DogOnPorch Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Dropping bombs on poor countries is actually what created this mess. Yay Bush, keeping the military industrial complex rockin' and rollin' into the future. I beg to differ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks Or if one nit-picks... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War Before that, nobody gave a rat's rear about Islam. Islam equaled 1001 Arabian Nights...quaint...old....medieval...not relevant. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 ....and let's look at 1001 Arabian Nights for a moment. A slave girl must amuse her Muslim master with tales for 1001 nights to prevent him killing her. Nice...eh? Real Canadian values there. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
capricorn Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 And if you think that dropping bombs is going to "bring an end to this mess", you clearly haven't been paying attention. I'm certainly not in favour of random bombing where the risk of killing innocents is high. What I am in agreement with is strategic bombing of Daesh's resources such as oil wells which finance their operations and bombing their munitions facilities. That's where the coalition's air power can make a difference in this war. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Argus Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Oh come on. Harper was one of the biggest advocates for funding Islamists in Syria in order to fight a proxy war against Russia. Plenty of blame lies on Canada. Where are you coming up with these idiotic ideas anyway? 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 January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Yes, as much as we do the rest of the world affected by war. Can't do that with fighter jets though. So.... blankets then? Maybe a few stern memos sent to ISIS? 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 January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 I'm trying to figure out why we're fighting ISIS in the first place? It's very clear that if we don't attack them they'll leave us alone. It is? It's not clear to anyone else. In fact, it's fairly clear to anyone who listens to them that their plan of expansion is essentially limitless, and certainly doesn't stop at the borders of Iraq or Syria. Spain and Portugal, among other areas of the world, are on their target list as what they call "Muslim territory". http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/597254/ISIS-Map-Europe-Terror-Organisation-Andrew-Hosken-Caliphate-Abu-Musab-al-Zarqawi 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 January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Pretty much says it all. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-january-2016/article27950170/ 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
Moonlight Graham Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/world/middleeast/islamic-state-militants-japanese-hostage.html?_r=0 But maybe if we keep real quiet and ignore what they do, they won't bother us. I stand mistaken, Japan had become involved in the war in Syria/Iraq: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/shinzo-abe-vs-isis-japans-military-goes-abroad-12191 Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Topaz Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Segnosaur, u wanted proof of what I said about how many bombs and people killed. Here's one article and I get fine more if u like. http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-dropped-23144-bombs-on-muslim-countries-in-2015/5500921 Quote
Topaz Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 There's also an article why Canada and other countries shouldn't be in this so-called war against ISIS. http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-war-against-the-islamic-state-isis-a-complete-hoax-isis-al-qaeda-al-nusra-et-al-are-us-creations/5501526 Quote
Big Guy Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) I am amazed at the excuses that are being thrown out for why we should excuse ourselves from defending these innocent civilians. Dropping bombs on these civilians homes is not defending them. Edited January 20, 2016 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.
Big Guy Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 .., they are major league scum bags who engage in wide spread human rights abuses... One of the reasons that General Hillier gave for increased Canadian involvement in Afghanistan was that the Taliban were "scumbags and murderers". How did we make out there? 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.
Big Guy Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 I'm certainly not in favour of random bombing where the risk of killing innocents is high. What I am in agreement with is strategic bombing of Daesh's resources such as oil wells which finance their operations and bombing their munitions facilities. That's where the coalition's air power can make a difference in this war. If you bomb those oil wells and other infrastructure, and if eventually ISIS is defeated, just what is the next government going to have to work with? How can it create a stable government if the resources and assets have been destroyed? Is that not what happened in Iraq when the USA "won" that war? 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.
