03-26-2006, 01:31 PM
prz Wrote:Second, I dont want to hear about the Liberal Policy of Human Security. If the Liberals were for it like you said, why wasnt anything done in the Sudan? You know as well as anyone else people were being wiped out. Instead of Canada, France and Germany doing anything about it, they spent so much time attacking the US for its invasion of Iraq. Why didn't they get together something together and help Sudan? Where was this help in 1999 after the election in East Timor? Canada could of went and helped?
Reason is they cant. Canada and Europe, save and except for the Brits, cannot deploy/project a large scale military force abroad. Even the Brits who are more advanced than most have trouble working on the same level with the US.
Look at the Balkans before NATO got involved, the UN was lost and couldnt get anything done.
So its great the liberals have a policy of helping those who are fragile in the world, but unless you have a military force to go in there and help those people, the soft power stuff is useless. You need a combo of both
I think you just made my point. Iggy favours the Responsibility To Protect, he'd have backed an invasion, any type of invasion to do something about the Sudan, so would I. That's why I want him in the top job. I would have supported sending our troops under US or UN auspices to the Sudan in 2002, forget about 2004 or 2005 when it was already too late.
As a matter of fact, I think his international/foreign policy stance is going to be a strength. He'd be the kind of guy pleading with the UN to do something, and unafraid to commit our troops to the best of their abilities. His ideal role for Canada in the world, is a return to the Pearsonian era of diplomacy and peace keeping... so that it can once again be more than just a myth.

