Congratulations on a great piece. I very much enjoyed reading it.
I've often wondered why the West always seems happy to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
International Law is a lovely theory but human nature isn't so easily contained by a bunch of rules written by people who've never seen conflict, however well-meaning they may be.
We can't escape our evolutionary roots and Darwin can't be trumped, sadly.
I do enjoy reading your musings as you are really a terrific writer.
I do think you've missed or at least avoided referencing Carney's original comments of support for the war.
“Canada’s position remains clear: the Islamic Republic of Iran is the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East,”
“Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”
For me, that was and is his true perspective and then sadly it was then tempered incorrectly by political interference from his own party.
Good essay, and appreciated the end quote from the 31 Psalm. Putting this into hockey terms for Canadians more stumped than Paul, clueless Americans as well, imagine a match in which both teams play by the same rules, same puck, same sticks and uniforms, same number of players on the ice, but the net on one side, let's say western democracies, was twice the width and twice the height of the net on the other side. International Law would insist since all other things were equal, international law requires the West to play the game as if the nets were the same size.
Congratulations on a great piece. I very much enjoyed reading it.
I've often wondered why the West always seems happy to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
International Law is a lovely theory but human nature isn't so easily contained by a bunch of rules written by people who've never seen conflict, however well-meaning they may be.
We can't escape our evolutionary roots and Darwin can't be trumped, sadly.
International Law is, indeed, the emperor with no clothes. Thanks for being the little boy who says it out loud.
I do enjoy reading your musings as you are really a terrific writer.
I do think you've missed or at least avoided referencing Carney's original comments of support for the war.
“Canada’s position remains clear: the Islamic Republic of Iran is the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East,”
“Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”
For me, that was and is his true perspective and then sadly it was then tempered incorrectly by political interference from his own party.
Perhaps but I relied on his later one. I also remember him foolishly endorsing a Pally state.
Thx for compliment. My issue with Carney is more economic and not on Israel
He's been everywhere initiating deals to try and offset what's expected to come from the uS. Either way only time will tell as nothing moves that fast
We will see. I know Trump is nuts but we shouldn’t poke the orange bear.
Good essay, and appreciated the end quote from the 31 Psalm. Putting this into hockey terms for Canadians more stumped than Paul, clueless Americans as well, imagine a match in which both teams play by the same rules, same puck, same sticks and uniforms, same number of players on the ice, but the net on one side, let's say western democracies, was twice the width and twice the height of the net on the other side. International Law would insist since all other things were equal, international law requires the West to play the game as if the nets were the same size.