OK, since nobody else is going to say it I will. Where is it written that UN, US or any other intervention is called for in Syria? I think anyone with a brain realises that Libya had nothing to do with saving a few thousand rebel 'freedom fighters' and everything to do with removing Ghadafi and getting a new, helpless regime installed from which Europe could extract more oil and concessions. No? So we in the west always support people who are killed by their government? I think that would be news in Sudan.
But all quibbles and evil western motives aside, the question in my mind is what right we have to interfere. This isn't Korea, or Kosovo, or even Viet Nam. There is no shadowy superpower trying to overthrow the Syrian government. On the contrary, the Syrian government is trying to suppress a revolt. The protesters are not protesters, they are revolutionaries, as anyone in Egypt, or Libya could tell you. One might not support the Syrian style of govt. but it is as legitimate a govt. in the worlds eyes as the Canadian govt. is. SO why is it OK for the world to get involved with Syria's revolt when we would not want that sort of interference in our country?
The year is 2019. The federal NDP government, responding to the concerns of American and European activist and governments has shut down Oil sand production and introduced a hefty carbon tax on oil and gas development. The provincial government of Alberta has been driven into massive deficit and unemployment has spiked to 22 percent in the western provinces (with the exception of the lower mainland of BC, which no longer uses the term: unemployment, preferring the term 'government funded arts and recreation sabattical' for which it compiles no statistics (since it has been shown that statistics often offend the people involved).
Large demonstrations break out in major cities in the west, expanding to the rural areas and the oilfields, eventually shutting off oil and gas supplies to the east. Police and army are unable to quell the protests and secondary protests against the hardships caused by fuel disruption begin in eastern Canada. The federal NDP, concerned about falafel shipments rotting for lack of transport orders a crackdown. Violence ensues and escalates. The western provinces are awash with anger and the populace declare the government of Canada as illegitimate due to the violence used against their mostly peaceful protests.
Here is where it gets interesting. The US and Mexico, both under several severe fuel constraints, and wanting the oilsands back on line (so they can condemn them while buying the oil) decide that they must act against the imminent slaughter of western canucks at the hands of the evil federal government of Canada. Accordingly, they begin supplying the most radical elements of the western protesters with advanced weapons and commence bombing the shit out of every communication facility, airstrip, CBC station and the Prime Ministers house (they had info that he had a shortwave radio in there). After torching the country and turning it over to the rednecks (who basically just go home, secure and happy in the belief that the federal government will never be heard from again) the US offers aid and advice on how to deliver our good more cheaply and efficiently, while educating the new, weak government on the benefits of selling our resources directly to American and Mexican concerns (who just happen to be super PAC contributors).
Couldn't happen here? Sure, you are probably right. But it can and did happen in a few other countries last year, and folks are itching for another go. So how would you like it if it DID play out that way here in Canada. To put anti Western sentiment in perspective, how would you fell towards the Americans and Mexicans after the above scenario?
Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment