this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
15 points (61.5% liked)

Canada

7275 readers
309 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

With apologies for voicing an opinion rather than linking an external article.

I am of the strong opinion that Remembrance Day had become at best grandstanding, and at worst, completely meaningless. There are phases tossed around like "Lest we Forget" or "Never Again". But when Russia invaded Ukraine, we have effectively done the opposite (or very nearly).

Sure, we can send ammo so Ukranians can fight back, or host some of their forces for training. But the reality is, we are only marginally involved. We haven't mobilized. We aren't on war footing economically.

The root causes are many. But a combination of NATO's article 5 protection only kicking in if we are attacked (rather than joining an already existing war), and the threat of nuclear retaliation, means we are paralyzed politically.

At a minimum: I would support direct involvement, whether that's ramping up our own military, deploying specialists, reservists for minesweeping, stationing our own troops (meagre as they are) in Ukraine to directly support the fight. I would actually support much larger actions, including naval blockades or airspace closures but wholly understand that Canada cannot execute those on their own.

We cannot allow genocidal wars to be pressed in the modern world. And we should be doing everything we can about it. Right now, we're doing barely more than nothing.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Backspacecentury@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago

You have forgotten the meaning of remembrance if you think the point is to glorify war. It’s meant to remember the sacrifices made, not hope for more.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Instead of spending billions on a war machine to try to solve a problem ... spend billions on peaceful resolutions and negotiations.

And don't tell me that you can't, shouldn't or don't want to negotiate with Nazis, authoritarians or any other descriptor you use to demonize opponents. You are right, there are nasty, ugly, authoritarian leaders out there ... but we still need to create platforms to talk to them to end hostilities.

The old cave man mentality of killing people or figuring out how to kill as many people as possible to make a point or win an argument is completely stupid.

If you invest in war ... you will get a war.

If you invest in peace .. you will get peace.

Millions died to remind us that war is no answer ... yet we forget every year and still try to argue that killing people will solve problems.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was called appeasement, and was tried. It helped lead to WW2.

There should always be a forum to talk. However, words must be backed by a big enough stick, and the resolve to use it. Otherwise those who respect the use of words will just be flattened by those who are happy to abuse the situation. Finding the balance of this is the biggest challenge we have as a species.

Assuming you are referring to Russia Vs Ukraine right now. Russia was using and abusing words, with no intent to match them with actions. If they truly wanted to come back to the table, they would be welcomed. The catch is, it would have to be backed with actions. Pull back to the original borders, and present the evidence they supposedly have of issues in Ukraine to the international community. Right now they appear to just be bullies, and are being treated as such.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

appeasement and WW2

It's a bit of a stretch to compare the lead up to WW2 to modern day politics. Back then news and information took days and weeks to reach people and everyone had a hard time figuring what was going on and leaders on any side could simultaneously use that fact to bend and break the truth.

It's a bit harder to hide true intentions of what any side is attempting to do in an age of instant communication.

For the record, I have no love for Russia and it's authoritarian regime ... nor do I appreciate America and its war machine.

Reverse the situation in Ukraine and Russia and place Russian military forces in Mexico to 'contain' America .... what do you think the reaction would be?

Everyone loves this argument but no one ever likes to acknowledge the double standard.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What exactly do you think the US is doing that's the equivalent of Russia having troops in Mexico? Hell if I can figure it out.

You sure very much describing appeasement. Russian officials have repeatedly let slip their desire to go further into Europe. There is really no difference.

And I'm someone more sympathetic than most to Russia's, "we had to do it," argument.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

I mean, and Cuba is also a thing, although I guess the US did do something like Crimea 2014 back in the 60's.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Appeasement allowed the 3rd Reich to build the momentum it did. It was a nice idea, but failed when faced with actors who don't act in good faith. Russian backed trolls online have be desperately pushing the "we should sit down and talk" card, without the accompanying "give back what Russia stole" part.

If America is launching an invasion of Mexico, without the concerted backing of the rest of the world, then it's the right action to take. If someone breaks their fist on the shield you used to cover someone's face, that's on them. A policing action should be multinational, with clear, stated goals. Not 1 country imposing its views on its neighbour by force.

I'm also of the mindset that boots should be on the ground in Israel and Palestine, with orders to help de-escalate both sides. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen in a useful way. It would have to be a coalition including significant Islamic elements to not immediately explode. The west has been stirring the pot FAR too much over the last 70 years for most Islamic countries to trust us now.

I fully agree, however, that the American military machine needs to be cooled WAY down. It's become a beast set on devouring its host, along with everything else it can get its claws on. I've no idea how that could be achieved though.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To echo OP a bit, negotiate based on what? You can't just "negotiate" aggression away if you have no leverage. A country with no military has no leverage.

Maybe you're not a caveman, but plenty of people are, and being pacifists will get us killed.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Then you are bending the argument to extremes ... I never said take your gun away to start talking.

In extreme situations when there is no longer any option, fighting may be necessary.

But if the world continually creates situations where everyone is led to only the option of death and war and especially when governments and industries and corporations can only understand that investing billions into a war machine is the only option anyone will consider ... then we will only ever see death and destruction.

We're no different with our mentality a thousand years ago ... we just have better weapons now.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, I pretty much agree with that, then. NATO guidelines are to spend 2% of GDP on the military, and I think that's reasonable. I'm certainly not suggesting >25% like some of the more militaristic nations in recent history.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Russia will be spending something on the order of 6% of their GDP on war this year. Obviously their GDP isn't that high, but neither is their military cost per unit. If NATO were to spend 2% and funnel a fraction of that into Ukraine, the war simply could not be sustained by Russia. The combined GDP of NATO is insane.

