The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Once-Peaceful Canada Turns Militaristic; Blowback Follows
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In 1968 the government of Canada decided to openly admit Americans seeking to avoid being drafted into the US war on Vietnam. Before, would-be immigrants were technically required to prove that they had been discharged from US military service. This move made it easier for Americans to escape President Johnson’s war machine by heading north.

Although a founding member of NATO, Canada did not join the United States in its war against Vietnam. The Canadian government did not see a conflict 7,000 miles away as vital to Canada’s national interest so Canada pursued its own foreign policy course, independent of the United States.

How the world has changed. Canada’s wise caution about military adventurism even at the height of the Cold War has given way to a Canada of the 21st century literally joined at Washington’s hip and eager to participate in any bombing mission initiated by the D.C. interventionists.

Considering Canada’s peaceful past, the interventionist Canada that has emerged at the end of the Cold War is a genuine disappointment. Who would doubt that today’s Canada would, should a draft be re-instated in the US, send each and every American resister back home to face prison and worse?

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out this past week:

Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses perpetrated by the U.S.

Canada has also enthusiastically joined President Obama’s latest war on Iraq and Syria, pledging to send fighter jets to participate in the bombing of ISIS (and likely many civilians in the process).

But Canada’s wars abroad came back home to Canada last week.

Though horrific, it should not be a complete surprise that Canada found itself hit by blowback last week, as two attacks on Canadian soil left two Canadian military members dead.

Greenwald again points out what few dare to say about the attacks:

Regardless of one’s views on the justifiability of Canada’s lengthy military actions, it’s not the slightest bit surprising or difficult to understand why people who identify with those on the other end of Canadian bombs and bullets would decide to attack the military responsible for that violence.

That is the danger of intervention in other people’s wars thousands of miles away. Those at the other end of foreign bombs – and their surviving family members or anyone who sympathizes with them – have great incentive to seek revenge. This feeling should not be that difficult to understand.

Seeking to understand the motivation of a criminal does not mean that the crime is justified, however. We can still condemn and be appalled by the attacks while realizing that we need to understand the causation and motivation. This is common sense in other criminal matters, but it seems to not apply to attacks such as we saw in Canada last week. Few dare to point out the obvious: Canada’s aggressive foreign policy is creating enemies abroad that are making the country more vulnerable to attack rather than safer.

Predictably, the Canadian government is using the attacks to restrict civil liberties and expand the surveillance state. Like the US PATRIOT Act, Canadian legislation that had been previously proposed to give the government more authority to spy on and aggressively interrogate its citizens has been given a shot in the arm by last week’s attacks.

Unfortunately Canada has unlearned the lesson of 1968: staying out of other people’s wars makes a country more safe; following the endless war policy of its southern neighbor opens Canada up to the ugly side of blowback.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Canada, Terrorism 
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Kiza says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War

    Were there any acts of terrorism on Canadian soil when Canada was involved in the Vietnam War only indirectly? I do not think so.

    Since then, Canada has bombed Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now ISIS in Syria and Iraq. How many university degrees does it take to understand causation? Presstitute Canadian MSM are not an excuse for missing this simple point Ron makes:
    “…staying out of other people’s wars makes a country more safe…”.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  2. @Kiza

    Good advice might you extend it your friend Putin. Of course when a building blows up in Russia even odds that it was an FSB false flag operation.

  3. Kiza says:

    Sam, you are too generous to Putin – only even odds it was Putin who blew up an apartment building in Russia? I thought that the official US version was that he was responsible, no odds.

    Putin is not my “friend”, I wish he was. But I would definitely say that he was involved in other people’s business (wars) if he were messing up with Canada, trying to organise some Francophone Nazis to do a coup and take over the Canadian government, then burn, bombard and kill some 3,000 Anglophones and ban English language in Canada. Till then, keep your neocon friends messing up Ukraine and keep making as much noise about the related Russian “aggression” in Ukraine as you can. Only those US individuals who place Ukraine near Miami or in the middle of Texas will believe you.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Considering Canada’s peaceful past, the interventionist Canada that has emerged at the end of the Cold War is a genuine disappointment.

    With all due respect, this seems like either wishful thinking, or the residual effects of that “nation of peacekeepers” public persona that we’d been saddled with until quite recently, thanks to Lester Pearson. Since Confederation, Canada has mounted military operations, usually as someone else’s junior ally, on a fairly regular basis: 1869, 1885, 1899, 1914, 1939 and 1950. Really, it’s the somewhat anomalous stretch between the end of the Korean War and the beginning of combat operations in Aghanistan that actually represents a break with historical precedent.

    Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses perpetrated by the U.S.

    Nothing really new there. We tortured teenaged thieves to death in Somalia (while we were still “peacekeepers” for that matter), if anyone’s forgotten.

    Unfortunately Canada has unlearned the lesson of 1968: staying out of other people’s wars makes a country more safe; following the endless war policy of its southern neighbor opens Canada up to the ugly side of blowback.

    We can intervene in lands claimed by Islam, or we can have Islam in Canada, but not both.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  5. From Canada’s perspective, they are participating in the Glorious Rainbow Warrior Campaign to bring democracy and the cleansing rain of progressivism to benighted areas of the globe.

  6. @Anonymous

    We can intervene in lands claimed by Islam, or we can have Islam in Canada, but not both.

    You intervene in lands claimed by Islam because you have Islam in Canada.

    Since it is practically illegal to question whether there should be Muslims in Canada, then you have to suppress the threat of militant Islam at its source. By this logic, you are fighting them over there to avoid fighting them over here.

    Ultimately, when the Shia-Sunni-Israeli-Palestinian conflict erupts into open sectarian warfare in the Americas, we will realize what an awful mistake we have made.

    • Replies: @Stone Garden
  7. @The Anti-Gnostic

    Going through Anti’s past comments. you’ll realize that two Pavlovian reflexes invariably dominate his posts:

    #1. r/selected guys (like Mitt Romney, 5 babies) battling K/selected guys (like Clarence Thomas, 1 baby)

    #2. Invade the world, invite the world:

    You intervene in lands claimed by Islam because you have Islam in Canada.

    Why did Britain “intervene” in China? Because Victorian England was packed with hundreds of millions of them Chinamen.

    Why did Hulagu go crazy in Baghdad? Because Karakorum was overflowing with Bedouins.

    Why did Zionists invade Palestine? Because Yasser Arafat’s fourth cousins twice removed were occupying the shtetl.

    Ah, if only history and human affairs were as simple as Anti’s mind were programmed (with the two reflexes mentioned above) to see….

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  8. @Stone Garden

    You are terribly confused.

    • Replies: @Stone Garden
  9. @The Anti-Gnostic

    When I perform an ad hominem, it always follows the evidence of the simpletonnery that warrant an ad hominem.

    But when you perform an ad hominem, it’s without an exception, an abrupt one-liner.

    Why?

    Is it because you want your random readers to mistake your hollow, ahistorical and irrational arguments for profound wisdom, whose esoteric meaning like those of fortune cookies, may be understood only by not understanding them?

  10. […] Paul’s recent commentary on Canada’s current war mongering nature was very apt.  We should remember that the aggressions that happen in our names have […]

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS