Canada "ready to go to war against syria" press reports...

[bush_cheney2004]

...The difference between Syria and Libya, is that Gadaffi didn't have many allies aside from Africa.

Guess again:

[Signals.Cpl]

Guess again:

[DogOnPorch]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=gaddafi%20shaking%20hands&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RT4iUdbyEorlrQGFxYCADA&biw=1375&bih=647&sei=Xz4iUaX-FZOxqwHd94HIBA#imgrc=_

[Army Guy]

 

Yet Russia will not go to war over this... it is as simple as that. They can wait for the next regime, throw some aid their way and they will be in the same place as they are now.

 

As in Bosina they will flex their muscles, NATO will flex theirs, and during this time we will pry some young troop does not flinch and start a shooting war...in Bosnia we were lucky, luck only holds for so long.... Russia is as concerned about Oil, postioning within the middle east just as the US, Syria is one of their interests in the middle east and while it may not be their intention to get into a conflict... Murphys law always trumps intention....

[shortlived]

Well Britain has upped the game a bit... this was the step before NATO intervention in Libya. Now it seems they will have military body armour and APCs rather than just level 3 reconciled leather jackets and homemade tanks.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/Britain+says+will+send+armoured+vehicles+body+armour+Syrian/8056538/story.html

In Libya however, tanks were used to counter the threat of body armour etc.. but this armoured vehicles being supplied leaves me wondering exactly what armoured vehciles Britiain will be suppling. I can only guess it won't be challenger tanks

Well Russia obviouslly wont let nato take it a second time with a no fly zone.

Of course Britain doesn't need to supply weapons when the US and Gulf States are...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/world/middleeast/syria-russia-iran-arms.html?_r=0

sound familiar...

Edited March 6, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

Syrian rebels took Golan heights un peacekeepers hostage

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/03/06/un-peacekeepers-syria-israel-border.html

I find it hilarious the CBC spin on this one.. "detained" the "opposition" is detaining the UN personnel... with demands to be met by "the syrian government"

I dunno if this wern't an organization backed by NATO countries like Canada I think terrorists would be used rather than "detained by the opposition" If those were US personnel the US would go ballistic, the french would kill people... hold on whose peacekeepers are in that 20...

That is a massively "bad move" by the rebels I would think there must be an ulterior motive.

Perhaps like trying to get the monitoring forces removed from the golan heights.. for whatever reason..

I wonder what countries the hostages are from

DOF is composed by Austria, Croatia, India and Philippines.

correction at 5am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syria-rebels-abduct-20-un-observers/2013/03/07/00ca462c-8707-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html

.. if indeed this was a correction where did the reports that they demanded Syria forces withdrawl from a village ...???

peculiar...? "A video in which the kidnappers warned that the observers would not be released until Syrian President Bashar al-Assad withdrew troops from the area had been deleted"

Apparently they were Philippinos... I'm actually very surprised how active the Philippines is globally for its size, in regard to the middle east.

Edited March 7, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

the atmosphere thickens..

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/syria-s-government-rebels-trade-accusations-of-chemical-attack-1.1201446

It really is laughable that another Nato citizen ' or rather person who lived in a Nato country... ends up being the leader of the syrian opposition..

Ghassan Hitto, a little-known American-educated IT manager to head an interim government to administer.....

tto graduated from Purdue University in 1989 with degrees in mathematics and computer science.^[2] He is a former businessman who has lived in the United States for decades, Hitto is a naturalized American citizen.

gas and hit to...

Bringing Democracy to Syria by installing an American to rule the country.. MY GOD!

could it have been a phosgene attack?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosgene

It is a fairly easy gas to make, only needing carbon which is easily obtainable, chlorine which is easily obtainable and carbon monoxide which is easily obtainable.

Obama in Israel.. and Israel requesting US air strikes ...

Edited March 19, 2013 by shortlived

[AlienB]

Yeah so ironically 15 countries had troops have troops stationed in Jordan, including Canadians, and the US has now said it will arm Syrian rebels, and there is talk of a no fly zone from Jordan, to facilitate foreign military training facilities for Syrian rebels... so as to protect recruits fleeing Syria...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/10/canadian-military-in-jordan-for-exercise-amid-reports-assads-forces-in-syria-on-verge-of-breakthrough/

I found it interesting that GC now seems adverse to involvement from when this post was first made, and now it seems like US involvement in Syria will escalate...

Of course there is the "hidden story" that very few know about.

None the less it seems very interesting in Syria and Turkey lately with so much press coverage, well press coverage. Also the impending assault on Aleppo and surrounding areas seems interesting.

When will the assault begin? Will weapons be there or get there in time?

Aleppo and the North seems like a very curcial point with battles being brought in force to Homs and Aleppo projected?

And what of Canada, guarding NATO and Gulf State Jets positioned in Jordan?

Odd very odd... but when is Parliament due to go into recess?

I have the feeling any change in Canadian involvement will happen between now and then... or will be kept secret in Nato's secret war strategy drawn up by the Pentagon and the NSCC.

US has had special forces observor teams in the area for a while.

Now did those patriots, and fighter jets and 4500 us forces... arrive totally unknown of the proclamation of the red line being crossed and a no fly zone being enforced, my gosh, this is one of those weird coincidences...

US just happened to have the forces it needed right there in Jordan... because of this war game that had nothing to do with events in Syria.

Edited June 14, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

Yeah so ironically 15 countries had troops have troops stationed in Jordan, including Canadians, and the US has now said it will arm Syrian rebels, and there is talk of a no fly zone from Jordan, to facilitate foreign military training facilities for Syrian rebels... so as to protect recruits fleeing Syria...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/10/canadian-military-in-jordan-for-exercise-amid-reports-assads-forces-in-syria-on-verge-of-breakthrough/

I found it interesting that GC now seems adverse to involvement from when this post was first made, and now it seems like US involvement in Syria will escalate...

Of course there is the "hidden story" that very few know about.

None the less it seems very interesting in Syria and Turkey lately with so much press coverage, well press coverage. Also the impending assault on Aleppo and surrounding areas seems interesting.

When will the assault begin? Will weapons be there or get there in time?

Aleppo and the North seems like a very curcial point with battles being brought in force to Homs and Aleppo projected?

And what of Canada, guarding NATO and Gulf State Jets positioned in Jordan?

Odd very odd... but when is Parliament due to go into recess?

I have the feeling any change in Canadian involvement will happen between now and then... or will be kept secret in Nato's secret war strategy drawn up by the Pentagon and the NSCC.

US has had special forces observor teams in the area for a while.

Now did those patriots, and fighter jets and 4500 us forces... arrive totally unknown of the proclamation of the red line being crossed and a no fly zone being enforced, my gosh, this is one of those weird coincidences...

US just happened to have the forces it needed right there in Jordan... because of this war game that had nothing to do with events in Syria.

You understand that the Canadian Forces “amassing along the Syrian border” have been there since the 1974, and each rotation “in country”, since the early 90s, includes anywhere between two to four staff officers……..

Ironically though, our initial “Blue Beret” Peacekeeping mission there also has the claim to fame of having seen an incident involving the single largest loss of Canadian life on a peacekeeping mission. Fore early on into the mission, the Syrians shot down a Canadian Buffalo transport killing 9 personal……..

As I’ve been saying for years, we will not, nor should we involve ourselves in this shithole Syria.

[waldo]

As I’ve been saying for years, we will not, nor should we involve ourselves in this shithole Syria.

no worries! I expect in the Syria case, Harper Conservatives will show the same degree of thoughtful analysis and cautious reservation as Harper did in evaluating his position on whether or not to involve Canada in the Iraq fiasco.

[Guest Derek L]

no worries! I expect in the Syria case, Harper Conservatives will show the same degree of thoughtful analysis and cautious reservation as Harper did in evaluating his position on whether or not to involve Canada in the Iraq fiasco.

Now for clarification, are you saying you’d favour involvement in Syria? I’m confused you see, as the current Government has already stated they do not seek involvement, contrasted with their prior formal support of the recent Iraq war, which was unlike PM Chrétien’s political cowardice which happened to see Canada having the third or fourth largest contribution in the region during the initial stages and later PM Martin begging for post-war contracts in the region……

So by deduction, the Waldo opposed formal involvement in Iraq, unlike the Conservatives, and with the Conservatives opposing action in Syria, the Waldo seeks a Canadian effort?

[cybercoma]

I've said in the past that the use of chemical weapons needs to be taken seriously by the international community, but it has gotten to the point now in Syria that the powers-that-be need to be A LOT more forthcoming with their evidence. Ron Paul made an excellent point that it's completely irrational for Syria to have used sarin. I tend to agree with him, but that doesn't mean that people don't do insanely irrational things. I would just like to see the evidence of this before we go putting our troops in harm's way.

Edited June 15, 2013 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

I've said in the past that the use of chemical weapons needs to be taken seriously by the international community, but it has gotten to the point now in Syria that the powers-that-be need to be A LOT more forthcoming with their evidence. Ron Paul made an excellent point that it's completely irrational for Syria to have used sarin. I tend to agree with him, but that doesn't mean that people don't do insanely irrational things. I would just like to see the evidence of this before we go putting our troops in harm's way.

Canada needs to stay out of this. We got dragged into supporting Libya which was a very wrong move. How's Libya now?

What kind of evidence would satisfy us? I agree that they would have to have concrete evidence. I am not sure any evidence can be trusted.

If we see the out in the open arming of these rebels, then we will also see that NATO supports Al-queda more than Assad. Report are most of the rebels in Syria are not Syrians. These rebels consist of many small Al-queda like groups.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group

Really like this guy and his analysis. The rebels are loosing, being the main reason the rebels will get supplies from the west. Unless something drastic happens with the rebels, Assad is going to win. Not really much of a civil war when most of the fighters are foreigners and supported by NATO.

[waldo]

Now for clarification, are you saying you’d favour involvement in Syria? I’m confused you see, as the current Government has already stated they do not seek involvement, contrasted with their prior formal support of the recent Iraq war

oh really! Perhaps you can parse these words into a firm Harper Conservative commitment against involvement... is this just Harper playing for the cameras... for the sound bites? Is this just a form of continued "implied humanitarian involvement"? Really?

=> The position of Canada on the regime is clear. We want to see Assad depart power and we want to see a regime that’s representative of the entire population of Syria, which the Assad regime in its present form can never be.

=> Our assistance (to Assad's opponents) to this point in time has been humanitarian in nature rather than military in nature," Harper said. "We're obviously working very closely with our allies...and will work very closely going forward.

=> The extremist, sectarian nature of much of the opposition cannot be ignored or wished away," Harper said. "And Syria cannot be allowed to become another safe haven for the hydra-heads of terrorism

which was unlike PM Chrétien’s political cowardice which happened to see Canada having the third or fourth largest contribution in the region during the initial stages and later PM Martin begging for post-war contracts in the region……

ya ya, we all know you're still bitter about not being able to "get your war on"! No need to drag this into another Iraq derail thread... but you know your talking points have already been dispensed with in other threads. If you'd like to continue this theme, please, please... resurrect an appropriate thread - perhaps the "Iraq Invasion - America's Shame... 10 years on" thread, as it's still active as of a few days ago.

[AlienB]

Just a side note not really related to the discussion

Well foreign affairs has stated that 40-60 Canadians may be fighting with the rebels.. death count is not known. Sorry that may be Public Safety Canada has stated..... I think attributing foreign affairs was not right, foreign affairs may not have commented on what Public Safety has commented on.

also these guys don't look like Blue Berets

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/story.html?id=8507521

None the less, I think the whole thing is vastly underreported and not fully in context to the ongoings by western states within Syria, or atleast western states citizens in Syria.

Once again the reality of Canadian involvement whether sancationed or unsanctioned by the government of Canada seems a reality that Canadians need to accept.

Edited June 15, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

oh really! Perhaps you can parse these words into a firm Harper Conservative commitment against involvement... is this just Harper playing for the cameras... for the sound bites? Is this just a form of continued "implied humanitarian involvement"? Really?

I’d think the Conservative Governments stance on military involvement in Syria is clear…….Do you have evidence suggesting the contrary?

ya ya, we all know you're still bitter about not being able to "get your war on"! No need to drag this into another Iraq derail thread... but you know your talking points have already been dispensed with in other threads. If you'd like to continue this theme, please, please... resurrect an appropriate thread - perhaps the "Iraq Invasion - America's Shame... 10 years on" thread, as it's still active as of a few days ago.

Oh, I know the thread, that’s the one where you refused to counter the fact that during the opening stages of the Iraq war, 1/3rd of the Canadian Navy (amongst RCAF Patrol and transport aircraft, coupled with logistic support provided from Camp Mirage) was in the region, conducting a similar role as that of our (acknowledged) involvement during the first Persian Excursion……….I agree, we shouldn’t cloud this thread with said topic, as we clearly already have a thread waiting for a Waldo counterpoint…..

[waldo]

I’d think the Conservative Governments stance on military involvement in Syria is clear…….Do you have evidence suggesting the contrary?

the series of Harper quotes I just offered... that you're just ignoring. They most definitely don't speak to an absolute "NO/NEVER" stance on military involvement.

Oh, I know the thread, that’s the one where you refused to counter the fact that during the opening stages of the Iraq war, 1/3rd of the Canadian Navy (amongst RCAF Patrol and transport aircraft, coupled with logistic support provided from Camp Mirage) was in the region, conducting a similar role as that of our (acknowledged) involvement during the first Persian Excursion……….I agree, we shouldn’t cloud this thread with said topic, as we clearly already have a thread waiting for a Waldo counterpoint…..

I haven't a clue what you're nattering about! Those naval ships and surveillance aircraft had been longstanding in the Gulf region... in support of "Operation Enduring Freedom"... you know, Afghanistan! The Chrétien government decreed those ships and aircraft couldn't be involved in intercepting vessels connected to the Iraq war. Surely you're aware the DND issued clear orders not to engage in anything to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Surely you're aware of this and just choosing to ply your continuing agenda! Surely!

We had extremely long and detailed meetings to make sure that we were not in fact committing to help the war in Iraq. Now, what happens on the high seas is not something I can prove or disprove, but those were the orders that the military had

[Guest Derek L]

the series of Harper quotes I just offered... that you're just ignoring. They most definitely don't speak to an absolute "NO/NEVER" stance on military involvement.

So no "proof" eh?

I haven't a clue what you're nattering about! Those naval ships and surveillance aircraft had been longstanding in the Gulf region... in support of "Operation Enduring Freedom"... you know, Afghanistan! The Chrétien government decreed those ships and aircraft couldn't be involved in intercepting vessels connected to the Iraq war. Surely you're aware the DND issued clear orders not to engage in anything to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Surely you're aware of this and just choosing to ply your continuing agenda! Surely!

You're reaching for Operation Apollo:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/4/4-a_eng.asp?id=504

Lookie here, three Canadian ships (HMCS Fredericton, HMCS Iroquois and HMCS Regina) with a Kiwi bringing up the rear in the Persian Gulf in Spring '03........

You must remember that the Iroquois trip got off to poor start (No thanks to ole Jean):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2003/03/01/iroquois_030301.html

The Canadian warship HMCS Iroquois arrived at Halifax Harbour Saturday with a wrecked Sea King helicopter strapped to its deck.

Iroquois was forced to return to CFB Shearwater after the helicopter crashed during takeoff, slightly injuring a co-pilot and crew member. One of its two engines failed.

The destroyer was headed to the Persian Gulf Thursday when the accident happened near the Grand Banks.

Care to revert back to the other thread?

[waldo]

So no "proof" eh?

wtf! Proof? Of what? Again, the Harper quotes (which you continue to ignore) are anything but an absolute reflection on no possible involvement. I've put up quotes... you've offered diddly squat in terms of your claim... which, I presume by your leap, would offer the "proof" that Harper Conservatives will not... will never... involve Canada in Syria. Let's see your, uhhh... proof, ya... proof!

You're reaching for Operation Apollo:

Care to revert back to the other thread?

gee... you went a long way to show Canadian forces were engaged in the Gulf before the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. Like I said, "Those naval ships and surveillance aircraft had been longstanding in the Gulf region... in support of "Operation Enduring Freedom"... you know, Afghanistan!" Why do you think they were there, hey?

and again, you keep nattering about 'some other thread'... I have no clue what you're speaking to. Resurrect the thread if it means so much to you!

[Guest Derek L]

wtf! Proof? Of what? Again, the Harper quotes (which you continue to ignore) are anything but an absolute reflection on no possible involvement. I've put up quotes... you've offered diddly squat in terms of your claim... which, I presume by your leap, would offer the "proof" that Harper Conservatives will not... will never... involve Canada in Syria. Let's see your, uhhh... proof, ya... proof!

And in said quotes, where does it highlight a possible military intervention involving Canada?

gee... you went a long way to show Canadian forces were engaged in the Gulf before the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. Like I said, "Those naval ships and surveillance aircraft had been longstanding in the Gulf region... in support of "Operation Enduring Freedom"... you know, Afghanistan!" Why do you think they were there, hey?

Now I’ve admittedly only been to the Gulf twice, but I fail to remember where about the beaches of Afghanistan lay……..Care to point that?

The Canadian involvement in the Gulf & Arabian Sea was, as mentioned in my above link pulled from DND, a mission involving:

While deployed, ships participated in force-protection operations, fleet-support operations, leadership interdiction operations, and maritime interdiction operations. Canadian Naval Boarding Part personnel hailed more than 10,000 ships and conducted more than 260 boardings - almost 60 percent of the entire coalition fleet’s boardings.

In both '02 and early '03 said naval boardings where namely made up of ships bound for Iraq, and said boardings were fostered under UN supported Sanctions…What other ships can we legally board in the Gulf?……And said pic was taken after the said war had started, for the Sea King delayed HMCS Iroquois didn’t leave Halifax (with HMCS Fredericton) until early March of ’03 and not meeting up with HMCS Regina until after hostilities started…….

and again, you keep nattering about 'some other thread'... I have no clue what you're speaking to. Resurrect the thread if it means so much to you!

The very thread you mentioned above

[waldo]

said quotes; said naval boardings; said boardings; said pic; said war

said what?

And in said quotes, where does it highlight a possible military intervention involving Canada?

"to this point in time"... what does that imply to you?

"Syria cannot be allowed"... what does that imply to you?

if you're so adamant that there is an absolute impossibility... then show the quote(s) you're relying upon to that end. Show something... anything!!! You've just made a statement/claim without any qualification... unsubstantiated!

Now I’ve admittedly only been to the Gulf twice, but I fail to remember where about the beaches of Afghanistan lay……..Care to point that

as is your way, you've completely derailed this from the salient point of significance here. Again, you yourself have shown an operation starting years before the illegal Iraq invasion and ending some ~8-9 months after the illegal Iraq invasion. The ships were there before the invasion... and changed out under the auspices of the same operation. That is the key point you're now so intent to deflect away from. I also asked you specifically about DND orders and quoted you statements from the former Defense Minister - apparently, your most selective avoidance kicked in on those, hey?

as for your other nonsense, what umbrella operation was Apollo supporting? That's right - the so-called "Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)"... it had several minor plays (Philippines, Central Africa, the 'Horn of Africa', etc.)... but, of course, the principal focus of OEF was Afghanistan. But let's be clear here: are you categorically stating Operation Apollo was not in support of the war in Afghanistan... that ship boardings were not, were never, intended to attempt to ensure weapons did not reach Afghanistan via interim passage through the Gulf? Is that what you're stating? Is that your position?

[Guest Derek L]

said what?

"to this point in time"... what does that imply to you?

"Syria cannot be allowed"... what does that imply to you?

if you're so adamant that there is an absolute impossibility... then show the quote(s) you're relying upon to that end. Show something... anything!!! You've just made a statement/claim without any qualification... unsubstantiated!

I have to provide quotes? You’re the one of the opinion that the Harper Government desires a possible intervention in Syria…….And you back your opinion with quotes that don’t support your claim…

as is your way, you've completely derailed this from the salient point of significance here. Again, you yourself have shown an operation starting years before the illegal Iraq invasion and ending some ~8-9 months after the illegal Iraq invasion. The ships were there before the invasion... and changed out under the auspices of the same operation. That is the key point you're now so intent to deflect away from. I also asked you specifically about DND orders and quoted you statements from the former Defense Minister - apparently, your most selective avoidance kicked in on those, hey?

As I linked in this thread to DND……Now during the build-up to the war on Iraq, that started in 2002, why would the, at the time Canadian lead, Coalition Task Force be tasked with both Force Protection (escorting) Allied Forces into the Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz and Eastern Persian Gulf, coupled with providing logistical support to said Allied ships, if the Canadians wanted nothing to do with said “illegal war”……..

Remember when the Prime Minister in the Fall of 2002 said that Canada would participate with a UN mandate? Do you remember when the Prime Minister announced on March 17 2003 that Canada would not take part in the war, just three days before it started? And we just so happened to have 1/3rd of our Naval fleet in the region during the initial conflict, putting our contribution only behind that of the Americans and British……..

And you like Wikileaks right Waldo?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-wikileaks.html

But even as Chrétien told the Commons that Canada wouldn't participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Canadian diplomats were secretly telling their U.S. counterparts something entirely different.

The classified U.S. document obtained from WikiLeaks shows senior Canadian officials met that same day with high-ranking American and British diplomats at Foreign Affairs headquarters in Ottawa.

The confidential note, written by a U.S. diplomat at the gathering, states that Foreign Affairs official James Wright waited until after the official meeting to impart the most important news of all.

According to the U.S. account, Wright "emphasized" that contrary to public statements by the prime minister, Canadian naval and air forces could be "discreetly" put to use during the pending U.S.-led assault on Iraq and its aftermath.

At that time, Canada had warships, aircraft and over 1,200 naval personnel already in the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, intercepting potential militant vessels and providing safe escort to other ships as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the post-Sept. 11, 2001, multinational war on terrorism.

as for your other nonsense, what umbrella operation was Apollo supporting? That's right - the so-called "Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)"... it had several minor plays (Philippines, Central Africa, the 'Horn of Africa', etc.)... but, of course, the principal focus of OEF was Afghanistan. But let's be clear here: are you categorically stating Operation Apollo was not in support of the war in Afghanistan... that ship boardings were not, were never, intended to attempt to ensure weapons did not reach Afghanistan via interim passage through the Gulf? Is that what you're stating? Is that your position?

Are you suggesting that US assets used during Enduring Freedom were not or could not also be used simultaneously (or near so) in the War on Iraq? By extension Canadian assets aiding the Americans couldn’t do likewise?

And What's this:

Why the USS Bataan (LHD) and the USS Decatur, along with the HMCS Iroquois (along with two other Canadian Frigates) operating together in Jan 2002 during the war on Terror, supporting operations in A-Stain.......Yet fast forward just over one years time, and the band got back together for a reunion tour of the Gulf.......

The Bataan even aided later that year two Canadian sailors from the Iroquois sister:

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=10772

Two ships, wearing differing shades of grey, going bump in the night I suppose eh Waldo?

[GostHacked]

Canada is part of NATO, we are already involved in this wrongly called 'civil war'.

And if you want to see how Harper tows the line .......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB5ljM3AJ2c

Now we have Baird saying this.....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ctv-qp-baird-supports-u-s-move-to-arm-syrian-rebels-1.1327608

Baird's comments come a month after he said Canada is opposed to funding a military campaign against the Syrian regime due to a growing number of "radical extremists" infiltrating opposition rebel forces.

"Canada is one of the only Western countries who hasn't recognized the Syrian opposition and this is one of the reasons why: It's no longer just a few hundred al Qaeda affiliated people. It's a substantial number of radical extremists that have come from all over the world," he said in an interview in May.

Asked if he was concerned about those radical groups being funded, Baird said he believes the U.S. will be "very selective" with whom they engage in order to reach a political solution.

NATO will now openly give direct support to the rebels who are know terrorists including Al-Queda.

Canada does not need to get involved in this at all.

[waldo]

I have to provide quotes? Youre the one of the opinion that the Harper Government desires a possible intervention in Syria.And you back your opinion with quotes that dont support your claim

I stated/implied that your claim wasn't quite so absolute... and I provided quoted Harper statements that certainly don't reinforce your absoluteness. You've provided nothing other than your claim/opinion - nothing! Why is it so difficult for you to provide a cited quote that reinforces your claim/opinion? We should just accept whatever you say... why... because you're "the military man"!

[waldo]

Two ships, wearing differing shades of grey, going bump in the night I suppose eh Waldo?

that's a great link you provided - thanks! It confirms the statement I quoted from Defense Minister McCallum...

We had extremely long and detailed meetings to make sure that we were not in fact committing to help the war in Iraq. Now, what happens on the high seas is not something I can prove or disprove, but those were the orders that the military had

it also confirms the statement I made about the Department of National Defense issuing an order to the military not to engage in the Iraq invasion.

After painful consultations with federal lawyers, the Department of National Defence issued Canadian naval commanders in the Gulf clear orders not to engage in anything to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom.

that's 2 confirmations of what I said - thanks a bunch for your link!

your provided link is also confirmation of what I said that the ships (as a part of the Canadian Operation Apollo) were there in support of the umbrella (Afghanistan) operation "Operation Enduring Freedom". Another confirmation - thanks again! Don't you now feel a bit silly given your snark about Afghanistan beaches?

and yes, I was aware of the wikileaks memo from an "unnamed American source" describing an "informal conversation" with a "lower level Canadian official". I prefer your link that clearly shows a somewhat 'rogue' navy command, going against direct DND order, going against the over-riding political statement/position. Does it give you solace to hang onto some premise of involvement... considering there wasn't any actual "enemy" engagement!

your provided link also reinforces the point that the U.S. simply was looking for a statement of 'political support'... the political support Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien most certainly refused to give... without an accompanying UN Security Council resolution in place.

.