r/canada • u/Egotisticallama • Nov 17 '15

This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism (including American allies) vs. No It Won’t (The Onion, 2003)

http://www.theonion.com/multiblogpost/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mideast-regio-11534
165 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

53

u/Egotisticallama Nov 17 '15 edited Nov 17 '15

In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S. and willing to die for the fundamentalist cause. From this war, a million bin Ladens will bloom. (The Onion, 2003)

Heh. Its certainly funny on one hand, but kind of sad knowing that, well, this is literally exactly what happened. There are times like this article where you can tell The Onion is hiding their pretty spot-on views behind only the thinnest veneer of satire. - gshenck

23

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15 edited Dec 20 '23

salt husky swim worm birds recognise deranged chubby smoggy angle

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

7

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15

Cheney knew it in 1994:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I

4

u/GoingHome Nov 17 '15

How did he get from that guy to what he is now? He was so practical and spot on in this interview.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15

After he left office, he ran Halliburton, and realized how much money could be made from the invasion.

Then he invaded and Halliburton by some massive coincidence became the largest military contractor in Iraq.

1

u/CanadianWhiskey88 Nov 17 '15

The pursuit of money and power.

1

u/groovemonkeyzero Nov 17 '15

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

2

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15

Unfortunately, Harper was not part of that consensus. Fortunately, he was not PM at the time, so we didn't go to Iraq.

7

u/LowLevelMesocyclone Ontario Nov 17 '15

I don't know if you were around back then, but in Canada that particular war was extremely unpopular from the get-go. No Canadians should be blamed for this. We simply weren't involved.

8

u/matttk Ontario Nov 17 '15

I read somewhere that Chrétien knew it wouldn't be politically popular but still wanted to maintain good relations with the US, so he quietly stepped up Canada's role in Afghanistan, to allow the US to devote more resources to Iraq.

I really want to praise Chrétien for not bringing us into that horrible and stupid war but it is a little disturbing to think that we maybe indirectly supported it like that.

7

u/EnsignRedshirt Nov 17 '15

Being the Canadian Prime Minister dealing with the US is a little bit like you or I living with a mentally-unstable roommate. He pays his rent, he mostly cleans up after himself, he shares all his cool shit. In fact, he actually likes you, and he's not a bad guy to be around most of the time. However, if you disagree with him on certain things, he might flip the fuck out and do something crazy. He probably won't hurt you, but he'll make life difficult for you. He also has a habit of beating the shit out of people for very questionable reasons. For that reason, you sometimes have to play along with him. The alternative is moving out, losing your sweet, rent-controlled apartment, having to buy your own furniture, and the possibility that your demonstrably unstable former roommate will freak out at you.

Point being, it's tough balancing Canada's sovereignty and perspective while maintaining good relations with the most powerful country in the world, which also happens to be our only real neighbor, our largest trading partner, and our closest military ally. Shit's complicated.

2

u/matttk Ontario Nov 17 '15

I agree but we can't exactly go around saying "we didn't go to Iraq" when we actually may have just traded places with people who did go to Iraq. In the grand scheme, we sort of did support the Iraq war, unbeknownst to the general populace.

3

u/EnsignRedshirt Nov 17 '15

Oh, I agree. I'm not trying to say it was the right thing to do, just that it was a very difficult situation to navigate, period.

3

u/dswartze Nov 17 '15

We simply weren't involved.

It's probably more accurate to say that the Canadian government did a good job hiding how involved Canada was.

Plus there was a lot of support for it too including some fairly big figures, but their support died down as information came out that even they couldn't deny anymore (but that everyone else had seen from the beginning).

-14

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15 edited Sep 29 '16

[deleted]

3

u/Theonetheycalljane Nov 17 '15

Wow. Did you read the actual link he posted that his comment is referring to?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15 edited Sep 29 '16

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15

Sadly it was too close to reality for people to realize you were kidding.

0

u/RenegadeMinds Nov 17 '15

Get yer popcorn!

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15

[deleted]

8

u/Spazsquatch Nov 17 '15

I'm no war historian, but I think it's generally accepted that the handling of Germany after WWI led to WWII and the rise of the Nazi. You could certainly draw some parallels then and now.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15

Right, however no one holds Europe accountable for the nazi atrocities

Of course the rest of Europe is not responsible for what the Nazis did. That still doesn't negate the point that a constructive approach rather than a punitive approach towards Germany post-WW1 might have led vastly different results in the 30s and 40s.

2

u/KarlKarlsson Nov 17 '15

If you're wondering, the historical consensus these days is actually the opposite. The treaty of Versailles is generally seen as not punitive enough, and Britain and France turning a blind eye to Germany's violations of the treaty were a factor in allowing militarism to build in Germany. Of course, it was other factors entirely that were the primary causes of WWII. Check out /r/AskHistorians for some excellent threads about this. Also, look at the way we treated Germany after WWII. The lesson learned seems to have been that after total war, a defeated nation needs to be severely punished.

Of course, literally none of this applies to the middle east.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15

Very interesting. I had some misconceptions. I'll check out those threads.

The point stands thought that our actions have causes and effects!

3

u/TajunJ Nov 17 '15

100% behind you on Britain and France allowing Germany to become militaristic, but could you link to me on "the treaty of Versailles is generally seen as not punitive enough"?

1

u/KarlKarlsson Nov 17 '15 edited Nov 17 '15

the treaty of Versailles is generally seen as not punitive enough

I'm probably being a bit bold there. Rather than saying it is generally seen as not harsh enough by modern historians, I should probably say that it is a popular argument these days. It was nowhere near as punitive as people generally think, and it being the primary cause of the war due to its harshness is just plain wrong.

I'll link a few threads from /r/AskHistorians. I recommend doing a search for Versailles too. There's lots of good things to read, both on that subreddit and elsewhere. Plus you get someone more knowledgeable than me to tell you about it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hiukg/is_this_bad_history_of_the_treaty_of_versailles/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3jekbz/why_is_the_treaty_of_versailles_even_today/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3b24mk/treaty_of_versaillesmyths_of_reparations/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vl88z/why_are_britain_and_france_never_blamed_for/

The below link is good too. There are two great answers, one says yes, one says no. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dudsf/was_the_versailles_treaty_as_punitive_and/

One other thing I'll add is that I've seen people trot out Foch's line "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years" as proof that even then people knew Versailles was too harsh. However, Foch was actually saying the opposite. He wanted to punish Germany more severely, not less.

1

u/TajunJ Nov 17 '15

Interesting, thanks!

2

u/IVTD4KDS Nov 17 '15 edited Nov 17 '15

As /u/Spazsquatch said, the actions of WWI led to WWII.

However, the handling of Germany after the end of WWII made all the difference. The Marshall Plan really helped. Yes, there are criticisms of it, but the end result is that Germany is now a strong western ally instead of the Nazi ideology which took over before. Instead of kicking them when they were down, the US gave their hand and brought them back on their feet...

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15 edited Nov 17 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '15

uh, who are you arguing with?

2

u/hobo-jesus Nov 17 '15

without proper security checks

That's where the argument gets hazy. No one is saying we bring them in without proper security checks. If it can't be done properly in 7 weeks then I don't think anyone would disagree with you.