DogOnPorch Posted December 20, 2015 Report Share Posted December 20, 2015 Qatar? Club Med for terrorists is somehow not involved in the conflict? Hah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted December 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2015 Well, it looks like the USA will have to rethink its plans to take Assad out: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/russian-jets-escort-assad-iran-trip-reports-151221081135789.html Looks like the Russians have shown that to get to Assad the USA will have to go through Putin. Does Canada really want to get involved in this escalating conflict that started as a simple civil war? Get Canadian troops out of there before a spark turns that region into a raging fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 21, 2015 Report Share Posted December 21, 2015 I think if the US wanted to actually kill Assad, a JDAM would have already found its mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 21, 2015 Report Share Posted December 21, 2015 If they did the price of oil would go up again. It's worth considering, there's no down side. The price of gas and oil going up IS a downside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted December 21, 2015 Report Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Tokyo Rose, Hanoi Jane, Big Giuy, all share in common a desire to pull their targetted country out of war. Indeed. I can just hear the "Cauck you die Canuck you die, go home Moose boy you die, go home this no game beaver boy you go gome..." Problem is who listens? I mean Tokyo Rose was a laugh. People used to laugh at her. Every war has one. Lord Hah Hah. Now Prince Charmming, Justin of Trudeau who I am not allowed to mention by feminizing his name as I have been told its a bannable offence on this forum among many broken and unrealistic and idiotic promises he made to get elected, continues t say he will pull the 6 CF18's out of Iraq. Indeed. They are still there and a few days ago once again they showed their value in taking part in an important counter offensive along with Canadian special forces on the ground. Of course Big Guy thinks that's playing the fiddle and we have these phony sniveling Liberals who whined and whimpered about stopping Canada's combat role now say what oh well you know the advisers were not engaged in combat. No no. Thatès not combat. The jets are combat but the boys on the ground, they are magical elves blowing kisses you see. Yah you see shooting at ISIL isn't combat its giving advise its not combat because Justin says so.. Justin Trudeau is a repulsive liar . He lied to get elected, he lies now claiming our boys on the ground are not engage din combat and had their lives saved by jet fighter support. How the hell do advisers on the ground not play a combat role and why are advisers on the ground fine to Lord Justin of Trudeau but not 6 jets. What crap. The only fiddle being played is Justin Trudeau every time he moves his mouth. . The RCAF showed its importance just a few days ago. If I was a supporter of ISIL you bet I would want the RCAF pulled. If Canada sends men in on the ground as advisers they will be shot at and fight and they are in far more danger than the jets but hey General Justin will figure that out. The Liberal party and the entire lot of them make up policy as they go along and they have made Canada a laughing stock. This Liberal arm pit of a politician hasnèt a clue what it means to fight terrorists. He grew up like Osama Ben Laden with a trust fun, sheltered, and served by nannies. As such he engages in the same marcissistic need to continually broadcast his face as some kind of mythical hero. Heès an idiot. One can only hope the Defence Minister returns and is not the puppet on the string he looks like, and speaks out. Edited December 21, 2015 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2015 Report Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) ISIL territory gains and losses for 2015...and Trudeau still wants to bring CF-18s home. From Jane's 360: Edited December 21, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 So, Mission Accomplished? Again? HA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 In this article,In ISIS Strategy, U.S. Weighs Risk to Population (link) the U.S., under Obama's "leadership" is favoring the civilians living under ISIS control to the lives of Westerners. This is contrary to his duties to both his country and his allies. It is the job of the people living in and near ISIS controlled regions to bring down their murderous overlords, on the grounds of either morality or self-preservation. The grounds or reasons don't interest me. But it is not our duty to fight a war in an ineffectual manner. Make no mistake, this is a war. They have taken "credit" for both Paris and San Bernardino. Even if the ISIS leadership or caliph had nothing to do with the massacres they now own the attacks, plain and simple. If we had to fight Germany and Japan this way in WW II the monster governments would still be in charge. A brief article excerpt from the left-leaning New York Times illustrates this: As the capital of the Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate, Raqqa holds a dense concentration of potential targets: The group’s top leaders work and live in the city, and the bureaucracy they have created to run the self-declared caliphate is based there. There are financial specialists, computer experts, field commanders and as many as 10,000 foot soldiers, and they congregate in dozens of places, including the headquarters buildings. Raqqa’s city hall is Exhibit A in the difficulties in targeting in an urban environment. Even the most advanced and precise missiles and bombs cannot achieve the surgical precision needed to target only militants in the city hall building, American officials said. The top floors are a dormitory for fighters from across the region, residents of Raqqa said, estimating that there are about 150 men, most of them from Saudi Arabia or Tunisia. But the rest of the building is used by civilians. One thing is clear; the responsibility for the death of civilians is on ISIS, not those trying to dislodge them or retaliate for the bloodbaths they perpetrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 The price of gas and oil going up IS a downside. Ha! Not for me. And surely, the higher the price, the more saved the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 The price of gas and oil going up IS a downside. How so? For who? Both Canada and the US produce more oil than they import. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 We really need to stop calling it a civil war. It should not have been called a civil war to begin with. Why not? It began as protest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 Qatar is prepared to spend $200 billion on hosting the World Cup of soccer - but is staying out of this Middle East conflict. We are being played like a fine fiddle. Yet again, where's Israel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 If we had to fight Germany and Japan this way in WW II the monster governments would still be in charge. ... One thing is clear; the responsibility for the death of civilians is on ISIS, not those trying to dislodge them or retaliate for the bloodbaths they perpetrate. That's funny, you can switch a word and now you sound like al-Qaeda re: 9/11: "One thing is clear; the responsibility for the death of civilians is on ISIS America, not those trying to dislodge them or retaliate for the bloodbaths they perpetrate." Also, you do realize, as stated in the article you linked, that killing scores of civilians will serve to encourage jihadist/ISIS/al-Qaeda recruitment and radicalization, and get our Arab allies PO'd...and further encourage more attacks by sympathizers inside western borders ISIS is playing a smart game. From your article: The three-month-old Russian air campaign has stood in stark contrast to the caution of American military planners. The Russian campaign has mostly targeted rebel groups in northwestern Syria that are opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad, and it has deployed fighter jet that use largely unguided bombs to strike their targets, killing hundreds of civilians, human rights groups say. The fear among many in Syria and the West is that the Russian campaign is handing the Islamic State and other militants a major propaganda victory. American officials say that if the United States were to go the same route, it would be likely to alienate the local Sunni tribesmen whose support is critical to ousting the militants, and the Sunni Arab countries that are part of the fragile American-led coalition. “We want to kill terrorists, but not in a way that will help new generations of them,” said a senior American military official in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 Why not? It began as protest. No it did not. And since we as NATO have supported the rebels from the start, it stopped being a civil war. Factions involved are NATO, rebels, Syria, Saudi Arabia, ISIS and Russia. Does that look like a civil war to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 No it did not. And since we as NATO have supported the rebels from the start, it stopped being a civil war. Factions involved are NATO, rebels, Syria, Saudi Arabia, ISIS and Russia. Does that look like a civil war to you? Yes it did. The Syrians protested (Arab Spring) and Assad responded with violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Yes it did. The Syrians protested (Arab Spring) and Assad responded with violence. Is it a civil war now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Is it a civil war now? What's so civil about war? (Slash starts to wail on the guitar) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Let me try one of your tactics by repeating my question over and over. Is it a civil war now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 Hmmm, there was another post here i made, but got deleted, and no warning from anyone.. To repeat , looks like the point cannot be argued against. It is not a civil war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 Our mods decide what is relevant. Tiresome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 Hmmm, there was another post here i made, but got deleted, and no warning from anyone..The last post of yours taken down in this thread was 6 months ago. It was taken down because you were feeding trolling. Here is a pre-emptive warning: Do not feed whatever-YOU-perceive-to-be-trolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 What does that mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 The last post of yours taken down in this thread was 6 months ago. It was taken down because you were feeding trolling. Here is a pre-emptive warning: Do not feed whatever-YOU-perceive-to-be-trolling. But you never deal with the trolls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 What does that mean? My post to Rue was deleted because it was perceived as feeding a troll. It was reported I guess. Funny really because I end up reporting a few of Rue's posts, and they are still allowed. However, the trolls are never dealt with... only those who take the bait get f'd in the end. That is not fair at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 The last five posts on this page are about moderating the thread, which is thread drift IMO. Some of it has been discussed via PMs - if you want to continue please take it to the moderation thread. 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.