Smallc Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 There are already displaced people needing care and some areas are cleared very quickly. If 10 houses on the street are burning, the ambulance doesn't wait until the last one is out. Canada is and has been providing aid. How you can respond to what I'm saying with your nonsense post is hard for me to understand. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 You don't rebuild infrastructure while it's being blown up. You create temporary structures and deliver aid while eliminating the problem. That's what Canada is doing now. There's nothing else to be done. I think there is only one of those items you can accomplish with an F 18. Quote
Smallc Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 If that was all that Canada was going you might have a point. Canada has sent over $30M in aid, as well as its other activities. Quote
PIK Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Canada is and has been providing aid. How you can respond to what I'm saying with your nonsense post is hard for me to understand.I read that since 2012 Canada has given more per cap in aid then any other country. JT should have done his homework. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Don't you get it? How about Belgium, the Dutch, Denmark, Australia and their "meager" resources - they seem to find a way to do both. It's not an either/or proposition - not for them, not for us.....and hey, humanitarian efforts are mostly done through NGOs - and what do they need to do their job? Money, supplies and yes wait for it.....security. oh... there's that list again! How about other NATO countries like Germany, Italy, Norway, etc., that chose not to contribute jet fighters... apparently, there's an either/or at play there, hey? Quote
PIK Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 oh... there's that list again! How about other NATO countries like Germany, Italy, Norway, etc., that chose not to contribute jet fighters... apparently, there's an either/or at play there, hey?We are not Germany or Italy or Norway. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 We are not Germany or Italy or Norway. oh snap! PIK... I must have missed you advising Simple (and the several others) as they run down the "other list"... why didn't you just perk up and tell Simple that, as you said, "We are not Belgium, the Dutch, Denmark, Australia, etc."? Hey! Quote
guyser Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 I read that since 2012 Canada has given more per cap in aid then any other country. JT should have done his homework.Must have been the SNN or the Sun, purely fictional of course. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) oh... there's that list again! How about other NATO countries like Germany, Italy, Norway, etc., that chose not to contribute jet fighters... apparently, there's an either/or at play there, hey? Well Waldo - lets look at Germany. As of 2014, the majority of Germany's military aircraft are grounded. The Sea Lynx helicopters have cracks in their tails, most of their Eurofighters and Tornadoes are unable to fly, and the aging C-160 fleet remains in limited service while waiting for the long delayed Airbus A400M.[13] Ursula von der Leyen admitted that due to the poor state of the Bundeswehr's equipment, Germany was no longer able to fulfill its NATO commitments. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Air_Force But to take your disingenuousness further, a bosom buddy of yours at the Star (Tim Harper) had the audacity to build a column around the same garbage that you're spewing: Not all allies have decided that international cachet means flying combat jets. Many are contributing humanitarian aid, an option often derided by Harper’s Conservatives as sending over some blankets. Germany’s Angela Merkel is one who has chosen blankets over bombs and no one is suggesting that Germany’s global voice will be diminished. Edited October 9, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Mighty AC Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Canada is and has been providing aid. How you can respond to what I'm saying with your nonsense post is hard for me to understand. He says incoherently.... Yes, Canada is providing aid. I'm saying that if we have X in money and resources to contribute to this mission, maybe that it would be best spent handling the great humanitarian need I've described. Maybe using a portion of X to send a handful of old jets to aid a military force with a plethora of hardware isn't the most beneficial option. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
On Guard for Thee Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Must have been the SNN or the Sun, purely fictional of course. Yes I'd like to know where he read that. Quote
Mighty AC Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Don't you get it? How about Belgium, the Dutch, Denmark, Australia and their "meager" resources - they seem to find a way to do both. It's not an either/or proposition - not for them, not for us.....and hey, humanitarian efforts are mostly done through NGOs - and what do they need to do their job? Money, supplies and yes wait for it.....security. It is always an either/or proposition. We have X to contribute to the mission. Money and resources spent on the attack portion limits the money and resources we can contribute to humanitarian endeavours. Part of our humanitarian work can certainly be security. If the US or NATO asked for our jets, then we should contribute in that fashion, but from what I understand that is not how it went down. I think Harper even had a little trouble remembering the details on that. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Derek 2.0 Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 It is always an either/or proposition. We have X to contribute to the mission. Money and resources spent on the attack portion limits the money and resources we can contribute to humanitarian endeavours. Part of our humanitarian work can certainly be security. If the US or NATO asked for our jets, then we should contribute in that fashion, but from what I understand that is not how it went down. I think Harper even had a little trouble remembering the details on that. Well no, its not always either/or.........Canada is contributing aid, but much of that aid is actually Eastern European supplied munitions, and our part is delivering it from those allies to the Iraqis and Kurds.....You could triple the amount of water/food/blankets/medical supplies etc you send, but what good is it when the Iraqi army and Kurds run out of bullets? Both women and children won't fend off ISIS which bottled water and rice........ As to the fighters, but also the ISR aircraft, these aircraft offer something both the Kurds and Iraqis do not have, well giving them a huge advantage over ISIS. Likewise the provision of special forces to both train and target smart munitions for the Iraqis and Kurds......I don't oppose the notion of delivering more humanitarian aid, and would add engineers and medical personal to the mix, but the threat ISIS poses has to be reduced to create a safe environment first. As to the actual need of our aircraft, as I've said before, our contribution paired with that of the Dutch, Danes, Belgians and Australians equals that of the strike wing of one United States aircraft carrier....nothing to scoff at, well allowing the Americans to utilize the like number of aircraft elsewhere against ISIS. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 What...this has now been reduced to a blanket party ? America can just do blankets too if that's all it will take...lot's of 'em...delivered. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 He says incoherently.... Yes, Canada is providing aid. I'm saying that if we have X in money and resources to contribute to this mission, maybe that it would be best spent handling the great humanitarian need I've described. And will the humanitarian aid save people from having their heads cut off? I'm not sure what some of you aren't getting. We have to do both. Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Well Waldo - lets look at Germany. yes, let us: per that recently 'leaked' internal German government review document, "42 of the Luftwaffe's 109 Eurofighter jets and 38 of its 89 Tornadoes are ready to fly"... that's 80 jets "ready to fly", hey Simple! Canada has 77 Hornets... care to advise how many are "ready to fly"? you're just too easy Simple! What... nothing to say about Italy or Norway (or other countries) not contributing jets? As for your "claimed garbage I'm spewing", sorry to burst your (and others) talking point bubble! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 yes, let us: per that recently 'leaked' internal German government review document, "42 of the Luftwaffe's 109 Eurofighter jets and 38 of its 89 Tornadoes are ready to fly"... that's 80 jets "ready to fly", hey Simple! Canada has 77 Hornets... care to advise how many are "ready to fly"? you're just too easy Simple! What... nothing to say about Italy or Norway (or other countries) not contributing jets? As for your "claimed garbage I'm spewing", sorry to burst your (and others) talking point bubble! Waldo - you're an amusing contrarian. If your Liberal buddies were in power - advocating strong support for NATO allies as they traditionally have done - you'd be on the other side of the fence talking up all the nations supplying air support. But of course, this is Harper and the Conservatives - so instead of focusing on those who have been asked to contribute to the Aerial mission, you shoose to trot out those who have not. Funny thing is......no one could ever mistake you for a Humanitarian. Quote Back to Basics
Peter F Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Derek: but what good is it when the Iraqi army and Kurds run out of bullets? Both women and children won't fend off ISIS which bottled water and rice........ Thats an interesting point. Who's supplying ISIS with bullets? Will they run out before Iraqi's and Kurds? Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
PIK Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Must have been the SNN or the Sun, purely fictional of course.Link? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Waldo - you're an amusing contrarian. If your Liberal buddies were in power - advocating strong support for NATO allies as they traditionally have done - you'd be on the other side of the fence talking up all the nations supplying air support. But of course, this is Harper and the Conservatives - so instead of focusing on those who have been asked to contribute to the Aerial mission, you shoose to trot out those who have not. Funny thing is......no one could ever mistake you for a Humanitarian. nice try Simple; in an earlier post I spoke to why I put forward your described "those who have not". You (and others) were regularly dropping a list of "those who have" with direct statement or implication along the lines of, "just look at all these countries... how can Canada not join in"! All I did was burst your talking point by showing you a sampling of NATO countries that chose, "not to join in the bombing". Of course, as is your typical failed level of analysis/review you thought you had a 'gotcha' with Germany... you didn't! Just another thing that, quite regularly, blows up in your face, hey! Quote
waldo Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 What...this has now been reduced to a blanket party ? America can just do blankets too if that's all it will take...lot's of 'em...delivered. you're already on record as stating Canada's bomb trucks will have no impact... as for what "America can do"... America can fix what it broke! Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Derek: Thats an interesting point. Who's supplying ISIS with bullets? Will they run out before Iraqi's and Kurds? ISIS has no outside source of supply, granted they captured tons upon tons of munitions from both the Syrian and Iraqi armies......as to who will run out first? The intent is to ensure that it is ISIS, as made evident by Allied airstrikes on ISIS munitions dumps, coupled with targeting ISIS supply convoys on Iraqi and Syrian highways............I wouldn't be surprised if ISIS is already experiencing shortages of heavier US supplied munitions (like tank and artillery shells and anti-tank missiles), captured off the Iraqis. Quote
eyeball Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) And will the humanitarian aid save people from having their heads cut off? I'm not sure what some of you aren't getting. We have to do both. What I don't get is why we have to align ourselves with beheaders. Edited October 9, 2014 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 There are already displaced people needing care and some areas are cleared very quickly. If 10 houses on the street are burning, the ambulance doesn't wait until the last one is out. It does if there's shooting going on. Most of the displaced are either in Baghdad or in neighbouring countries. I think those countries can look after them pretty well. 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 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 He says incoherently.... Yes, Canada is providing aid. I'm saying that if we have X in money and resources to contribute to this mission, maybe that it would be best spent handling the great humanitarian need I've described. Maybe using a portion of X to send a handful of old jets to aid a military force with a plethora of hardware isn't the most beneficial option. The issue you hand wringers continue to shrink from is that all your humanitarian aid will be utterly uselessly unless ISIS is stopped. I have no idea why you believe skulking around in the rear tossing bread around the survivors is somehow more noble than actually doing something about this. It must be a quirk of how your minds work. 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
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.