Derek 2.0 Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 So Canada has just finished our first air sortie on ISIS. It was deemed "successful" and our targets were destroyed. Apparently we got a dump truck and a couple of bulldozers. There was no mention if that construction equipment was left by the Americans or Canadians. We did in the past pour a whole lot of ($billions") in humanitarian and infrastructure aid in there so it was probably our stuff. Not to worry. After we take out ISIS we can go back in and replace that equipment with more of our stuff - until the next civil war. Engineering equipment being used by ISIS to divert water from the Euphrates to flood farmland and limit the drinking water to the residents of Baghdad.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 jbg wrote; "Is there anything that the Harper Government can do that would satisfy you?" The Harper Government has done many things with which I agree. To again get involved in a civil war in the Middle East is not one of them. It was under his leadership that he got us involved in a shooting war in Afghanistan - a war that is looking like a bigger and bigger mistake as the years drag on. The action in Afghanistan was a mistake, the involvement in Libya was a mistake, this participation in the most recent coalition of the OOPS is mistake and any further military involvement in those civil wars in the Middle East would be a mistake. I think this PM is laying the groundwork as a "world leader" in anticipation of creating his own legacy and a job after he gets out of politics and using Canadian foreign policy as his vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 To Derek 2.0 - We obviously disagree about the Canadian involvement in this conflict. I try to highlight the absurdity of what we are doing there. The last few weeks have seen coalition air planes knocking out infrastructure (built by the USA/Canada and will have to be built by the USA/Canada), oil refineries (which will have to be rebuilt by the West), trucks, and tanks (left by the West). I find the whole process of target practice on former Western possessions and shooting the ISIS fighters like fish in a barrel a waste of time and certainly not an "honorable" cause. "Frontline" recently had a special on the creation of ISIS and how this war is going. I suggest that you take the time to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 I don't see your point with regards to whom built and paid for said infrastructure, now used by ISIS.........In my mind, its no different than Mers-el-Kebir, the bombing of French railroads or retaking Anderson Field during WW II..............Was killing Germans and Japanese any more or less honorable then killing members of ISIS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 I don't see your point with regards to whom built and paid for said infrastructure, now used by ISIS.........In my mind, its no different than Mers-el-Kebir, the bombing of French railroads or retaking Anderson Field during WW II..............Was killing Germans and Japanese any more or less honorable then killing members of ISIS? Agreed...does he think the Americans would not shoot down Iranian F-14 Tomcats because they were built in Long Island, NY ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) There is no honor in dropping bombs on people who cannot retaliate. There is no honor in shooting fish in a barrel. There is no honor in killing people in far away lands who have nothing to do with you. There is no honor in war. Derek 2.0 - I really have no interest in trading snipes with you. I know, understand and respect your position. I reject it as an argument for supporting Canadian involvement in this war or peace action or expedition or excursion or invasion or cleansing or whatever. I also have no interest in getting involved in the causes et al of the world wars. There are thousands of volumes written on hundreds of different opinions. I predict that this Canadian involvement will be more unsuccessful than our involvement in Afghanistan and Libya and we will live to regret what we have done. I predicted the same with our unfortunate involvement in Afghanistan and our wasted and expensive bombing of Libya - I was right. Please explain to me why you think we will be more successful here than we were in Afghanistan and Libya. Edited November 6, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 6, 2014 Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) Derek 2.0 - I really have no interest in trading snipes with you. I know, understand and respect your position. I reject it as an argument for Canadian involvement in this war or peace action or expedition or excursion or invasion or cleansing or whatever. Who is sniping? I offered my opinion and historic contrast to the opinion you put forth........fancy that on a political forum. You're fine with reaching towards the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but have no interest in discussing other historic conflicts as a contrast to the current war against ISIS......Would relating to the Punic Wars and Crusades be as off putting in this conversation to your myopic sensibilities? Edited November 6, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 My "myopic sensibilities"? Why would I want to waste any more of my time in trying to discuss anything of importance with you? You appear to be more comfortable with the adversarial nature of many of the attempts on dialogue on this board. I leave you to continue in that atmosphere and wish you luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 6, 2014 Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 ...Was killing Germans and Japanese any more or less honorable then killing members of ISIS? Given we adopted similar imperialist leanings after eliminating these rivals it would be more accurate to ask if we were/are any more or less dishonourable to which the answer is more. A lot more in light of knowing that we should have known better than to truck or trade with dictatorships that used their ill-gotten profits not too mention our military aid to subjugate, imprison, rape, torture, stone, murder, behead etc etc, their populations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 6, 2014 Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 My "myopic sensibilities"? I felt it a polite description of your point of view.... Why would I want to waste any more of my time in trying to discuss anything of importance with you? You've already attempted to define the parameters of this topic to a narrow minded meme that you agree with............For instance your previous post downplayed the targets of the recent RCAF air strike, but you then attempted to highlight the source of said targets.....when confronted with like examples from previous conflicts, you stated you don't want to talk about it.......... I don't really know where you've attempted to actually discuss anything........ You appear to be more comfortable with the adversarial nature of many of the attempts on dialogue on this board. I leave you to continue in that atmosphere and wish you luck. Not at all........This is a political forum, people of differing opinions opine their respective views in nearly every post...Personally, I prefer logical discourse and find myself asking questions of varying people's opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 6, 2014 Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 Given we adopted similar imperialist leanings after eliminating these rivals it would be more accurate to ask if we were/are any more or less dishonourable to which the answer is more. A lot more in light of knowing that we should have known better than to truck or trade with dictatorships that used their ill-gotten profits not too mention our military aid to subjugate, imprison, rape, torture, stone, murder, behead etc etc, their populations. Adopted Imperialist leanings? What do you base your view that Post-War the World lost its honor? I don't see a difference...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 6, 2014 Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) Maybe they want Canada's GBU-12 Paveway II laser guided bombs to be blessed by a shaman before they are dropped...honourably. Edited November 6, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 6, 2014 Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 Adopted Imperialist leanings? What do you base your view that Post-War the World lost its honor? I said us, the west, the Allies of Hypocrites - despite everything we claim to stand for we squandered our honour when we started trucking and trading with dictatorships that were as bad or worse as any we just shed a bunch of blood ridding the world of. I don't see a difference...... Yes, I can see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solidarity Posted November 6, 2014 Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 I don't see your point with regards to whom built and paid for said infrastructure, now used by ISIS.........In my mind, its no different than Mers-el-Kebir, the bombing of French railroads or retaking Anderson Field during WW II..............Was killing Germans and Japanese any more or less honorable then killing members of ISIS? The west completely destabilized Iraq through invasion, and been a major factor in the destabilization of Syria through supporting anti-assad elements with hundreds of millions of dollars of logistical and military aid. Now we blow up even more of the Syrian and Iraqi people's infrastructure (including highly valuable oil and gas infrastructure) to degrade the force we were instrumental in creating and allowing to grow. ISIS is not really a nation state and this is not a total war for western nations. It's a very different situation than your examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 The latest reports out of Syria are that coalition (basically USA) bombers have struck the Ahur al-Sham rebel group in the northern province of Idlib and the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, the Nusra Front in Western Aleppo on Thursday. At least 6 coalition air raids struck Idlib overnight with one targeting an Ahrar al-Sham position in the village of Babska. We are again running into a problem of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and who are we bombing? The Nusra Front is an al-Qaeda spawned organization but has nothing to do with ISIS and is fighting Assad - the same guy we are trying to take out. But I guess if we are there and have a few bombs left then maybe lets drop them on those folks. Ahrar al-Sham is another story. These are supposed to be the good guys since they are a rebel force against Assad and are the folks who are supposed to take over Syria after we get rid of Assad. Either these latest raids are a mistake or we are taking out those guys who are supposed to be on the ground and take over Syria. This fiasco is getting more and more ridiculous. We are being played like a fine fiddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 My "myopic sensibilities"? Why would I want to waste any more of my time in trying to discuss anything of importance with you? You appear to be more comfortable with the adversarial nature of many of the attempts on dialogue on this board. I leave you to continue in that atmosphere and wish you luck. Uh oh. This is where indignantly states he's put you on his 'ignore' list, then snipes at everything you post while trying to pretend he isn't still reading you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 The west completely destabilized Iraq through invasion, I've asked (you?) this before.........in what period of time was the Middle East "stable"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 I said us, the west, the Allies of Hypocrites - despite everything we claim to stand for we squandered our honour when we started trucking and trading with dictatorships that were as bad or worse as any we just shed a bunch of blood ridding the world of. The "West" dealt with nasty people long prior to World War II..........of course, many of those nasty leaders emerged after the "West" divested itself of Empires........No need to wheel and deal with tin-pot dictators when you "own" the joint... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 "There is no honour in dropping bombs on people who can not retaliate." Yep I read it here. After being released from prison, for my political views and I stepped forth into the sunshine, those words were waiting on a poster as I walked out of the prison. Underneath was the author's name, BIG GUY. So when I got in the taxi the guy driving it said, "where to". And I said anywhere but where Big Guy is. On a more direct note it is beyond me how anyone could make such a statement knowing what ISIL is and trying to rationalize not bombing them exploiting innocent civilians. Right no one should bomb ISIL. Its not honourable. Well heck no he doesn't mean ISIL themselves, he means civilians. Please don't suggest he thinks ISIL should be left alone. No no no. Oh well then. Its honourable to let ISIL continue to engage in slaughter and crimes against humanity rather than try use aircraft to stop them because well....its not honourable to prevent what they are doing if innocent people die. Um uh but aren't