William Ashley Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Take for example SunCor's 4 billion or so investment in Libya - how much does Canada have invested in Syria? France and Britain are pushing for UNSEC resolutions on Syria - currently blocked by Russia who is willing to veto. The conservatives have said - we can only fight so many wars? (So why is it that now that afgranistan is "over.. so said.." troops arn't freed up for Libya. Is Canada's ability to fight a war limited to one flight of jet fighters? I think this is an issue worth talking about even if little more than sabre rattling in France and Britain right now. So should Canada put its fists where its mouth is? (Afterall it has backed sanctions... and attacked libya, why not Syria?) Do a google search (or another search engine if you don't want censored or logged searches as the Conservatives want to impose through their new logging laws for companies like Google and your ISP) (good for catching a leak I guess..) Take for instance this report from the telegraph (uk) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/8589019/FCO-stresses-need-for-Britons-to-leave-Syria.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Libya is essentially a country without allies. Even its Arab League brethren washed their hands of Gaddhafi. Syria, on the other hand has a well-funded and quite potent army and security forces, far beyond what Gaddhafi ever could or bothered to build. But most important of all is the close ties between Damascus and Tehran. The US, in particular, is very cognizant of the fact that the road to Damascus may very well become the road to Tehran, and are understandably cautious in going down that path. Or, to put it simply, they are two entirely different kinds of states and you cannot just simply say "If doing x, then why not doing y." This is the same kind of shallow thinking that leads people to say "Well, if you can topple Saddam Hussein, why not Kim Jong Il?" Edited June 21, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 My view is all these wars in the Middle-East is about OIL and making unfriendly countries into friendly countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 My view is all these wars in the Middle-East is about OIL and making unfriendly countries into friendly countries. Well that's your view.... Libya had emerged from the cold, it's oil was for sale on the open market and was encouraging foreign investment. Your view is both myopic and cross eyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Why libya and not Tunisia? Why Libya and not Egypt? Why Libya and not Algeria? Part of the answer is timing....spring came fast and Tunisia finished fast. Part of the answer is severity....egypt's violence was minor in comparison to Libya. Part of the answer are ramifications. Itay is facing a daily deluge of refugees from Libya. Italy is also dependant on buying Libyan oil. The civil war affected this. Part of the answer is ability....Libya proximity to Europe allows All nato to launch attacks from Italy...where as Syria would necessitate the action be almost entirely american. Part of the answer is timing. Libya started around feb 15..Syria march 15th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Why libya and not Tunisia? Why Libya and not Egypt? Why Libya and not Algeria? Part of the answer is timing....spring came fast and Tunisia finished fast. Part of the answer is severity....egypt's violence was minor in comparison to Libya. Part of the answer are ramifications. Itay is facing a daily deluge of refugees from Libya. Italy is also dependant on buying Libyan oil. The civil war affected this. Part of the answer is ability....Libya proximity to Europe allows All nato to launch attacks from Italy...where as Syria would necessitate the action be almost entirely american. Part of the answer is timing. Libya started around feb 15..Syria march 15th I read an interesting op-ed today but dang, I can't find it. The author speculated that one reason is that all the other Arab states had already decided to throw Gahdaffi under the bus so hitting on him would have little repercussion. Syria is too allied with Iran, and so intervention there could cause troubles as is to a lesser degree true of Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. Plus, the scale of slaughter in Libya was way worse than in the other regimes, or so the author claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Syria was also a defacto Warsaw Pact state historically. Traditionally, more Russia's problem than ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Syria’s leadership also hasn’t threatened to nationalise forgein (Canadian) companies… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Syria’s leadership also hasn’t threatened to nationalise forgein (Canadian) companies… No one else has either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 No one else has either. http://thecanadian.org/hot-links/item/581-libyas-gadhafi-threatened-to-nationalize-petro-canada-operations-wikileaks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 http://thecanadian.org/hot-links/item/581-libyas-gadhafi-threatened-to-nationalize-petro-canada-operations-wikileaks Uh huh...nothing concrete and since then, Canadian investment in Libya increased. http://sustainability.suncor.com/2010/en/responsible/3599.aspx The idea that a war, pushed by Europe is because of Canadian interests is ludicrous enough to drive the tin foil market through the roof... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Uh huh...nothing concrete and since then, Canadian investment in Libya increased. http://sustainability.suncor.com/2010/en/responsible/3599.aspx The idea that a war, pushed by Europe is because of Canadian interests is ludicrous enough to drive the tin foil market through the roof... So why are we there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I think the most important fact to understanding why Libya but not Syria is the position of the rebels at the time. How many cities and territories to rebels in Syria control? What region of the country? None. For all intents and purposes there is no one in Syria strong enough to be helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 My view is all these wars in the Middle-East is about OIL and making unfriendly countries into friendly countries. Libya is hardly a major oil power. As much as anything, I think, it's about preventing waves of Libyan immigrants flooding into Europe and other North African countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 So why are we there? Because we are members of Nato and the UN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Because we are members of Nato and the UN That is HOW we are involved, and does not address the question of 'why'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 That is HOW we are involved, and does not address the question of 'why'. It does. Try to think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 It does. Try to think... No, I want to hear what you think about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 No, I want to hear what you think about this. Oh...okay Because we are members of Nato and the UN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Oh...okay Because we are members of Nato and the UN Is it as simple as that? Come on M. Dancer, you know it's not as simple as that. Try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Is it as simple as that? Come on M. Dancer, you know it's not as simple as that. Try again. I have to keep it as simple as the audience can handle... But if you are up to it...start here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19118&view=findpost&p=683318 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 And if we did go to syria instread of lybya, the same pepole would be crying ''what about libya. Nobody cares ,it is just another reason to bash harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 And if we did go to syria instread of lybya, the same pepole would be crying ''what about libya. Nobody cares ,it is just another reason to bash harper. That's their 'simple' minded reason all right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Because we are members of Nato and the UN Why is a UN sponsored, NATO led force in Libya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I have to keep it as simple as the audience can handle... But if you are up to it...start here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19118&view=findpost&p=683318 Why libya and not Tunisia?Why Libya and not Egypt? Why Libya and not Algeria? Part of the answer is timing....spring came fast and Tunisia finished fast. Part of the answer is severity....egypt's violence was minor in comparison to Libya. Part of the answer are ramifications. Itay is facing a daily deluge of refugees from Libya. Italy is also dependant on buying Libyan oil. The civil war affected this. Part of the answer is ability....Libya proximity to Europe allows All nato to launch attacks from Italy...where as Syria would necessitate the action be almost entirely american. Part of the answer is timing. Libya started around feb 15..Syria march 15th Ben Ali & Mubarak never threatened nationalisation of western companies……. The United States faces a daily deluge of refugees from Cuba and Mexico…. They’re a NATO ally, should we conduct air strikes there? Turkey is a member of NATO, and they share a boarder with Syria…….not too mention, Israel & Cyprus, both closer to Syria than Libya is to Italy. Resolution 1973 wasn’t passed till the 17th of march, and air strikes didn’t start till the 19th…….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.