On Guard for Thee Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 Not to mention we are in all likelihood breaking international law when we cross the Syrian border to bomb. Quote
Big Guy Posted March 25, 2015 Author Report Posted March 25, 2015 To Derek 2.0 - You appear to be more optimistic about Canadian involvement in this most recent war in the Middle East. You also appear to have given this situation a lot of thought. How do you feel that this mission is any clearer than that in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? While I do disagree with some of your views I do respect your understanding of warfare. What makes you feel that this mission will be any more successful than those failed ones in Afghanistan and Libya? (Unless you feel that Afghanistan and Libya were successful). Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Derek 2.0 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 1. Is creating a stable ME what we've really been doing for a decade? Why are we doing this and who for? We've been involved in the ME, fostering peace and stability (with the use of our military), far longer than a decade, dating back to the 1950s 2. Treating, sheltering and relocating those affected by war is a useful and noble deed. Training those that wish to defend their own state and also those that would provide treatment and aid to those affected by war is important and necessary. But we're already doing that, in addition to providing specific vital skills the Iraqi and Kurdish forces do not have and can't acquire in the short-medium term 3. I think Big Guy already handled this point very well two posts above this one: http://www.mapleleaf...-2#entry1041316 I disagree........the intent of the mission is very clear: First to halt the spread of ISIS controlled territory, followed by aiding the Iraqi and Kurdish forces in regaining territory lost and restoring a semblance of stability within the region. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) To Derek 2.0 - You appear to be more optimistic about Canadian involvement in this most recent war in the Middle East. You also appear to have given this situation a lot of thought. How do you feel that this mission is any clearer than that in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? While I do disagree with some of your views I do respect your understanding of warfare. One key difference is that we're not attempting to create a democratic nation out of a despotic regime........We've been requested by a democratically elected Government to provide assistance in creating stability. What makes you feel that this mission will be any more successful than those failed ones in Afghanistan and Libya? (Unless you feel that Afghanistan and Libya were successful). Without wading into the successes and failures of both past missions, in this case (as mentioned) we're aiding a Democracy, well expending very little political capital at home, hence no domestic urging to leave prior to the mission being completed... Edited March 25, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Topaz Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 I wonder in those polls that were taken and showed that 80% agree to Canada part, where asked a different question like, IF you agree with Canada part of fighting ISIS, would you also agreed to having your children or grand kids being drafted, if the need should present itself???? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 I wonder in those polls that were taken and showed that 80% agree to Canada part, where asked a different question like, IF you agree with Canada part of fighting ISIS, would you also agreed to having your children or grand kids being drafted, if the need should present itself???? Why would pollsters ask a moot question? The Canadian Forces have been an all volunteer force for over 70 years... Quote
eyeball Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 We've been involved in the ME, fostering peace and stability (with the use of our military), far longer than a decade, dating back to the 1950s We also killed democracy there in the 50's, in the one place it really would have made a difference if it were around today. What ever good we've done stands in an insignificant corner of that omnipresent shadow. Virtually everything else we've touched since over there has accordingly turned to shit too. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Derek 2.0 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 We also killed democracy there in the 50's, in the one place it really would have made a difference if it were around today. What ever good we've done stands in an insignificant corner of that omnipresent shadow. Virtually everything else we've touched since over there has accordingly turned to shit too. That's doubtful.....Mosaddegh's secular, Communist leanings would likely have either resulted in his overthrow by Shia clerics (several decades earlier than the Shah as per historic) at best, at worse, the precipice to global nuclear war as the balance of control of Middle Eastern oil would have tilted into the Soviets favor. Quote
eyeball Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 If there really is anything to these old Cold War arguments and justifications for having behaved in a manner that's caused so much grievance throughout the Muslim world why wouldn't our officials would be using them to plead the West's case today? Why the ideology of hate nonsense? Is history just too nuanced for public consumption in the minds of political parties? You're a Conservative party member, are you just told the same thing the public is at your meetings? I mean, you're making it sound like we did the world a favour when we actually overthrew a secular democracy in a region that is so desperately short of them. We actually had to destroy a democracy to pave a way toward it. Do you think the men who had to make that decision wept at the cruel twist of fate circumstances forced upon them? Like sailors having to trap their fellows behind a watertight hatch to save the ship. Why can't we plead something like that to drum up support for now going back to open that hatch once and for all? Too nuanced? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 The "West" undermined democracy in many other parts of the world for various reasons, without Sharia consequences. ....1953 was a good year except for Queen Mary dying, right ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 We killed democracies for the noblest of reasons that for some reason can't be incorporated into any sort of cogent rationalization today. How does one explain that? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 We killed democracies for the noblest of reasons that for some reason can't be incorporated into any sort of cogent rationalization today. How does one explain that? One doesn't have to....historical context and decisions at the time weren't judged then and certainly can't be judged now in retrospect. To what purpose ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 One doesn't have to....historical context and decisions at the time weren't judged then and certainly can't be judged now in retrospect. To what purpose ? Not judged, examined, so as to hopefully not make the same mistakes yet again. Quote