they dying already? Wouldn't they be slaughtered absolutely if there was no bombings at all, and this way in fact it will prevent such slaughters? No no no. We don't see morality as relative you know. Its Black and White. We pick a side, and that is it. We then build our arguments to try justify our bias. Me I support bombing. Big Guy well he thinks its dishonourable to attack ISIL because it might harm a civilian. Big Guy of course claims the moral high ground....,me well I was put in prison for suggesting what I think of his reasoning already so I should at least wait another hour because I call his attempt at moral condemnation the most jack assed statement I have ever read on this forum. The taxi driver has me at my destination. Its the War Memorial in Ottawa. I am going to get out now and spend a few minutes thinking about honour and what makes a soldier honourable. No doubt Big Guy can start another thread on how it was dishonourable for the West to have defeated Nazi Germany because they killed innocent civilians in removing Hitler from power;. Can't wait until he writes his book with that thesis as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 The latest reports out of Syria are that coalition (basically USA) bombers have struck the Ahur al-Sham rebel group in the northern province of Idlib and the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, the Nusra Front in Western Aleppo on Thursday. At least 6 coalition air raids struck Idlib overnight with one targeting an Ahrar al-Sham position in the village of Babska. We are again running into a problem of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and who are we bombing? The Nusra Front is an al-Qaeda spawned organization but has nothing to do with ISIS and is fighting Assad - the same guy we are trying to take out. But I guess if we are there and have a few bombs left then maybe lets drop them on those folks. Ahrar al-Sham is another story. These are supposed to be the good guys since they are a rebel force against Assad and are the folks who are supposed to take over Syria after we get rid of Assad. Either these latest raids are a mistake or we are taking out those guys who are supposed to be on the ground and take over Syria. This fiasco is getting more and more ridiculous. We are being played like a fine fiddle. Interesting info BG And I'd like to know Derek & Army Guy's take on this. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 "There is no honour in dropping bombs on people who can not retaliate." Yep I read it here. After being released from prison, for my political views and I stepped forth into the sunshine, those words were waiting on a poster as I walked out of the prison. Underneath was the author's name, BIG GUY.  So when I got in the taxi the guy driving it said, "where to". And I said anywhere but where Big Guy is.  On a more direct note it is beyond me how anyone could make such a statement knowing what ISIL is and trying to rationalize not bombing them exploiting innocent civilians. Right no one should bomb ISIL. Its not honourable. Well heck no he doesn't mean ISIL themselves, he means civilians. Please don't suggest he thinks ISIL should be left alone. No no no.  Oh well then. Its honourable to let ISIL continue to engage in slaughter and crimes against humanity rather than try use aircraft to stop them because well....its not honourable to prevent what they are doing if innocent people die. Um uh but aren't they dying already? Wouldn't they be slaughtered absolutely if there was no bombings at all, and this way in fact it will prevent such slaughters?  No no no. We don't see morality as relative you know. Its Black and White. We pick a side, and that is it. We then build our arguments to try justify our bias. Me I support bombing. Big Guy well he thinks its dishonourable to attack ISIL because it might harm a civilian. Big Guy of course claims the moral high ground....,me well I was put in prison for suggesting what I think of his reasoning already so I should at least wait another hour because I call his attempt at moral condemnation the most jack assed statement I have ever read on this forum.  The taxi driver has me at my destination. Its the War Memorial in Ottawa. I am going to get out now and spend a few minutes thinking about honour and what makes a soldier honourable.  No doubt Big Guy can start another thread on how it was dishonourable for the West to have defeated Nazi Germany because they killed innocent civilians in removing Hitler from power;.  Can't wait until he writes his book with that thesis as well. Prison? You want to share why? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Again RUE chooses to overstate in a blur of passion. So be it - I envy his dedication. There is no HONOR in dropping bombs on people who cannot retaliate. There is no HONOR on pulling the switch on a person condemned to death by law enforcement and sitting in an electric chair. There is no HONOR in being involved in a civil war, creating "collateral damage" (innocent civilians) while "executing" a bunch of people fighting for a cause. We do not even know who the "enemy" is. ISIS are killing people who we believe do not deserve to die. The coalition, of which we are a member, is killing people who we believe do not deserve to die. Meanwhile those with the most vested interest, the oil rich Arab nations, sit on the sidelines ready to sign contracts to rebuild what we are bombing. We are being played like a fine fiddle. Edited November 7, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 President Obama has just given the OK to send another 1,500 troops into Iraq to "train and assist" those folks who are fighting ISIS. I wonder if Canada will be asked to and agree to sending GROUND troops to "train and assist". Here we go again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 Interesting info BG And I'd like to know Derek & Army Guy's take on this. . My take: The "West" allied itself with the Soviets and Chinese Communists during the Second World War, the Chinese Communists allied themselves with the Vietcong/North Vietnamese Communists and the Americans supplied arms to the Mujahideen to combat the Soviets etc....An enemy of my enemy is my friend is a geopolitical reality.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 President Obama has just given the OK to send another 1,500 troops into Iraq to "train and assist" those folks who are fighting ISIS. I wonder if Canada will be asked to and agree to sending GROUND troops to "train and assist". Here we go again! Members of CSOR are already in theater doing exactly that...... 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.