Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 have you shown the same degree of concern for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (women and children) killed during the illegal U.S./UK invasion of Iraq? Did YOU show any concern for them then? If so, why is that concern gone now? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Is further instability in a region of economic importance a preferable option? Only to a stockholder in a munitions factory. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
dre Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 The group attacking them is headquartered in Syria, and its 'soldiers' are being armed, equipped and trained there, then sent into Iraq. No thats not even vaguely true. ISIL did not enter Iraq from Syria they entered Syria from Iraq. Most of their central C&C is now believed to be in Mosul. This is an old Iraqi group that just announced its expansion into Syria recently. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Suppose you tell me why we bothered to help the people in Indonesia? It wasn't our problem. Why did we spend the time and money and go there?It's not a comparable situation at all. I said I support giving humanitarian aid once the region is stabilized. The tsunami was a natural disaster and we provided humanitarian relief. Iraq is a war and we're providing military support. They're not comparable situations at all. Quote
waldo Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Why the Conservatives are 'holding back' is up to them. They're not particularly communicative on the subject. Your assertion that 'self defense' doesn't involve crossing the border into Syria is simply silly. The group attacking them is headquartered in Syria, and its 'soldiers' are being armed, equipped and trained there, then sent into Iraq. Of course Iraq and its allies have the right to attack them there. sure Argus, sure! In the absence of a true self-defense justification and no UN sanction, that's exactly why the U.S. came up with a ready-reach to the next best boogeyman... the Khorasan! Sounds foreboding... not WMD scary, but worthy of all manner of media hype! The Fake Terror Threat Used To Justify Bombing Syria US ties itself in legal knots to cover shifting rationale for Syria strikes --- lawyers use Iraq’s right of self-defence and weakness of Syrian regime – which US has undermined – to justify failure to seek UN approval . Quote
eyeball Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Sending jets to launch strikes on ISIS is one thing. Going to war for 6 months is something else entirely. Why? If you're in for a penny you're in for a pound. That said we effectively hitched our wagons to the same train years ago given how far we've overlooked our allies' complicity in one of the biggest geopolitical train-wrecks in history. Friends get in the way of friends who intend to drive drunk and we should have reacted to our allies no differently. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Keepitsimple Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Sounds like the usual suspects are finding any reason to jump on Harper.....but by doing so, they are condemning the actions that are being taken by the growing number of coalition countries.....and hey - that's OK - if you believe this coalition should just "back off", that's your choice - but if not, then Canada should chip in what we can with countries like Denmark, Belgium, France, Italy and whoever. But be up front - don't be knocking Harper and Canada - tell us you simply don't believe in "going to war" against ISIS/ISIL. Quote Back to Basics
cybercoma Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Sounds like the usual suspects are finding any reason to jump on HarperYou trot out this tired line in every single thread. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 You trot out this tired line in every single thread. That's because there are a number of like-minded posters - the "usual suspects". Feel free to use it in retort. Quote Back to Basics
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 This is rich....look at 'em squirm...deserves its own topic ! Consider it done. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) Sounds like the usual suspects are finding any reason to jump on Harper.....but by doing so, they are condemning the actions that are being taken by the growing number of coalition countries.....and hey - that's OK - if you believe this coalition should just "back off", that's your choice - but if not, then Canada should chip in what we can with countries like Denmark, Belgium, France, Italy and whoever. But be up front - don't be knocking Harper and Canada - tell us you simply don't believe in "going to war" against ISIS/ISIL. I dont really blame this on Harper... He's consistant. He thought we should have gone into Iraq the first time as well. As for the "coalition", there was a decent sized coalition involved in the last Iraq adventure as well.... Operation: OOPS! Shoulda thought THAT through a little more. Im seeing the same patterns here... Its being presented to the population as "no big deal". Just a few airstrikes! Reminds me of Americans being told the 2003 operation would take "a few months" and "pay for itself with oil revenues. A decade and 3 trillion dollars later Iraq is more of a basket case now then it was in 2003, and Irans position in the region is exponentially stronger. I dont like ISIL... and if I believed that we could go in and get rid of them, and make sunnis and Shia in Iraq and Syria live peacefully with each other, then Id be all for it. But I dont believe this... this will turn into another protracted clusterphuck, and even if we COULD wipe out ISIS (and anyone paying attention knows we cant) then another group would just step up in its place because ISIS isnt the problem... bitter sectarianism is the problem. So now well send in the keystone cops again to bungle their way into yet another protracted comedy of errors, all at the expense of tax payers in these coalition countries. And when we finally leave... the problems will still remain. In a 100 years from now, our children will be debating whether or not the 50th attempt at military intervention over there is a good idea or not. And the chirpy gerbil faced optimists will be saying "this time its finally gonna work". Its like we have absolutely no capacity to learn from our experiences. So yeah... count me in the "doesnt believe in going to war against ISIS" group. And remember that you DID when ever single thing Iv said turns out to be true. Just like it did after Operation: Ooops! Edited October 4, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) No thats not even vaguely true. ISIL did not enter Iraq from Syria they entered Syria from Iraq. Most of their central C&C is now believed to be in Mosul. This is an old Iraqi group that just announced its expansion into Syria recently. ISIL's main headquarters, from all I've read, are in Syria. That's where it's getting its recruits and equipment. It's true some of the originals came across as volunteers from Iraq among other places, but the group was spawned in Syria's civil war. Edited October 4, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Keepitsimple Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 I dont really blame this on Harper... He's consistant. He thought we should have gone into Iraq the first time as well. As for the "coalition", there was a decent sized coalition involved in the last Iraq adventure as well.... Operation: OOPS! Shoulda thought THAT through a little more. Im seeing the same patterns here... Its being presented to the population as "no big deal". Just a few airstrikes! Reminds me of Americans being told the 2003 operation would take "a few months" and "pay for itself with oil revenues. A decade and 3 trillion dollars later Iraq is more of a basket case now then it was in 2003, and Irans position in the region is exponentially stronger. I dont like ISIL... and if I believed that we could go in and get rid of them, and make sunnis and Shia in Iraq and Syria live peacefully with each other, then Id be all for it. But I dont believe this... this will turn into another protracted clusterphuck, and even if we COULD wipe out ISIS (and anyone paying attention knows we cant) then another group would just step up in its place because ISIS isnt the problem... bitter sectarianism is the problem. So now well send in the keystone cops again to bungle their way into yet another protracted comedy of errors, all at the expense of tax payers in these coalition countries. And when we finally leave... the problems will still remain. In a 100 years from now, our children will be debating whether or not the 50th attempt at military intervention over there is a good idea or not. And the chirpy gerbil faced optimists will be saying "this time its finally gonna work". Its like we have absolutely no capacity to learn from our experiences. So yeah... count me in the "doesnt believe in going to war against ISIS" group. And remember that you DID when ever single thing Iv said turns out to be true. Just like it did after Operation: Ooops! That means you'd be willing to live with the consequences of doing nothing and let ISIS run rampant over the Middle East. The situation is different today than it was in 2003....but at least you've made your position clear. That's all anyone can ask. Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) It's not a comparable situation at all. I said I support giving humanitarian aid once the region is stabilized. Suppose it doesn't get stabilized? Suppose while you're sitting there with your little wagon loaded with moist toilettes and cocoa-puffs waiting to feed the poor refugees ISIL simply takes over the area and establishes a state set on killing any non Muslims it finds (and any Muslims which won't worship as they do) and starts sending suicide bombers to New York, Paris, Toronto and London? What are you going to do with your humanitarian aid then? They're not comparable situations at all. Natural disaster that kills a whole lot of innocent people vs an unnatural disaster that kills a whole lot of innocent people. What's the difference from the perspective of wanting to stop it? Edited October 4, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Why? If you're in for a penny you're in for a pound. That said we effectively hitched our wagons to the same train years ago given how far we've overlooked our allies' complicity in one of the biggest geopolitical train-wrecks in history. Would it make you feel better if Iraq disintegrated after Hussein died of natural causes? Hundreds of thousands died WITH the Americans there to keep a lid on it. How many do you think would have died otherwise? There's no way it would have survived him. Syria won't survive the death of Assad either. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 ISIL's main headquarters, from all I've read, are in Syria. That's where it's getting its recruits and equipment. It's true some of the originals came across as volunteers from Iraq among other places, but the group was spawned in Syria's civil war. In a civil war against a dictator...that amongst other things employed gas warfare against his own civilians...and now Canada has positioned itself to gain permission from this same war criminal to drop bombs on his enemies. Maybe we should use barrel-bombs. With an election looming and promises of a balanced budget by then the government will be under real pressure to keep costs down. When in Syria do like the Syrians. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 In a civil war against a dictator...that amongst other things employed gas warfare against his own civilians...and now Canada has positioned itself to gain permission from this same war criminal to drop bombs on his enemies. Maybe we should use barrel-bombs. With an election looming and promises of a balanced budget by then the government will be under real pressure to keep costs down. When in Syria do like the Syrians. I'll give you it is a strange situation. Assad is only somewhat better than ISIL. Somewhat being an uncertain term. But he's not batshit crazy like they seem to be. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Would it make you feel better if Iraq disintegrated after Hussein died of natural causes? Hundreds of thousands died WITH the Americans there to keep a lid on it. How many do you think would have died otherwise? There's no way it would have survived him. Syria won't survive the death of Assad either. Keeping a lid on what? Iraq and Syria should never have been created in the first place. All that's happening right now is the natural albeit highly volatile course of evolution that has been retarded by outside interventionists for around 100 years now. Keep a lid on it...give your head a shake. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
waldo Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 ISIL's main headquarters, from all I've read, are in Syria. That's where it's getting its recruits and equipment. It's true some of the originals came across as volunteers from Iraq among other places, but the group was spawned in Syria's civil war. perhaps you should bone-up on the distinction between ISIS and ISIL... here's another clue for you: many of the prominent players in ISIS/ISIL are former Hussein republican guards, like the "King of Clubs" in that fanciful U.S. military deck of cards! What goes around, comes around, hey! Quote
Charles Anthony Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Folks, Stop the thread drift. Ch. A. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
waldo Posted October 5, 2014 Report Posted October 5, 2014 ...Trudeau's crass, political decision that opposing intervention will be worth more votes? winning vote positions? The JT speech (as linked to previously) --- Liberal Party of Canada cannot and will not support Prime Minister’s motion to go to war in Iraq versus a bit of historical hindsight perspective: Canadians Stand With You Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations. This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us. But we will not be with the Canadian government. Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century -- against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism -- Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand -- and I believe most Canadians will stand with us -- for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future. Quote
PrimeNumber Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. hahaha Harper loves to think Canada is a militarized society like America.. Canada was forged around a conference table in Charlottetown by people of intelligence and good will. Quote “Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find your way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it into a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”― Bruce Lee
Smallc Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 That's correct to a point. War has been very big in shaping Canada. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 Yeah he pissed away >28 million bucks on ads for the 1812 war. Quote
jbg Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 hahaha Harper loves to think Canada is a militarized society like America.. Canada was forged around a conference table in Charlottetown by people of intelligence and good will. The U.S. was forged in weeks of debate among some of the most intelligent people in the world, in 1776 (the Declaration of Independence) and 1787 (the Constitution). Your equivalents? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
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.