Argus Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 We killed democracies for the noblest of reasons that for some reason can't be incorporated into any sort of cogent rationalization today. How does one explain that? Why do you talk as if democracy is somehow intrinsically a good thing? Democracy merely means going by the will of the people. If the people are savages and fanatics that's what your democracy will look like. Any elected democratic state in the middle east today would implement Sharia law, for example. Every poll shows massive majorities in those states want it. That means execution for adulterers and homosexuals and anyone who dares to insult or leave Islam, and all the rest of the barbarous laws and regulations concerning lopping off hands and other body parts and burying people in the dirt to stone them to death. 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 March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 So as I understand it what we have over there is a group of genocidal mass rapists and murderers and slave traders gleefully inspiring terrorism around he world. Harper says we should help our allies in hemming them in and Trudeau and Mulcair basically say "Not our problem". Have I got that right? 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 March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 So as I understand it what we have over there is a group of genocidal mass rapists and murderers and slave traders gleefully inspiring terrorism around he world. Harper says we should help our allies in hemming them in and Trudeau and Mulcair basically say "Not our problem". Have I got that right? Yep. Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 So as I understand it what we have over there is a group of genocidal mass rapists and murderers and slave traders gleefully inspiring terrorism around he world. Harper says we should help our allies in hemming them in and Trudeau and Mulcair basically say "Not our problem". Have I got that right? Theres slavery, rape, and terrorism all over the world... Is it ALL our problem? Exactly how much of other peoples money do you want to spend on your little experiment in global socialism? And the reality is, we SUCK at doing anything about these problems anyways. Failure, after failure, after failure. That why ISIL exists in the first place. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something really really stupid that just makes things worse. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 Why do you talk as if democracy is somehow intrinsically a good thing? Because our Dear Leader does, but it stands to reason Harper has about as much regard for democracy as you do. And Canada's the best country on Earth they say? Maybe in a pig's eye...a shitfaced pig that is. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Keepitsimple Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Why do you talk as if democracy is somehow intrinsically a good thing? Democracy merely means going by the will of the people. If the people are savages and fanatics that's what your democracy will look like. Two great quotes from Winston Churchill........ “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” Edited March 26, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted March 26, 2015 Report Posted March 26, 2015 Theres slavery, rape, and terrorism all over the world... Is it ALL our problem? Exactly how much of other peoples money do you want to spend on your little experiment in global socialism? And the reality is, we SUCK at doing anything about these problems anyways. Failure, after failure, after failure. That why ISIL exists in the first place. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something really really stupid that just makes things worse. So, in other words 'not my problem' is basically what you're saying? 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
Derek 2.0 Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 If there really is anything to these old Cold War arguments and justifications for having behaved in a manner that's caused so much grievance throughout the Muslim world why wouldn't our officials would be using them to plead the West's case today? Why the ideology of hate nonsense? Is history just too nuanced for public consumption in the minds of political parties? You're a Conservative party member, are you just told the same thing the public is at your meetings? What makes you think at party meetings that we're the ones being told anything and not the inverse? I mean, you're making it sound like we did the world a favour when we actually overthrew a secular democracy in a region that is so desperately short of them. We actually had to destroy a democracy to pave a way toward it. Do you think the men who had to make that decision wept at the cruel twist of fate circumstances forced upon them? Like sailors having to trap their fellows behind a watertight hatch to save the ship. I Wouldn't suggest the World as a whole benefited, more so just the "West"......Of course you could say the favor to the World was not being radiated and/or the benefit of being apart of a stable World economy, fueled by a largely secure source of energy. And no, I wouldn't think most involved would be remorseful, or to such an extent as they would be if they hadn't of acted within the West's collective best interests. Why can't we plead something like that to drum up support for now going back to open that hatch once and for all? Too nuanced? There's no need.......most within Western countries understand that religious nuts that want to kill them, well sitting atop the energy needed for them to go on with their day-to-day lives, are a bad thing......inversely, most in Western countries show (at best) indifference to less vital regions full of nuts killing each other (see Rwanda, Somalia etc)...... Quote
PIK Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 I like how they are trying to pin this as harpers war, when we have very little in it and we are with 60 other countries. The BS that comes form the left is unbelievable. But when you have no real scandals to whine about ,I guess you have to make some up. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
GostHacked Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 There is bull on the left AND the right. But don't let that get in the way of some kind of unity in order to make some progress. Divide and conquer, even here at home along political lines. Quote
Topaz Posted March 27, 2015 Report Posted March 27, 2015 Yes they have but many, even in the top brass, are leaving as it was said in a senate committee meeting I watched. Many young people don't want to fight , they don't like the war and as one said to me, "I'm not risking my life for someone like Harper and you don't see HIS kid in the military". The US have their problems too as far as treatment of their vets. Quote
Big Guy Posted March 27, 2015 Author Report Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) To PIK - For the last few years the finger of blame for the Afghanistan fiasco has been pointed by the Liberals and Conservatives at each other. Remember "Taliban" Jack Layton? He was the only one against any Canadian military involvement, was ridiculed by the Conservatives and was proven to be the only one who was right. Right now, the full benefit of and/or blame for the Canadian military involvement in Iraq and Syria is Harpers and the Conservative party. If things go well he can have a parade and celebrations (like he did after Libya - another mistake - remember that $850,000 celebration of our victory in Libya?)). If the body bags start coming home and the tide turns against this mission all of the blame will go to Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. Edited March 27, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
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.