However, there's a caveat-- at some point, Ukraine will run out of soldiers to operate the equipment. Then what?

How many years are we willing to let a continuous conflict go by doing the bare minimum? Is it better to do very little and let a war drag on for years? Unlikely. The only people that benefit then are the arms dealers.

What happens if NATO is deadlocked on intervention because Article 5 is never triggered. Everyone sits around waiting while Russia makes slow gains in a war of attrition? NATO uses their increased funding to buy a bunch of fighter jets that'll never see combat? We just give up Ukraine?

After a cursory review of available sources, Saudi Arabia appears to be the major country with the highest current military funding by GDP (there are some smaller states as outliers). They are at around 8%. Some projections suggest Russia might hit 10% this year.

For the sake of historical comparison, Nazi Germany was at 10% in 1936, and 75% in 1944. The Soviet Union was 5% in 1936, and 60% in 1944. I have a suspicion that Russia is so committed to winning that they'd be willing to follow those extreme examples. What do we do then? (The US reached 38% during the war.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How many would the Nazis have killed if they weren't stopped militarily?

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would the Nazis have come to power if the world's wealthiest individuals, corporations and companies had not supported them or financed them? Check out political movements in the 1920s and 1930s and fascism and Nazism was a fairly acceptable movement at the time.

The Nazi Third Reich didn't appear in a vacuum or come out of thin air, they were born out of the money and financing of wealthy backers who wanted them in power.

The wealthiest didn't try to stop them until their pet project got out of hand and out of control.

Everyone likes to talk about who the Nazis ended up becoming ... but no one ever likes to discuss where they came from and how they came to power.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would the Nazis have come to power if the world’s wealthiest individuals, corporations and companies had not supported them or financed them?

You have a point, but how would you stop them from doing that?

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

All boils down to money and who has control of the majority of it.

If everyone votes for a conservative or far right political party that gives more power to monied interests .... eventually the greed will consume everything to the point of small groups of people wanting to control everything and everyone using all means necessary, even war.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Philosophically, I am very attracted by what you are saying here. It is certainly something to hope for and not to give up on. We cannot completely ignore the evidence of history however.

Are you familiar with the name Neville Chamberlain and the phrase β€œPeace for our time”? Neville would be applauding your post. Many people believe his desire for peace allowed a lot of war, death, and suffering that could have been avoided.

The real world is complicated. What you want and what you must do are not always the same thing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

spend billions on peaceful resolutions and negotiations.

Isn't that the exact purpose of the UN?

The same body that, despite being members, is being completely ignored by at least half of the combatants in the various shooting wars that are currently in progress.

The same body that the many countries routinely try to discredit or ignore when it's convenient.

.

I agree that diplomacy should be the way forward, but when aggressors actively ignore and try to subvert the entire process, then unfortunately responding to violence with violence becomes the tool of last resort.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That's the point I was making .... if the world decides to invest in war ... chances are high that we will just get war

No one is spending billions on peace and everyone is surprised that there is no peace

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Susan60@aus.social 2 points 1 year ago

@ininewcrow I think the problem is when there is no one on the other side with whom it is possible to engage in reasonable discussion. When the leadership of one side have shown time & time again that they are dishonest, untrustworthy, & not even sufficiently well informed & self aware to know when their cause is struggling, let alone lost.

And when both sides see the other this way, & are unwilling to look at themselves, or to see similarities with the current enemy which might be used as a foundation for peace…

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

War is the worst form of diplomacy, but can be the only solution if the other party has wholly unacceptable proposals. Given the ultimate choice Ukraine and others have is capitulation or war, what would you have them do? Keep in mind that the last time Ukraine was under Soviet rule, little things like Holodomor happened, so capitulation may not be the life-saving option you'd think it would be.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was just thinking about this, watching the ceremony. They're covering it like it's a royal wedding (Look at the crowd! What does this day mean to you, personally?), not a scheduled reminder that it could all happen again if we don't learn from our mistakes.

As for Ukraine, they aren't even asking for foreign troops so I'm more dovish than you I guess. But we should definitely keep sending them whatever they need, and not cut our military budget!!

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

We cannot allow genocidal wars to be pressed in the modern world.

You're aware of what's going on in Gaza right?

I think in an increasingly multicultural Canada, the white-superiority, Eurocentric, colonialist values and perspectives that Remembrance Day conjures up feel outdated and oversimplified

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Yes. And Ethiopia. And Sudan. And Myanmar. Doesn't change the point dramatically, except that all of the above are usually framed as internal issues rather than external wars of aggression. There's a legit conversation to be had about increasing peacekeeping forces to diffuse some other conflicts too.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

That's why I was so glad to see more feathers this year at the national ceremony. Honestly, even reconciliation aside it feels more familiar that way, and less like footage from somewhere in Europe.

The idea of a day to mark what happens when we let our guard down is good, but the implementation still needs to evolve.

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with defending Ukraine but isn't the point of "never again" is to not have another war?

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (51 children)

No, it is specifically about not having another genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_again

load more comments (51 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I get where you are coming from but I disagree in getting involved like that in Ukraine.

Gaza, though, as tough as it might be politically we should get involved to try to stop fighting in any way. Neither side will get what they want anytime soon without thousands more Israelis and Palestinians dying. If Canadians truly wish to protect our peacemaking legacy this is where we'd act, rather than Ukraine which even if I support them over Russia, our involvement would be for our own and our allies' benefit than for peace.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί