Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) 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"! No, you provided quotes to attempt to back up your claim of the Governments "planned military intervention" into Syria……. And the recent statement form the Foreign Minister: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/baird-accepts-u-s-arming-rebels-in-syria-heads-to-jordan-1.1327608 Sure doesn't sound like Canada is going to war in Syria....... Edited June 16, 2013 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 Funny how this thread - started December 11th - boldly states that Canada is "Ready to go to war against Syria". Here we are 7 months later and Canada STILL will not commit to any military involvement. I guess some reporter made a mistake...again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 that's a great link you provided - thanks! It confirms the statement I quoted from Defense Minister McCallum... 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. 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. . Rogue Commanders? No Military engagements? And the Waldo now going after Wikileaks? Oh my…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 Funny how this thread - started December 11th - boldly states that Canada is "Ready to go to war against Syria". Here we are 7 months later and Canada STILL will not commit to any military involvement. I guess some reporter made a mistake...again. Exactly, the Canadian military won't be going into Syria in a situation similar to as it did in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf region (guarding the shores of Afghanistan per Waldo) or Libya….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 No, you provided quotes to attempt to back up your claim of the Governments "planned military intervention" into Syria……. And the recent statement form the Foreign Minister: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/baird-accepts-u-s-arming-rebels-in-syria-heads-to-jordan-1.1327608 Sure doesn't sound like Canada is going to war in Syria....... are you that intellectually dishonest that you have to fabricate what I said? Provide the quote that aligns with this, your most recent fabrication... waiting! my whole premise was to suggest to you that your claim... yes, your unqualified, unsubstantiated and unsupported claim wasn't quite so absolute as you suggested/implied. And I provided you Harper quotes to that end... whether you accept them or not. and again, you won't step up and provide anything... no citation, no quote... nothing to suggest the absoluteness you claim/imply. And now, you blindly throw out a link that presumes to..... to..... to what? If you feel there's something in that linked article that supports your absoluteness, quote it - verbatim! What? Arming the rebels to force negotiations!!! Clearly, that has a proven track record! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 Funny how this thread - started December 11th - boldly states that Canada is "Ready to go to war against Syria". Here we are 7 months later and Canada STILL will not commit to any military involvement. I guess some reporter made a mistake...again. I think there is a little more to it this time. The rebels are loosing the civil war. So in order to be fair, Canada is going to step in? It can't even be called a civil war to begin with. Most of the FSA are foreign fighters. But even if you believed it was a civil war, the moment our government lends open support for one side, the classification of civil war no longer applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 are you that intellectually dishonest that you have to fabricate what I said? Provide the quote that aligns with this, your most recent fabrication... waiting! my whole premise was to suggest to you that your claim... yes, your unqualified, unsubstantiated and unsupported claim wasn't quite so absolute as you suggested/implied. And I provided you Harper quotes to that end... whether you accept them or not. and again, you won't step up and provide anything... no citation, no quote... nothing to suggest the absoluteness you claim/imply. And now, you blindly throw out a link that presumes to..... to..... to what? If you feel there's something in that linked article that supports your absoluteness, quote it - verbatim! What? Arming the rebels to force negotiations!!! Clearly, that has a proven track record! Why your very first quote: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22083-canada-ready-to-go-to-war-against-syria-press-reports/page-11 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. So care to clarify your stance? Do you feel the Government of Canada will involve the Canadian Forces in a armed conflict in Syria? That’s not to say they couldn’t be used in delivering humanitarian aid, but my question, as is stated in correlation of the OP of this thread, will the Canadian military start combat operations within Syria on the side of the rebels? As a follow-up (which I asked ask earlier), do you Waldo, feel Canada should intervene in Syria in a war fighting capacity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 Rogue Commanders? No Military engagements? And the Waldo now going after Wikileaks? Oh my…. your own provided link speaks directly to the Defense Minister's statement that the Canadian military had government orders not to commit any assistance towards the illegal Iraq invasion. Do you deny your own provided link's information? your own provided link speaks directly to the Department of National Defense issuing Canadian naval commanders in the Gulf clear orders not to engage in anything to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Do you deny your own provided link's information? what would you call military commanders that ignore government and DND orders not to engage in/provide support for 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'? What would you call those military commanders if not rogue? What word(s) would you use? Step up and answer something put to you directly for a change, hey? my