this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
54 points (96.6% liked)

Canada

10407 readers
874 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

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

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
54
'Gross abandonment of a sense of humanity': Romeo Dallaire reflects on Israel-Hamas war, Remembrance Day (www.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Humanitarian and former senator, retired lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire says the Israel-Hamas war has led to a 'gross abandonment of a sense of humanity,' adding that 'all sides have been negligent' in their responsibilities to protect children in the region.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is no sense to it other than a pathological need by military leaders to just kill people to make a point.

Stop the fighting, stop the bombing and negotiate for peace in whatever form it takes .... it will be ugly, it will be unsightly but I'd rather see politicians hurl insults at one another than see a bomb destroy people's lives when it doesn't change anything.

I'll say it again and keep saying it over and over ... if you spend billions on war, you will get war ... if you spend billions on peace, chances are you will get peace.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you're going to come in here with that same take again, then I'm going to come back with the same response.

If even one single country invests in war while the whole rest of the world is investing in peace, there will still be war.

So I think you should develop your position a little further: what exactly do you mean by "investing in peace"? What specific actions should governments be taking, and how do those actions discourage other governments from war?

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

This is taking the debate to extremes ... I never said completely eliminate all militaries and armies and bombs and weapons ... as sad as it is, there will always be a place to have standing armies in place in times of actual emergency and crisis.

What I'm arguing is that there is way too much investment in militaries, armies and weapons of mass destruction ... it's so far gone that armies, wars and conflict is seen more or less as a self sustaining industry at this point ... there is money to made on war and what better way to make money on military corporations than to have endless war everywhere all the time with no end.

The world as it is overall spends $2 trillion on their military everywhere

https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2023/world-military-expenditure-reaches-new-record-high-european-spending-surges

And the financing and profits of those expenditures are another story ... the companies, corporations and people who profit from it regularly profit off of one side or another or both and have no care as to who wins, dies or what is being fought over ... all they care about is an endless war.

If the world spend a bit more on peace initiatives, then peace would actually be possible ... instead, the world just spends more money on war and everyone wonders why there is so much war.

This is like talking to an addict and trying to convince them that in order to find calm and health they have to give up cocaine ... but the addict believes that all they need is another hit and bit more of their drug in order to make things better.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Peace initiatives like what? What are your big ideas?

If you had $2 trillion to spend on peace, what would you do?

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Withdraw funding and supplies from major arms manufacturers, remove all their lobbying groups from government, set higher taxes on military companies and generate more income from them.

Continue spending money on military but on a limited basis to maintain the defence of the country.

Then spend the excess on political envoys, business interests and intelligence groups to deal with foreign countries to negotiate peace or at least stop any active fighting. Use the money to coerce, buy off, pay off and erode an aggressive country's ability to function and continue their fight.

I probably have a pretty shitty way of doing things but it would be hell of a lot cheaper than financing a bunch of morally bankrupt corporations that live off the death and destruction of innocent lives. As it is, right now we are spending a fortune on destabilizing the world under the guise of making it safer when in fact we are making it more dangerous and deadly than ever before. We are in essence, paying for our own demise.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Some states are simply bad actors. Something akin to your strategy was tried with Ukraine in the 00s (nuclear disarmament, etc.) and once they were in a sufficiently vulnerable position, Russia enacted the rest of its plan. Ukraine partially succeeded in derailing it in 2014; Russia tried again in 2022 and Ukraine was saved only by foreign intervention of countries with enough military gear to spare. Diplomacy is great, but certain states will always attempt to take advantage of those they perceive as being weak. I for one still believe in "speak softly and carry a big stick".

Edit: I agree that the MIC is toxic, though. I'd like to see the whole industry get nationalized, or subject to near-total government control as it was prior to the 60s (or later in other countries, of course). There should be no profit motive in producing weapons.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

I probably have a pretty shitty way of doing things

Maybe, but at least your ideas are more complete and cogent than just that catchphrase you kept saying.

when in fact we are making it more dangerous and deadly than ever before

That's just plain wrong. There is less war in recent years there ever was during history. Don't discount the progress humanity has made just because the bad looks bigger than the good at the moment.