Syria moving checmical weapons

[Signals.Cpl]

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

I don't think you understand the concept of NATO.

And Canadians are "not like me"? What was the appetite for continuing combat operations in Afghanistan like?

Afghanistan stopped being our problem after we removed the Taliban from power, but the Canadian government like many other NATO governments made it our problem when they decided try their hand in Nation building.

As to Canadians being concerned with “honouring our commitments”, as I believe you stated earlier, you didn’t serve during the Cold War right?

No

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……….

And yet, Canada still was committed to our allies, its one thing to have poorly equipped forces ready to protect your allies, and its another thing to abandon your allies.

To add, where was the outrage of Rwanda?

I didn't know Rwanda was our ally.

And Canadians certainly didn’t decry the disbanding of a unit that would have been ideal for countering a future Rwanda……..

A unit had to go, Somalia just provided the unit.

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”.

So in your opinion, Canada and Canadians will willingly turn our backs on an ally in need? And this "micro sampling" does not represent anything, just like Rabble does not represent the opinions of Canadians, just like Stormfront would not represent the US public opinion.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think you understand the concept of NATO.

Explain it then.

Afghanistan stopped being our problem after we removed the Taliban from power, but the Canadian government like many other NATO governments made it our problem when they decided try their hand in Nation building.

And the level of public support in that venture? Or more pointedly, political support?

And yet, Canada still was committed to our allies, its one thing to have poorly equipped forces ready to protect your allies, and its another thing to abandon your allies.

But you didn’t respond to the drawdown of Canadian Forces in Europe……The NATO partners (circa 1970-90) certainly didn‘t feel themselves to be the benefactors of Canadian military largess….Canadians didn’t mind, but it sure pissed off our Allies……….Truth be told, Canadian allies don’t pay Canadian taxes……Hence the Canadian taxpayer winning said debate….

I didn't know Rwanda was our ally.

But Syria is......Remember, it was you that dropped the genocide bomb

A unit had to go, Somalia just provided the unit.

So in your opinion, Canada and Canadians will willingly turn our backs on an ally in need? And this "micro sampling" does not represent anything, just like Rabble does not represent the opinions of Canadians, just like Stormfront would not represent the US public opinion.

[see] the second Iraq war.....

[Signals.Cpl]

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

Vietnam was a colonial war lost by the French, picked up by the Americans, Vietnam had nothing to do with Canada, and since the US had voluntarily involved itself in Vietnam NATO had no reason to support them. I realize you are grasping at straws here, but Vietnam was a war of aggression by the US regardless of the reasoning behind their involvement, likewise Iraq was a war of choice thus not our problem regardless of the reasoning behind it.

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

I don't know you tell me.

Bullshit

Why did Canada deploy troops to Afghanistan in 2003?

[DogOnPorch]

North Viet-Nam had already invaded Laos, Cambodia and South Viet-Nam by 1960.

[Guest Derek L]

Vietnam was a colonial war lost by the French, picked up by the Americans, Vietnam had nothing to do with Canada, and since the US had voluntarily involved itself in Vietnam NATO had no reason to support them. I realize you are grasping at straws here, but Vietnam was a war of aggression by the US regardless of the reasoning behind their involvement, likewise Iraq was a war of choice thus not our problem regardless of the reasoning behind it.

Explain the Falklands then......Or the "troubles" in Northern Ireland.......NATO partner attacked, and even our Head of States cousin was killed on his yacht.....

I don't know you tell me.

You asked....How many times have we involved ourselves in a Arab/Israeli conflict......Can you figure that one out?

Why did Canada deploy troops to Afghanistan in 2003?

Nice deflection, I take it you aren’t going to address the paper on the troubles of national caveats……published on the NATO website to boot

[Guest Derek L]

North Viet-Nam had already invaded Laos, Cambodia and South Viet-Nam by 1960.

Didn’t the North also kill civilians? What about Cambodia?

[Signals.Cpl]

Explain it then.

NATO is a defensive alliance, rather than an offensive alliance at the beck and call of the US whenever they feel like launching a war of aggression.

And the level of public support in that venture? Or more pointedly, political support?

Why does it matter? We had fulfilled our responsibility as part of NATO, anything after the collapse of the Taliban is not NATO's responsibility, but we as a whole decided to make it ours.

