War Against ISIL

[waldo]

Just watched retired Canadian Major-General Lewis Wharton MacKenzie on CTV. He was not enthusiastic about Canada joining this fight. His opinion was that those air bombing will just force ISIS into the urban centres. He also thought that using $half million bombs to take out 2 guys in a Toyota was not a very efficient policy. He did say that Iranian jets have already attacked rebels in Syria and that it is going to be interesting if/when coalition jets and Iranian jets find themselves in the same air apace bombing the same targets.

Now with the rejection of this involvement by both the NDP and Liberals, this is officially "Harper's War". If it proves successful (depending how success will be defined) than Harper gets a boost. If it does not and this thing is lingering through the next election then ...

2 guys in a Toyota!!! Apparently, that level of 'threat' was enought to warrant bringing out the top-dog U.S. F-22 in Syria... finally, after a decade of being the forever wall-flower, the much vaunted stealthy F-22 saw uhhh... combat... finally! Now, there are those wags/skeptics who suggest this show of F-22 pre-eminent "might is right" was only a way to further hype the fake Khorosan group as a supposed basis for substantiating the U.S. bombing of Syria... but, c'mon... that's just crazy talk! Calling the F-22 a "bomb truck"... that's low man, that's really low!

[Derek 2.0]

Just watched retired Canadian Major-General Lewis Wharton MacKenzie on CTV. He was not enthusiastic about Canada joining this fight. His opinion was that those air bombing will just force ISIS into the urban centres. He also thought that using $half million bombs to take out 2 guys in a Toyota was not a very efficient policy. He did say that Iranian jets have already attacked rebels in Syria and that it is going to be interesting if/when coalition jets and Iranian jets find themselves in the same air apace bombing the same targets.

Odd, I've seen the General on both CBC's P&P and Global, and his opinion is that air strikes are a good "first step", but further action (on the ground) will likely be needed.

[Derek 2.0]

2 guys in a Toyota!!! Apparently, that level of 'threat' was enought to warrant bringing out the top-dog U.S. F-22 in Syria... finally, after a decade of being the forever wall-flower, the much vaunted stealthy F-22 saw uhhh... combat... finally! Now, there are those wags/skeptics who suggest this show of F-22 pre-eminent "might is right" was only a way to further hype the fake Khorosan group as a supposed basis for substantiating the U.S. bombing of Syria... but, c'mon... that's just crazy talk! Calling the F-22 a "bomb truck"... that's low man, that's really low!

Or it’s an indication that recent avionics and mission software upgrades, designed to allow a more measurable attack capability, have been completed………coupled with a Syrian purchase of the Russian S-300 SAM system several years ago, with perhaps questions surrounding which faction is currently in control of it….

Edited October 4, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Big Guy]

Odd, I've seen the General on both CBC's P&P and Global, and his opinion is that air strikes are a good "first step", but further action (on the ground) will likely be needed.

Air strikes in that region are like shooting fish in a barrel. There is no retaliatory fire so the major danger is airplanes running into each other or the bombs hitting (who we later find out) are good guys. Perhaps necessary but certainly not noble. Mind you, beheading is not very noble either but we are supposed to be more "civilized" are we not?

Blowing civilians apart with cluster bombs and allowing them to watch their entrails as they slowly die is a more "humane" way to kill than beheading?

Beheading is brutal and certainly antagonizes those at which the videos are directed.

Why are those ISIS guys continuing to make these video productions? Are they "sweetening" the trap that they have set for the West?

Every bombing that has "collateral damage" serves to send more recruits to ISIS.

Why do we keep walking blindly into that trap?

[Derek 2.0]

Air strikes in that region are like shooting fish in a barrel. There is no retaliatory fire so the major danger is airplanes running into each other or the bombs hitting (who we later find out) are good guys. Perhaps necessary but certainly not noble. Mind you, beheading is not very noble either but we are supposed to be more "civilized" are we not?

Air traffic control is not an issue.........and ISIS/rebels have demonstrated the ability to shoot down aircraft......though measures are in place to greatly negate such a threat, it is still present.

Blowing civilians apart with cluster bombs and allowing them to watch their entrails as they slowly die is a more "humane" way to kill than beheading?

Beheading is brutal and certainly antagonizes those at which the videos are directed.

Why are those ISIS guys continuing to make these video productions? Are they "sweetening" the trap that they have set for the West?

Every bombing that has "collateral damage" serves to send more recruits to ISIS.

Why do we keep walking blindly into that trap?

Yes, your position on military action is known.........does any form of military action meet your approval? For instance, was the Second World war, a war with the costs?

