Guest Derek L Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Syrians do not exactly peg the sympathy meter. I mean hell, Maher Arar was Syrian and look what happened to him! Indeed……we have people advocating involving ourselves in Middle Eastern civil war, poking the nuclear Bear in the eye and strong arming the Europeans……..And they call us dangerous Edited February 23, 2012 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I wouldn't really call you dangerous. I'm simply throwing out ideas in the other thread. I'm not committed to any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Doesn't matter to me . Look, I'm just rather horrified that things like this can happen. Yup you SHOULD be, and its perfectly natural to want some kind of action to end a conflict thats killing a lot of people. Nobody questions that your heart is in the right place. These are just extremely risky adventures, and we know absolutely nothing about these people or this conflict, and it appears that this war is partially sectarian. If we were to go in there and remove Assad we would be doing it against the wishes of about half the people in Syria (we really have no idea who the public supports), and we have absolutely no idea what would happen. Taking out Saddam seemed like a good idea, until the resulting power vacuum lead to a sectarian civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) You're right (although I still can't see such a thing happening here). I don't usually go into things heart first, but, this kind of thing happening in the 2010s is just disgusting. That said, I do think that Canada should have HMCS Iroquois join HMCS Charlottetown in the Med.....just to be safe. Edited February 23, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I wouldn't really call you dangerous. I'm simply throwing out ideas in the other thread. I'm not committed to any of them. And this the inherent danger resulting from taking a carte blanche approach to military action…..Though nothing can be totally guaranteed, one must certainly weigh the potential benefits versus the detractions. Unless you’ve got clear goals, an exit strategy and the wiliness to achieve total victory, don’t waste the lives, resources and political capital in such an action….Half measures will only guarantee losing or stalemate at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Taking out Saddam seemed like a good idea, until the resulting power vacuum lead to a sectarian civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And bingo was his name-o, Saddam kept Iran in check.. but ever since he was killed Iran started building plans to go nuclear..Saddam kept Iran from doing that..now there is our current predicament so ya, don't get involved, it always comes back to haunt you later with a bigger problem Edited February 23, 2012 by olpfan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) You're right (although I still can't see such a thing happening here). I don't usually go into things heart first, but, this kind of thing happening in the 2010s is just disgusting. That said, I do think that Canada should have HMCS Iroquois join HMCS Charlottetown in the Med.....just to be safe. What good would effectively doubling a luke warm political statement achieve? Unless we are willing to potentially commit to a naval blockade of Syria, with the possibility of getting into a conflict with the Russians, gun boat diplomacy lends little weight in demonstrating our nations (lack of) resolve. Edited February 23, 2012 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 And bingo was his name-o, Saddam kept Iran in check.. but ever since he was killed Iran started building plans to go nuclear..Saddam kept Iran from doing that..now there is our current predicament so ya, don't get involved, it always comes back to haunt you later with a bigger problem Iran has had nuclear ambitions since the Shah took power in the 50s, long prior to Saddam taking control of Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Iran has had nuclear ambitions since the Shah took power in the 50s, long prior to Saddam taking control of Iraq. but they couldn't act on them Irans biggest enemy of the last 20 years was Iraq (Saddam) that can't be disputed, it's fact we took out Irans biggest enemy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 but they couldn't act on them Irans biggest enemy of the last 20 years was Iraq (Saddam) that can't be disputed, it's fact we took out Irans biggest enemy The couldn’t act on them? They started building their first reactors in the 1960s………again, prior to Saddam taking power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Iran has had nuclear ambitions since the Shah took power in the 50s, long prior to Saddam taking control of Iraq. The Shah was installed in 1941. His father was eyeing joining the Axis and Stalin and Churchill were having none of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 The Shah was installed in 1941. His father was eyeing joining the Axis and Stalin and Churchill were having none of that. His, ahh, powers were “increased” in 1953.………Also, the start of his “nuclear ambitions”, were fostered by his early involvement with Israel (kinda Ironic eh) and South Africa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 His, ahh, powers were “increased” in 1953.………Also, the start of his “nuclear ambitions”, were fostered by his early involvement with Israel (kinda Ironic eh) and South Africa. Indeed. But one must look at how ol' Mousie-pooh came to the forefront. He didn't grow like a mushroom @ midnight. Plus, while bud & such will scream CIA until blue, there were a LOT of Iranian faces in that coup. Somebody in Iran didn't like him. Perhaps more than one.... I am old enough to remember Iran & Israel's friendship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 What good would effectively doubling a luke warm political statement achieve? Unless we are willing to potentially commit to a naval blockade of Syria, That's what I was saying. Send the ship, just in case it's needed for that. It's due to deploy anyway in the next little bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Post To The Left Posted February 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 That's what I was saying. Send the ship, just in case it's needed for that. It's due to deploy anyway in the next little bit. Iran just sent some ships to the Mediterranean for only the second time since the 1979 revolution. Iran has already allied itself with Syria so should our Canadian ships attack the Iranian navy too? And what makes you think it will be worse? What's going to happen when refugees of this escalating civil war star to stream I to other countries? This isn't gong to turn out well no matter what, but people like Assad can't be allowed to retain their positions in the face of what they're doing. It will be worse because a large portion of the population WANT Assad to be in power or rather they want the stability that his regime offers. They will fight any invading force to prevent the Sunni majority from taking power and oppressing religious minorities. Did Israel's intervention in Lebanon make things better there? No, it made it worse and was a total disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Lebanon was a different case. At this point, I think that food and medicine from neighbours might be the way to go. A naval blockade should only happen if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.