to Pakistan where it is believed they currently train for and plan operations (bin Laden's compound is believed to be one such place). The country of Pakistan is as controlled by regional warlords, and by their intelligence agency, as it is run by the President. Due to a weak government, terrorism can foster.

We are taking the diplomatic approach to Pakistan. I don't believe that it will work, because these extremist groups have likely been there for a long time and are probably so well established through bribery and threats that the government may not take any action.

trying to create things through the facade of democracy and education is an insult to the people that we are supposedly trying to help. throwing red tape at things is probably less effective than military action by far. at least the military action is progressive and has tangible cause/effect. red tape and politics is rhetoric and agendas by the person who wants the power the most and can hoodwink the masses. but in the end both solutions are not ideal.

War is never "ideal" but is sometimes the necessary action to take in certain situations. Using the military proactively, as a tool, to reduce the threats to Canada in the future is a necessary action for our military to do.

This is why fooling yourself into thinking that Canada should always be a peacekeeping nation is not a good idea.