Syria moving checmical weapons

[Guest Derek L]

The first two deal with NATO, and I understand your dislike for our continuous membership in NATO but until such a time as we cease to be a member attacks on our allies do have a great effect.

Then there is the destabilizing the region, this affects us greatly,if we let the violence in Syria destabilize the region further there would be a drastic increase the price of oil, and thus threaten our economy as well as others.

Since it “effected NATO”, should we have sided with either Greece or Turkey over Cyprus instead of the historic UN mission? As demonstrated by many other NATO members response to the dirt box, couldn’t we just sit this one out?

[Guest Derek L]

There are other ways to deal with the situation in Syria than sending under equipped personnel.

Like?

[Signals.Cpl]

Since it “effected NATO”, should we have sided with either Greece or Turkey over Cyprus instead of the historic UN mission? As demonstrated by many other NATO members response to the dirt box, couldn’t we just sit this one out?

Cyprus was a very sensitive situation that I personally think was dealt with in a proper way, that one was a lose-lose situation that had the opportunity to destabilize NATO's southern flank at the hight of the Cold War.

And back to the sandbox, when did NATO members refuse to help in Afghanistan?

[Signals.Cpl]

Like?

CSOR, US Army Rangers, JTF2, SAS, Delta, CJIRU, SEAL's, CBIRF and the many other units that could deal with threats in a more efficient manner than a full-scale invasion/occupation plus they are trained and equipped to deal with such situations,.

[cybercoma]

So you’d rather Canada send unequipped personal to Syria once they started lobbing around Mustard Gas?

No. I'm saying it must be a cold day in hell because we agreed on something.

[Guest Derek L]

Cyprus was a very sensitive situation that I personally think was dealt with in a proper way, that one was a lose-lose situation that had the opportunity to destabilize NATO's southern flank at the hight of the Cold War.

Yeah, but one NATO member was fighting with another…….What if one member declared article 5? Surely we wouldn’t have come to said members defence, or in other words, involved ourselves directly in the conflict………Just as we didn’t involve ourselves (directly and openly) in Vietnam, the Falklands or Iraq.

By the way, Akrotiri has really nice beaches………

And back to the sandbox, when did NATO members refuse to help in Afghanistan?

National Caveats [ see France, Germany, Italy etc]

[Guest Derek L]

CSOR, US Army Rangers, JTF2, SAS, Delta, CJIRU, SEAL's, CBIRF and the many other units that could deal with threats in a more efficient manner than a full-scale invasion/occupation plus they are trained and equipped to deal with such situations,.

Special Forces are going to bring peace to Syria? Well that sounds Chuck Norris approved……

[Signals.Cpl]

Yeah, but one NATO member was fighting with another…….What if one member declared article 5? Surely we wouldn’t have come to said members defence, or in other words, involved ourselves directly in the conflict………Just as we didn’t involve ourselves (directly and openly) in Vietnam, the Falklands or Iraq.

1)The support would have gone to Turkey against Greece, but I highly doubt the US would have ever let it go that far... the way I understand it was that the US was instrumental in pushing for the UN to take on the Cyprus mission in order to keep the southern Flank secure if it ever came to backing one or the other, Turkey would have been the logical one as they were the second most populous NATO member

2)Vietnam was an French war inherited but the Americans which had nothing to do with a NATO, just like our Peacekeeping missions didn't require our NATO allies to automatically assist us.

3)Falkland Islands was a British problem and they kept it a British problem. If the UK had asked for assistance from NATO it would have been a NATO problem.

4)Iraq did not attack a NATO member, NATO members attacked Iraq... big difference.

National Caveats [ see France, Germany, Italy etc]

Germany: 4900

France: 3300

Italy: 3800

Canada: 500

[Signals.Cpl]

Special Forces are going to bring peace to Syria? Well that sounds Chuck Norris approved……

Special Forces could remove the Chemical weapon's threat and do what they are trained to do...train the indigenous forces to fight their own wars.