But you didn’t respond to the drawdown of Canadian Forces in Europe……The NATO partners (circa 1970-90) certainly didn‘t feel themselves to be the benefactors of Canadian military largess….Canadians didn’t mind, but it sure pissed off our Allies……….Truth be told, Canadian allies don’t pay Canadian taxes……Hence the Canadian taxpayer winning said debate….

So? In both world wars Canada was ill prepared yet I don't think many would complain that Canada turned our backs on our allies. Drawing down != abandoning our allies.

But Syria is......Remember, it was you that dropped the genocide bomb

So? You seem a little confused... the outrage of Rwanda is in Rwanda, I'm sure they are still pissed off with the UN, and the west.

The CAR had internal problems, Somalia sealed their fate, as the government was looking at the Infantry regiments in order to downsize and the CAR just waltz in to the spotlight.

[see] the second Iraq war.....

Explain how the US was in need.Did Iraq invade the US? Were they planning to? Did they even have the capabilities to do anything other than surrender en masse? There are significant differences between standing up for an ally, and letting said ally drag you in to a war of aggression.

[Signals.Cpl]

North Viet-Nam had already invaded Laos, Cambodia and South Viet-Nam by 1960.

Would that warrant an intervention by NATO because one of those nations was a NATO member?

[DogOnPorch]

Didn’t the North also kill civilians? What about Cambodia?

Atrocities were commited by both North and South during the war in Indochina. As well as the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Rouge. Plus all the members of SEATO, I'm sure. The ROK troops were particularly feared for their head collections.

But, the North got busy right after the '56 reunification vote failed to occur. By '59 they were moving brigade sized units south along the trail. By '65, division sized units. By '72 it was practically paved.

[DogOnPorch]

Would that warrant an intervention by NATO because one of those nations was a NATO member?

Not NATO...SEATO, though. The less famous brother.

[Signals.Cpl]

Explain the Falklands then......

NATO as an alliance steps in when asked, the British did not ask, NATO did not intervene. NATO does not have the authority to step in and force a government to accept help.

Or the "troubles" in Northern Ireland.......NATO partner attacked, and even our Head of States cousin was killed on his yacht.....

Where was NATO in the FLQ crisis? Oka? In all of those situations, it was an internal problem which the Nation's involved wanted to sort out themselves, rather than handing over their sovereignty to NATO or the US.

You asked....How many times have we involved ourselves in a Arab/Israeli conflict......Can you figure that one out?

How many times did Israel ask for our help? BTW I am pretty sure Canada was involved in all of them... See UN missions in the middle east, maybe to no effect but there we were.

Nice deflection, I take it you aren’t going to address the paper on the troubles of national caveats……published on the NATO website to boot

I skimmed it over as I have other things to do that are ever so slightly more important, but those nations war there, and still are there, they have therefore fulfilled any NATO commitments, and then some.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not NATO...SEATO, though. The less famous brother.

Which we were members of?

[Guest Derek L]

NATO is a defensive alliance, rather than an offensive alliance at the beck and call of the US whenever they feel like launching a war of aggression.

War of aggression? How many Canadians and/or Americans has Syria killed?

Why does it matter? We had fulfilled our responsibility as part of NATO, anything after the collapse of the Taliban is not NATO's responsibility, but we as a whole decided to make it ours.

Well, we kinda got this Democracy thing going on…….As such, public opinion does mater.

So? In both world wars Canada was ill prepared yet I don't think many would complain that Canada turned our backs on our allies. Drawing down != abandoning our allies.

Big difference......WW III would have lasted a mater of weeks, if not hours......

So? You seem a little confused... the outrage of Rwanda is in Rwanda, I'm sure they are still pissed off with the UN, and the west.

No, I understand that………And that’s my point, Rwanda, like Syria, doesn’t real mater to Canadians.

The CAR had internal problems, Somalia sealed their fate, as the government was looking at the Infantry regiments in order to downsize and the CAR just waltz in to the spotlight.

And as opposed to fixing a unit that would be ideal in “preventing genocide”, the Government binned with no opposition from the public…..

Explain how the US was in need.Did Iraq invade the US? Were they planning to? Did they even have the capabilities to do anything other than surrender en masse? There are significant differences between standing up for an ally, and letting said ally drag you in to a war of aggression.

Are you suggesting that the United States didn’t request our help? And that the Canadian Government told them to pound sand……………And Canadians were generally supportive of such action…….

So what would be the differences between a fictional Canadian involvement in Iraq compared to Syria?

Which leader previously gassed his own people?

Which leader launched a war of aggression in the 80s and used mustard gas on their enemy?