[waldo]

Or it’s an indication that recent avionics and mission software upgrades, designed to allow a more measurable attack capability, have been completed………coupled with a Syrian purchase of the Russian S-300 SAM system several years ago, with perhaps questions surrounding which faction is currently in control of it….

you've showed off your Janes subscription an untold number of times in the past... are you saying "the bible" Janes... got it wrong? Notwithstanding those comments from an Israeli military top-dog stating that, "Syria would never be allowed to deploy a S-300 system".

Russia cancels Syrian S-300 deal

so... what next... will you claim the F-22 was needed to go up against the ISIS surveillance drones?

.

[Big Guy]

pass

Edited October 4, 2014 by Big Guy

[Derek 2.0]

you've showed off your Janes subscription an untold number of times in the past... are you saying "the bible" Janes... got it wrong? Notwithstanding those comments from an Israeli military top-dog stating that, "Syria would never be allowed to deploy a S-300 system".

Russia cancels Syrian S-300 deal

so... what next... will you claim the F-22 was needed to go up against the ISIS surveillance drones?

.

From your article:

Russia has used its Security Council veto to prevent the imposition of a UN arms embargo on Damascus and has admitted delivering some S-300 components to the Syrians. However, the deal was put on hold after it brokered the agreement under which Damascus surrendered its chemical weapons.

"We have delivered separate components, but the whole delivery has not been completed and for the moment we have suspended it," Russian President Vladimir Putin said in September 2013.

What is there, and who controls it?????

[Big Guy]

Air traffic control is not an issue.........and ISIS/rebels have demonstrated the ability to shoot down aircraft......though measures are in place to greatly negate such a threat, it is still present.

Yes, your position on military action is known.........does any form of military action meet your approval? For instance, was the Second World war, a war with the costs?

You seriously want to discuss the reasons for and results of the Second World war here? I think not.

Yes, I believe that Canadian military action is necessary when;

The national security interest of Canada is threatened.

We have a clear attainable objective.

We have fully and frankly analyzed the risks and costs.

We have exhausted all other non-violent policies and possibilities.

We have established a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement.

We have fully considered the consequences of our actions.

This action and war is supported by the Canadian people.

Canada has genuine broad international support for our participation in this war.

When all these criteria have been satisfied then we declare war and send our bravest into battle.

Those criteria have not been met in this case.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Big Guy

[Derek 2.0]

You seriously want to discuss the reasons for and results of the Second World war here? I think not.

Sure, why not?

Yes, I believe that Canadian military action is necessary when;

The national security interest of Canada is threatened.

We have a clear attainable objective.

We have fully and frankly analyzed the risks and costs.

We have exhausted all other non-violent policies and possibilities.

We have established a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement.

We have fully considered the consequences of our actions.

This action and war is supported by the Canadian people.

Canada has genuine broad international support for our participation in this war.

When all these criteria have been satisfied then we declare and war and send our bravest into battle.

Was such criteria present on September 3^rd, 1939?

[waldo]

What is there, and who controls it?????

you made a claim... an unsubstantiated claim... that the F-22 was deployed given the presence of a working S-300 system. I provided you a linked (August 2014) reference to Janes that suggests otherwise. Care to provide something beyond your expressed opinion?

[waldo]

Sure, why not?

Was such criteria present on September 3^rd, 1939?

.

[Derek 2.0]

you made a claim... an unsubstantiated claim... that the F-22 was deployed given the presence of a working S-300 system. I provided you a linked (August 2014) reference to Janes that suggests otherwise. Care to provide something beyond your expressed opinion?

You provided a link quoting the Russian president stating they halted the order, after delivering a portion........

[waldo]

You provided a link quoting the Russian president stating they halted the order, after delivering a portion........

no - I provided you a linked Janes article and asked you if "Janes had got it wrong". But again, do you have anything beyond your personal opinion to definitively show that a deployed working S-300 SAM system exists in Syria?

[Derek 2.0]

no - I provided you a linked Janes article and asked you if "Janes had got it wrong". But again, do you have anything beyond your personal opinion to definitively show that a deployed working S-300 SAM system exists in Syria?

I never said Janes got it wrong, they presented a clear quote from Putin.........which indicated a portion of the order was complete, which would jibe with this Israeli report

Russia has transferred several S-300 missile batteries into Syria, Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai reported Tuesday. The transfers took place despite statements by Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, that Russia would not provide Syria with the advanced anti-aircraft system.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Was such criteria present on September 3^rd, 1939?