[Guest Derek L]

1)The support would have gone to Turkey against Greece, but I highly doubt the US would have ever let it go that far... the way I understand it was that the US was instrumental in pushing for the UN to take on the Cyprus mission in order to keep the southern Flank secure if it ever came to backing one or the other, Turkey would have been the logical one as they were the second most populous NATO member

2)Vietnam was an French war inherited but the Americans which had nothing to do with a NATO, just like our Peacekeeping missions didn't require our NATO allies to automatically assist us.

3)Falkland Islands was a British problem and they kept it a British problem. If the UK had asked for assistance from NATO it would have been a NATO problem.

4)Iraq did not attack a NATO member, NATO members attacked Iraq... big difference.

Let me make sure I’m reading you right……….Those above examples had nothing to do with Canada, hence our lack of involvement? And Syria is different how?

Germany: 4900

France: 3300

Italy: 3800

Canada: 500

?

Edited July 20, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Special Forces could remove the Chemical weapon's threat and do what they are trained to do...train the indigenous forces to fight their own wars.

Why don't we let Israeli, Turkish and Jordanian special forces remove the threat and train local forces? These three nations have capable militaries, share a border, and, as pointed out by yourself, a direct interest in the region.

[Signals.Cpl]

Let me make sure I’m reading you right……….Those above examples had nothing to do with Canada, hence our lack of involvement? And Syria is different how?

No, those above examples had a lot to do with Canada, but Canada did NOT have to interfere mainly because NATO is a defensive alliance and not an offensive alliance so Iraq and Vietnam were out... We did not have to join those wars because they were both OFFENSIVE wars of choice, and as for the Falkland's we had no reason to interfere until Britain had requested assistance...

Syria is different because it is close to a NATO member and is therefore our duty to defend that NATO member should the need arise wether it is in our best interest or not to go to war we have a duty... I don't know about you, but to me my word is important, if I say I will do something it's done, in this case as long as Canada is a member of NATO and has taken the responsibility of protecting every other member we have to do so.

As for the middle east being destabilized, it is in our best economic interest to limit or downright eliminate the instability.

?

Those are the troops that Germany, Italy and France have currently deployed to Afghanistan seems to me like they are doing their part.

[Signals.Cpl]

Why don't we let Israeli, Turkish and Jordanian special forces remove the threat and train local forces? These three nations have capable militaries, share a border, and, as pointed out by yourself, a direct interest in the region.

They have a direct interest, just like we do. I understand that you don't like NATO, but thankfully most Canadians are not like you and would honour our commitment to our allies. As for protecting Jordan, it is in the best interest of the US to do so as they have worked hard to secure their allies in the Middle East so abandoning them now would just negate that hard work.

[DogOnPorch]

There's more CW weapons than any special forces team could take down. Syria has hundreds if not thousands of SCUDs and FROGs (perhaps even Iskanders) and tons of nerve and sulphur mustard agents.

Edited July 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Signals.Cpl]

There's more CW weapons than any special forces team could take down. Syria has hundreds if not thousands of SCUDs and FROGs (perhaps even Iskanders) and tons of nerve and sulphur mustard agents.

Yeah, sure... they have the weapons, but I doubt that they have that many.

[DogOnPorch]

Yeah, sure... they have the weapons, but I doubt that they have that many.

They build their own versions of the SCUD, Hwasong, etc. Apparently 30+ a year. Sources vary but 800 SCUD-Ds alone seems about the middle ground with those purchased plus their own output. They produce their own chemical weapons, as well.

Russia has plans to sell Syria the Iskander perhaps for home production under licence...but I imagine that is 'up in the air' like everything else.

Edited July 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

No, those above examples had a lot to do with Canada, but Canada did NOT have to interfere mainly because NATO is a defensive alliance and not an offensive alliance so Iraq and Vietnam were out... We did not have to join those wars because they were both OFFENSIVE wars of choice, and as for the Falkland's we had no reason to interfere until Britain had requested assistance...

"A lot to do with Canada"? Like What?

Syria is different because it is close to a NATO member and is therefore our duty to defend that NATO member should the need arise wether it is in our best interest or not to go to war we have a duty... I don't know about you, but to me my word is important, if I say I will do something it's done, in this case as long as Canada is a member of NATO and has taken the responsibility of protecting every other member we have to do so.