Which leader attacked international shipping?

Which leader occupied their neighbour?

[DogOnPorch]

Which we were members of?

We weren't members of SEATO, but some 20,000+ Canadians served in Viet-Nam as volunteers.

[Guest Derek L]

NATO as an alliance steps in when asked, the British did not ask, NATO did not intervene. NATO does not have the authority to step in and force a government to accept help.

The British did ask for help.........As did the Canadians, Americans and British of their other allies in the dirt box…..

Where was NATO in the FLQ crisis? Oka? In all of those situations, it was an internal problem which the Nation's involved wanted to sort out themselves, rather than handing over their sovereignty to NATO or the US.

Ahh, so NATO countries can have “internal problems”, like Northern Ireland, Quebec or refugees from Syria and fellow NATO members aren’t expected to intervene…….

How many times did Israel ask for our help? BTW I am pretty sure Canada was involved in all of them... See UN missions in the middle east, maybe to no effect but there we were.

Still not answering how many time Canada involved itself in one of the numerous Israeli Arab wars eh? Maybe we’ll skip this question since you’re having a hard time with it

I skimmed it over as I have other things to do that are ever so slightly more important, but those nations war there, and still are there, they have therefore fulfilled any NATO commitments, and then some.

Here to, perhaps we’ll skip this point until you are able to read the report, thus allowing a better understanding of what you speak.

[Signals.Cpl]

War of aggression? How many Canadians and/or Americans has Syria killed?

Look at a Map of Syria, look who is their northern neighbour, then google NATO, look at the member states and compare.

Well, we kinda got this Democracy thing going on…….As such, public opinion does mater.

It does not matter, because you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Two different missions, the initial mission was to take down the Taliban, mission accomplished, what people started to question was why we were in Afghanistan doing nation building when our original mission was over.

Big difference......WW III would have lasted a mater of weeks, if not hours......

WW1 could have lasted a few weeks, in fact that was the expectation on both sides, I would say luck and skill saved the allies in 1914 and prolonged the fight. Likewise in WW2 the was could have and almost ended within a few months in an allied defeat, which was luckily averted by mistakes made by Germany.

No, I understand that………And that’s my point, Rwanda, like Syria, doesn’t real mater to Canadians.

Turkey does matter, and the region is a tad more important than Rwanda and the region, in one we have a stake while the other should have been stopped purely on humanitarian grounds.

And as opposed to fixing a unit that would be ideal in “preventing genocide”, the Government binned with no opposition from the public…..

So you think the 500 paratroopers could have prevented the Genocide? They had a Commando battalion in Rwanda, yet it seems to have failed to do much in the way of "preventing a genocide"

Are you suggesting that the United States didn’t request our help? And that the Canadian Government told them to pound sand……………And Canadians were generally supportive of such action…….

Again, helping your friend/ally when under attack yes, helping your friend/ally to attack others without a legitimate reason, no.

So what would be the differences between a fictional Canadian involvement in Iraq compared to Syria?

One is using special forces and airpower to remove WMDs while arming the rebels to fight their battles, the other was launched on fictitious grounds.

Which leader previously gassed his own people?

Which leader launched a war of aggression in the 80s and used mustard gas on their enemy?

Which leader attacked international shipping?

Which leader occupied their neighbour?

Why wait 13 years to bring that up as an excuse to attack?

[Signals.Cpl]

The British did ask for help.........As did the Canadians, Americans and British of their other allies in the dirt box…..

I'm getting tired of your bullshit, you ask a question, I answered then you switched it to support a different bullshit point you are trying to make. The British did not ask for help in the Falklands, nor did they ask for help in N. Ireland, neither did Canada ask for help with FLQ and the Oka.

Ahh, so NATO countries can have “internal problems”, like Northern Ireland, Quebec or refugees from Syria and fellow NATO members aren’t expected to intervene…….

Member state asks for help, help is given. Member state does NOT ask for help, help is not forced down their throat. If the UK had asked for help they would have gotten said help, if Turkey has a problem they can ask for help and we will give them any and all assistance that we can give, if they choose to deal with said problem on their own, we cannot force them to ask or accept our help.

Still not answering how many time Canada involved itself in one of the numerous Israeli Arab wars eh?

UNEF I, UNEF II, UNOGIL, UNDOF... Maybe not the most effective involvement but we were involved in one way or another in every one of those wars... I understand you cannot answer a question like how many times Israel asked for help, you ask questions, but are unable to answer any.