understanding is that during the actual illegal Iraq invasion, no Canadian navy personnel engaged in actual combat; i.e. no military engagement. If you have something to actually counter that, again, step out from your secure and preferred shadows. going after wikileaks??? Again, how weak is your argument/position that you need to fabricate? I simply pointed out the claimed memo (can you find it... cause I can't), comes from an American source... an unnamed source without any suggestion of the position that supposed source held. The memo doesn't reflect upon a formal meeting; rather, the claim is the memo represents nothing more than a personal one-on-one conversation between this unknown, unnamed American source and a lower-level political staffer. Apparently, this is the minimum level, the measly degree of qualification that suits you and your agenda. I'm making a mental note the next time you go off the deep end when someone else references wikileaks... someone other than you, that is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 your own provided link speaks directly to the Defense Minister's statement that the Canadian military had government orders not to commit any assistance towards the illegal Iraq invasion. Do you deny your own provided link's information? your own provided link speaks directly to the Department of National Defense issuing Canadian naval commanders in the Gulf clear orders not to engage in anything to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Do you deny your own provided link's information? what would you call military commanders that ignore government and DND orders not to engage in/provide support for 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'? What would you call those military commanders if not rogue? What word(s) would you use? Step up and answer something put to you directly for a change, hey? my understanding is that during the actual illegal Iraq invasion, no Canadian navy personnel engaged in actual combat; i.e. no military engagement. If you have something to actually counter that, again, step out from your secure and preferred shadows. going after wikileaks??? Again, how weak is your argument/position that you need to fabricate? I simply pointed out the claimed memo (can you find it... cause I can't), comes from an American source... an unnamed source without any suggestion of the position that supposed source held. The memo doesn't reflect upon a formal meeting; rather, the claim is the memo represents nothing more than a personal one-on-one conversation between this unknown, unnamed American source and a lower-level political staffer. Apparently, this is the minimum level, the measly degree of qualification that suits you and your agenda. I'm making a mental note the next time you go off the deep end when someone else references wikileaks... someone other than you, that is! And which link is that Waldo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 Exactly, the Canadian military won't be going into Syria in a situation similar to as it did in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf region (guarding the shores of Afghanistan per Waldo) or Libya….. again, how weak is your position that you need to continue this charade of "Afghanistan beaches... the shores of Afghanistan"? I asked you directly to respond to the following question, twice now. Apparently, you'd rather play silly-buggar than answer it! Of course you would! again... just answer this question, now for the 3rd time: "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?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 And which link is that Waldo? tell me, please tell me... you didn't even read your own provided link!!! . http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-wikileaks.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 my understanding is that during the actual illegal Iraq invasion, no Canadian navy personnel engaged in actual combat; i.e. no military engagement. If you have something to actually counter that, again, step out from your secure and preferred shadows. Does the boarding party of HMCS Montreal (among all the other Canadian warships), which was deployed to the Gulf from Sept of '02 until the end of April of '03 count? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 tell me, please tell me... you didn't even read your own provided link!!! . Sure I did, so you're using the very link that I provided, and you pooh-poohed it's content when it countered your "points", but point to the stuff you like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 again, how weak is your position that you need to continue this charade of "Afghanistan beaches... the shores of Afghanistan"? I asked you directly to respond to the following question, twice now. Apparently, you'd rather play silly-buggar than answer it! Of course you would! again... just answer this question, now for the 3rd time: "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?" No, as provided in the link from DND, said mission was in support of the "War on Terror", of which the war in Afghanistan was a part........Are you stating Canadian warships did not board ships bound for Iraq and escort coalition ships through choke points in the Persian Gulf leading up to and during the opening months of the war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 No, you provided quotes to attempt to back up your claim of the Governments "planned military intervention" into Syria are you that intellectually dishonest that you have to fabricate what I said? Provide the quote that aligns with this, your most recent fabrication... waiting! Why your very first quote: 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. so that quote of mine... what you call my very first quote... that is your testament to my supposed claim that, as you say, "the Harper Conservatives planned military intervention into Syria"!!! Classic... it doesn't get any better than this. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 so that quote of mine... what you call my very first quote... that is your testament to my supposed claim that, as you say, "the Harper Conservatives planned military intervention into Syria"!!! Classic... it doesn't get any better than this. . They're your words.............So what say you on Syria Waldo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 Sure I did, so you're using the very link that I provided, and you pooh-poohed it's content when it countered your "points", but point to the stuff you like? if you in fact did read your own provided link then you should have no trouble in accepting the Defense Minister's statement that the military received government orders not to support the illegal Iraq invasion..... you should also have no trouble in accepting the statement that the Department of National Defense provided orders to naval commanders not to engage/support "Operation Iraqi Freedom". If you read it... and you provided it... you either accept those statements or you deny them. Your choice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 They're your words.............So what say you on Syria Waldo? my words that no matter how hard you twist yourself inside out... they'll never match your fabrication - never. Again, your intellectual dishonest rises to the top! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 No, as provided in the link from DND, said mission was in support of the "War on Terror", of which the war in Afghanistan was a part........Are you stating Canadian warships did not board ships bound for Iraq and escort coalition ships through choke points in the Persian Gulf leading up to and during the opening months of the war? do you deny that Operation Apollo was in support of the greater 'umbrella' Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 if you in fact did read your own provided link then you should have no trouble in accepting the Defense Minister's statement that the military received government orders not to support the illegal Iraq invasion..... you should also have no trouble in accepting the statement that the Department of National Defense provided orders to naval commanders not to engage/support "Operation Iraqi Freedom". If you read it... and you provided it... you either accept those statements or you deny them. Your choice! Sure I did....I love this part: Eugene Lang, chief of staff to then defence minister John McCallum, says there was no end of internal debate over whether the Canadian Forces were being put into a mission impossible. "How do you know if something is connected to terrorism or Iraq? When you are intercepting unknown boats, you don't know what you have taken over until you have taken it over." Lang says that 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. "But who knows whether in fact we were doing things indirectly for Iraqi Freedom? It is quite possible." McCallum's former chief recalled a bitter internal battle over whether to pull the Canadian ships out of the Gulf altogether to avoid any confusion. "For a long time, the [Canadian] military pushed really hard not to be in Afghanistan, and instead be part of a full-blown boots-on-the-ground Iraq invasion," Lang said. "So the military was dead set against pulling out [of the Gulf], and in the end the government decided we would stay mainly, I think, for Canada-U.S. relations." Former defence minister McCallum recalls he and his officials having "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." What happens in the Persian Gulf stays in the Persian Gulf eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 Does the boarding party of HMCS Montreal (among all the other Canadian warships), which was deployed to the Gulf from Sept of '02 until the end of April of '03 count? does you think providing your 8x10 glossies provides you... cred? Let's try this again - I fully qualified the focus as the illegal Iraq invasion... I'm quite sure I've pointedly used that direct phrase many times now. If you can fully qualify a boarding party as a part of that illegal invasion, I guess it counts - can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 do you deny that Operation Apollo was in support of the greater 'umbrella' Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)? And what was OEF's purpose & mandate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 does you think providing your 8x10 glossies provides you... cred? Let's try this again - I fully qualified the focus as the illegal Iraq invasion... I'm quite sure I've pointedly used that direct phrase many times now. If you can fully qualify a boarding party as a part of that illegal invasion, I guess it counts - can you? You stated RCN personal did not take part in combat operations in the Persian Gulf..........Ballistic armour and submachine guns worn by the boarding parties , coupled with crew serviced weapons aboard the Destroyer/Frigate and it’s accompanying Sea King were not for shits and giggles…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 Sure I did....I love this part: just curious - do you have a seeing disability that requires you to pad out your posts with at least 3 lines between each statement/paragraph? Are you trying to substitute white noise for your lack of being able to offer anything of substance? good to see you're actually reading your own provided link - does this now mean you will finally accept those 2 key points being made in your own provided link: that the military received government orders not to support the illegal Iraq invasion/operation... and that the DND gave direct orders to the navy not to engage in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Will you finally accept those 2 key points from your own provided link... or do you deny them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 16, 2013 Report Share Posted June 16, 2013 You stated RCN personal did not take part in combat operations in the Persian Gulf.......... no - no I did not! I said, as I was aware, they did not engage in combat during the illegal Iraq invasion. Do you actually appreciate the distinction? 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.