As for the middle east being destabilized, it is in our best economic interest to limit or downright eliminate the instability.

How many Israeli vs. Syrian wars did we involve ourselves in?

Those are the troops that Germany, Italy and France have currently deployed to Afghanistan seems to me like they are doing their part.

Did those forces partake in the same tempo of combat operations as Canada? If not, why?

[Signals.Cpl]

They build their own versions of the SCUD, Hwasong, etc. Apparently 30+ a year. Sources vary but 800 SCUD-Ds alone seems about the middle ground with those purchased plus their own output. They produce their own chemical weapons, as well.

Russia has plans to sell Syria the Iskander perhaps for home production under licence...but I imagine that is 'up in the air' like everything else.

And you think that they are so well guarded and spread out so far apart in that vast country of Syria to be untouchable? I think that Assad is consolidating all of his special weapon systems as he has enough problems with defection to risk giving his enemy the weapons, he is worried about handing those weapons over to his enemies rather than the west.

[Guest Derek L]

They have a direct interest, just like we do. I understand that you don't like NATO, but thankfully most Canadians are not like you and would honour our commitment to our allies. As for protecting Jordan, it is in the best interest of the US to do so as they have worked hard to secure their allies in the Middle East so abandoning them now would just negate that hard work.

Again, how many Israeli/Arab conflicts has Canada involved itself in? Syria, as you pointed out, is close to a NATO ally.........

And Canadians are "not like me"? What was the appetite for continuing combat operations in Afghanistan like? As to Canadians being concerned with “honouring our commitments”, as I believe you stated earlier, you didn’t serve during the Cold War right? Canadians didn’t seem too bothered by our drastic drawdown of forces in Europe in the late 60s, nor did they seem to bothered by our forces being poorly equipped, hence reducing our ability to maintain our reduced commitments……….To add, where was the outrage of Rwanda? And Canadians certainly didn’t decry the disbanding of a unit that would have been ideal for countering a future Rwanda……..

And though not indicative of “Canadian opinion”, even this micro sampling of Canadians on this message board don’t seem to share your opinion of “what Canadians want”.

[Guest Derek L]

And you think that they are so well guarded and spread out so far apart in that vast country of Syria to be untouchable? I think that Assad is consolidating all of his special weapon systems as he has enough problems with defection to risk giving his enemy the weapons, he is worried about handing those weapons over to his enemies rather than the west.

How well did the SAS make out in SCUD hunting in '91? Or SOCOM make out in their hunt for Iraqi WMDs?

[DogOnPorch]

And you think that they are so well guarded and spread out so far apart in that vast country of Syria to be untouchable? I think that Assad is consolidating all of his special weapon systems as he has enough problems with defection to risk giving his enemy the weapons, he is worried about handing those weapons over to his enemies rather than the west.

There are actually some reports that a portion of the SCUD rocket force was to be given over to Hezbollah.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173217

Edited July 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

The older B's by the looks since Hezbollah claimed they 'didn't work'.

[Signals.Cpl]

"A lot to do with Canada"? Like What?

Our allies, maybe they aren't important to you, but to the rest of us they are important.

Keeping the region as stable as possible, this is one of the most important reasons to Canada.

How many Israeli vs. Syrian wars did we involve ourselves in?

How many times was there a request?

Did those forces partake in the same tempo of combat operations as Canada? If not, why?

I don't know if they did or did not partake in the same tempo, maybe they are just better equipped, or luck of the draw and they get less volatile AO.

[DogOnPorch]

Nice assortment of Syrian rockets.

[Guest Derek L]

Our allies, maybe they aren't important to you, but to the rest of us they are important.

Keeping the region as stable as possible, this is one of the most important reasons to Canada.

Well explain how Vietnam (etc) was important to "us"? I'd love to hear it..........

How many times was there a request?

I dunno, how many times has Israel requested our help in a conflict?

I don't know if they did or did not partake in the same tempo, maybe they are just better equipped, or luck of the draw and they get less volatile AO.

Bullshit