[Guest Derek L]

Look at a Map of Syria, look who is their northern neighbour, then google NATO, look at the member states and compare.

How about you look at the same map, and tell me the distance between Canada and Syria?

It does not matter, because you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Two different missions, the initial mission was to take down the Taliban, mission accomplished, what people started to question was why we were in Afghanistan doing nation building when our original mission was over.

The public’s (taxpayer) opinion doesn’t mater?

WW1 could have lasted a few weeks, in fact that was the expectation on both sides, I would say luck and skill saved the allies in 1914 and prolonged the fight. Likewise in WW2 the was could have and almost ended within a few months in an allied defeat, which was luckily averted by mistakes made by Germany.

I suppose the Kaiser chose not to use his Strategic Rocket Forces

Turkey does matter, and the region is a tad more important than Rwanda and the region, in one we have a stake while the other should have been stopped purely on humanitarian grounds.

What stake to we have in Turkey? Or what about Jordan or Israel? (You mentioned these nations as well)

So you think the 500 paratroopers could have prevented the Genocide? They had a Commando battalion in Rwanda, yet it seems to have failed to do much in the way of "preventing a genocide"

See ROE.......Like I said, the Canadian Government (and the West) couldn’t be bothered………..And most certainly, the CAR, combined with Belgian and French Paratroopers, and the proper ROE, though not preventing the entire genocide, would certainly help reduce it’s scope.

Again, helping your friend/ally when under attack yes, helping your friend/ally to attack others without a legitimate reason, no.

Are you suggesting that Iraq didn’t violate UN resolutions? And the Americans didn’t request our help?

The Americans involved themselves in a Vietnamese civil war, and you call it a war of aggression, but you want us to involve ourselves in a Syrian civil war and call it “helping a friend out”

One is using special forces and airpower to remove WMDs while arming the rebels to fight their battles, the other was launched on fictitious grounds.

Explain United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Why wait 13 years to bring that up as an excuse to attack?

So it's an excuse eh?

[Guest Derek L]

I'm getting tired of your bullshit, you ask a question, I answered then you switched it to support a different bullshit point you are trying to make. The British did not ask for help in the Falklands, nor did they ask for help in N. Ireland, neither did Canada ask for help with FLQ and the Oka.

Has Turkey asked for Canada's help in dealing with the Syrian civil war? What about Jordan? Or Israel?

Member state asks for help, help is given. Member state does NOT ask for help, help is not forced down their throat. If the UK had asked for help they would have gotten said help, if Turkey has a problem they can ask for help and we will give them any and all assistance that we can give, if they choose to deal with said problem on their own, we cannot force them to ask or accept our help.

Did Turkey heed our request when we asked for further support at the Riga summit? The Turks can blow it out their ass…….

UNEF I, UNEF II, UNOGIL, UNDOF... Maybe not the most effective involvement but we were involved in one way or another in every one of those wars... I understand you cannot answer a question like how many times Israel asked for help, you ask questions, but are unable to answer any.

Still deflecting hey........Really simple, how many Canadian fought in a Israeli/Arab war?

[GostHacked]

Has Turkey asked for Canada's help in dealing with the Syrian civil war? What about Jordan? Or Israel?

Syria has not asked anyone help as far as I know. If they DO ask for help, they will ask Russia and/or China.

Did Turkey heed our request when we asked for further support at the Riga summit? The Turks can blow it out their ass…….

The Turks are part of NATO. Something you should not be overlooking. An attack on them equates to an attack on all NATO members, in which Canada is a part of. NATO looks like it is using Turkey to start some crap for an eventual NATO boots in Syria.

Still deflecting hey........Really simple, how many Canadian fought in a Israeli/Arab war?

I don't understand the reasoning for this question.

[Guest Derek L]

Syria has not asked anyone help as far as I know. If they DO ask for help, they will ask Russia and/or China.

As I said above, Turkey.

The Turks are part of NATO. Something you should not be overlooking. An attack on them equates to an attack on all NATO members, in which Canada is a part of. NATO looks like it is using Turkey to start some crap for an eventual NATO boots in Syria.

And Turkey’s response to Canada’s request for more combat troops in Afghanistan?

I don't understand the reasoning for this question.

If you go back enough pages, in response to Sig’s line as to why Canada didn’t involve itself in Rwanda in a combat role…….the same reason why Canada never participated in a Israeli/Arab war……Not in our interest.