No, but to be fair, those criteria were "borrowed" from a retired American general and Sec'y of State.

[Derek 2.0]

No, but to be fair, those criteria were "borrowed" from a retired American general and Sec'y of State.

Exactly........and when one employs said doctrine to the Second World War, the Allies should never have entered into it.....I doubt, if asked, Churchill, FDR, King or Stalin could have answered such questions....

[waldo]

I never said Janes got it wrong, they presented a clear quote from Putin.........which indicated a portion of the order was complete, which would jibe with this Israeli report

I never said you did. Again, I asked you if Janes got it wrong (in printing an article, as titled, that speaks to the cancelation of the Syrian missile system install).

I also asked you if you could go beyond your stated opinion and offer substantiated support for your claim that there was a deployed working S-300 SAM missile system in Syria... I'm still waiting for you to answer this... still waiting. Again, this was the crux of your claimed interpretation behind the utilization of F-22s by the U.S. in its bombing within Syria... still waiting.

[Smallc]

Even the possibility of such a system would lead to taking extra precautions. You're going on about nothing.

[waldo]

Even the possibility of such a system would lead to taking extra precautions. You're going on about nothing.

the... possibility? Are you suggesting the U.S. / Israel know... or don't know... whether a fully deployed, fully capable, S-300 SAM missile system exists in Syria? If someone makes a claim, an unsubstantiated claim, and presumes to leverage that claim as the foundation on why F-22s were deployed in Syria, I will most certainly ask for substantiation of that claim..... I will most certainly ask for the claimer to provide something beyond his personal opinion. I've asked repeatedly now; for some strange reason that ask goes unanswered - go figure!

again, if you're not aware this is the first actual 'combat' engagement for the F-22 (after a decade of having the F-22 sitting "idly by"). There is considerable critical commentary as to why the F-22 would be deployed to "take out 2 guys in a Toyota". More pointedly, there is critical suggestion that the F-22 was used as a part of the trumped up U.S. response to a claimed "Syrian based imminent threat" against the U.S. homeland.

[Derek 2.0]

I also asked you if you could go beyond your stated opinion and offer substantiated support for your claim that there was a deployed working S-300 SAM missile system in Syria... I'm still waiting for you to answer this... still waiting. Again, this was the crux of your claimed interpretation behind the utilization of F-22s by the U.S. in its bombing within Syria... still waiting.

I offered two quantified opinions on the Americans use of the F-22…….you offered an explanation best accompanied by the adorning of a hat made from tin-foil……You can continue to wait or carry on with this meme as you please.

[bush_cheney2004]

I offered two quantified opinions on the Americans use of the F-22…

Indeed....the Americans had deployed F-22 Raptors to the theatre some time ago. Latest rotation includes ground attack capabilities.

[waldo]

I offered two quantified opinions on the Americans use of the F-22……

does you calling your unsubstantiated claim a "quantified opinion" change anything? Again, you made an unsubstantiated claim that an active deployed S-300 SAM system exists in Syria... you further claimed that was the justification for the U.S. utilizing F-22s as "bomb trucks". On the other hand I linked to this Janes article Russia cancels Syrian S-300 deal... and simply asked you if Janes got it wrong? There's also no shortage of like articles from many other legitimate news outlets. Given the certainty within your expressed claim, I'm confused why you're unable to substantiate your..... opinion.

[Big Guy]

The Kurdish fighters are doing their best in Syria. It seems there are suicide fighters on both sides. I guess a suicide bomber on the ISIS side is a crazed fundamentalist lunatic animal bent on the destruction of democracy and the West while a suicide bomber on the Kurd side is a heroic freedom fighting example of dedication to a cause. It looks to me like they both end up dead.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/kurdish-suicide-bomber-attacks-isil-syria-201410518318542637.html

As to our last “successful” expedition into the Middle East, it seems that things are not going as well as we hoped when we followed the Canadian flag into Afghanistan. After a large number of Canadian military deaths and $billions of Canadian dollars to “allow little girls to go to school” things appear to be going back to where they were;

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/10/afghan-women-daily-battle-taliban-abuse-201410593752479802.html

Maybe it is time to send Canadian troops back into Afghanistan?

Maybe not!

Will we ever learn?

Keep posted!

[GostHacked]

.

I don't think learning the history is a distraction. It might help give us a concept of what we are looking at today. Could very well be the history taught of who the good guys and bad guys are is not the true history we are fed. To get to the nitty of it, we need to go beyond our basic school 'education' to get a better understanding of how and why.

This war can spread beyond the Middle East. And we are not helping solve the issue, we are helping create a bigger one.