[DogOnPorch]

Syria threatens to use chemical weapons against foreign attackers after finally admitting to stockpiles.

BEIRUT — The Syrian regime acknowledged for the first time Monday that it possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said it will only use them in case of a foreign attack and never internally against its own citizens.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said the stockpiles are secure, in an apparent response to widespread international concerns that they could fall into the hands of the disparate bands of rebel forces fighting the government.

“No chemical or biological weapons will ever be used, and I repeat, will never be used, during the crisis in Syria no matter what the developments inside Syria,” he said in conference broadcast on state TV. “All of these types of weapons are in storage and under security and the direct supervision of the Syrian armed forces and will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/23/syria-threatens-to-use-chemical-weapons-in-case-of-foreign-attack-after-finally-admitting-to-stockpiles/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/22/hezbollah-may-get-chemical-weapons-if-syria-collapses-benjamin-netanyahu-says/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/23/syria-chemical-weapons.html

The comment sections are quite amusing.

[Signals.Cpl]

Still deflecting hey........Really simple, how many Canadian fought in a Israeli/Arab war?

Love you dance, you went from how many times Canada has been involved in the Israel/Arab conflict to how many Canadians fought in said conflicts. I love how you accuse ME of deflecting while you ask a question, get an answer, and then change your question...are you related to waldo by any chance?

Here is the original question so you don't try and bullshit:

Still not answering how many time Canada involved itself in one of the numerous Israeli Arab wars eh? Maybe we’ll skip this question since you’re having a hard time with it

[Signals.Cpl]

How about you look at the same map, and tell me the distance between Canada and Syria?

What was the distance between Canada and Germany in say 1914 and 1939?

The public’s (taxpayer) opinion doesn’t mater?

For one of those missions, public opinion does not matter as our obligations were spelled out in the NATO charter, the second one was the responsibility of the government that decided to stay past the expiration of the initial mission.

I suppose the Kaiser chose not to use his Strategic Rocket Forces

Attempt at lame humour when you point has been destroyed?

What stake to we have in Turkey?

1)NATO Ally

2)NATO Ally

3)NATO Ally

4)NATO Ally

5)NATO Ally

Or what about Jordan or Israel? (You mentioned these nations as well)

Two stable democracies, should we abandon them to the wolves, we will lose two valuable allies in the region, the region will be further destabilized, there is a danger of Israel deciding to pave the Middle East if they are painted in a corner.The more unstable that the Middle East becomes, the more people want to kill us(putting us under the same umbrella as western Europe and the US).

See ROE.......Like I said, the Canadian Government (and the West) couldn’t be bothered………..

The west cannot sustain casualties, as soon as the body bags come home people start planning the exit.

And most certainly, the CAR, combined with Belgian

Again, the 500 Paratroopers from the CAR and 500 from the Belgian would have been unable to do anything more then was already done.

and French Paratroopers,

Seeing as the French were instrumental in arming and training the government forces, and arguing against further expansion of the mission I doubt it. On top of that the fact that the French had intervened twice before in 1992 and 1994 I believe to prevent the government from collapsing I can see their presence in the country under the UN flag as a massive liability rather than an asset.

and the proper ROE, though not preventing the entire genocide, would certainly help reduce it’s scope.

Great, even if the ROE's were to be changed, how do you propose the peacekeepers fight the Interahamwe, the RGF AND the RPF while only having 3 30 round magazines per soldier?

Are you suggesting that Iraq didn’t violate UN resolutions? And the Americans didn’t request our help?

Who hasn't violated UN Resolutions? They are a joke...

And the US asked for help, but you still fail to grasp the concept of a defensive alliance,.

The Americans involved themselves in a Vietnamese civil war, and you call it a war of aggression, but you want us to involve ourselves in a Syrian civil war and call it “helping a friend out”

It was a colonial war turned war to stop communist expansion they didn't give a shit about the people.

Explain United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Bad Iraq, no cookies for you today?

So it's an excuse eh?

Yeah, because if the US had really cared about all those issues, they would have dealt with them in 1990-1991 rather than keep them bottled up for more than a decade in order to pull them out and use them as an excuse at a time of their choosing.

I think more American soldiers died as POWs in British prison ships than in combat during the Whole American Revolution, should they turn around and invade the UK and use that as an excuse?

[Shady]

Hey GH,

Assad confirmed today that Syria does indeed have chemical and biological weapons. Is he in on the ruse too?