DogOnPorch Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Dropping bombs on these civilians homes is not defending them. Canada has NOT been bombing civilians in their homes. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
segnosaur Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 If you bomb those oil wells and other infrastructure, and if eventually ISIS is defeated, just what is the next government going to have to work with? How can it create a stable government if the resources and assets have been destroyed? Is that not what happened in Iraq when the USA "won" that war? First of all, keep in mind that Iraq's infrastructure was already in poor condition at the time of the invasion, so there was already a need for rebuilding. There is a parallel there with ISIS... people with any sort of skills are abandoning ISIS-held territory and as a result, their infrastructure will likely be falling apart in much the same way. So whether they have to rebuild after ISIS is defeated by airstrikes or goes out of business some other way, it will still need to be rebuilt. One of the reasons that General Hillier gave for increased Canadian involvement in Afghanistan was that the Taliban were "scumbags and murderers". How did we make out there? Well, on the whole, pretty darn good. Afghanistan is not a nice place to live... there is significant corruption, fighting between militant groups is common, and they are still struggling to rebuild their economy. But you know what? They are still better off than they were before the Taliban was defeated. Life expectancy has increased by over a decade, more children are in school (including girls, which didn't happen under the Taliban) and people are better off financially. The problem is, people like you seem to be comparing the Afghanistan of today with some sort of idealized utopia, when you should be comparing it to the way it was under the Taliban. Its not a modern western-style democracy now, and may never be. But that doesn't mean people's lives there aren't better than they were. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/04/what-went-right/ Quote
Big Guy Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Well, on the whole, pretty darn good. They are still better off than they were before the Taliban was defeated. Life expectancy has increased by over a decade, more children are in school (including girls, which didn't happen under the Taliban) and people are better off financially. The problem is, people like you seem to be comparing the Afghanistan of today with some sort of idealized utopia, when you should be comparing it to the way it was under the Taliban. . We obviously have very different views of what happened in Afghanistan: About 92,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan war since 2001. More than 26,000 of those killed have been civilians. Nearly 100,000 people have been injured since 2001. The Taliban now controls or is contesting 70 districts in Afghanistan and increase that number daily. The current government is in negotiations with the Taliban to form a permanent government. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/10/taliban-controls-or-contests-70-districts-in-afghanistan.php If you feel that those who were not killed have it better than they did in 2000, then we are not looking at the same facts. Edited January 20, 2016 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.
On Guard for Thee Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Canada has NOT been bombing civilians in their homes.Or, maybe THEY HAVE. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fifth-estate-canada-airstrikes-record-coalition-1.3296285 Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Or, maybe THEY HAVE. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fifth-estate-canada-airstrikes-record-coalition-1.3296285 I'll take the Canadian Armed Forces word that they don't target civilians in their homes. You're free to believe whatever you wish. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Big Guy Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 I'll take the Canadian Armed Forces word that they don't target civilians in their homes. You're free to believe whatever you wish.No one has claimed that Canadian Armed Forces target civilians in their homes. They are part of a coalition that accepts the killing of civilians in their homes as "acceptable collateral action". Like in "OOPS! Didn't mean to kill you but you got in the way." Since ISIS does not have airplanes then who has made those hundreds of thousands homeless? 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.
On Guard for Thee Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 I'll take the Canadian Armed Forces word that they don't target civilians in their homes. You're free to believe whatever you wish.Yes I am. And BTW, the slight of hand attempt at switching "bomb" for "target" did not go unnoticed. Now then, I have some beachfront you may be interested in. Quote
capricorn Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 No one has claimed that Canadian Armed Forces target civilians in their homes. They are part of a coalition that accepts the killing of civilians in their homes as "acceptable collateral action". Like in "OOPS! Didn't mean to kill you but you got in the way." Avoiding civilian casualties in targeted bombings has always required superior intelligence. We've all heard that Defence Minister Sajjan was sought out during his tours of duty in Afghanistan because of his keen knowledge and skills on how to obtain, gather and evaluate intelligence in the war zone. Sajjan himself praised Canada's abilities on the intelligence front. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the government is looking at ways to increase Canadian intelligence capabilities in the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS. Speaking to CTV’s Power Play on Wednesday, Sajjan emphasized the importance of the Canadian intelligence skills in the fight against the terror group. “Our intelligence capability is second to none. It’s always sought after and we are looking at different forms of capabilities, how we can increase that,” said Sajjan. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/sajjan-wants-increased-use-of-canadian-intelligence-in-isis-mission-1.2736376 British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said this about the purpose of the meeting at which our government was excluded: Fallon suggested today's meeting is focused on a plan to cut off supply lines, control centres and ISIS's economic base: in his words, "cut off the head of the snake." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/michael-fallon-isis-coaltion-canada-snub-1.3411618 Wouldn't developing a plan as spelled out by Fallon involve the gathering and interpretation of intelligence? Isn't this Sajjan's stated specialty and our superior abilities in this regard are always sought after? Then why would the coalition not tap into this specialty when devising a plan unless they have given up on Canada's participation as a valuable partner and contributor? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
The_Squid Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Wouldn't developing a plan as spelled out by Fallon involve the gathering and interpretation of intelligence? Isn't this Sajjan's stated specialty and our superior abilities in this regard are always sought after? Then why would the coalition not tap into this specialty when devising a plan unless they have given up on Canada's participation as a valuable partner and contributor? Perhaps they have given up on Canada as a contributer. Maybe it's a slap in the face... maybe they want to send a message to Canada that they don't think we're doing "our share".... That's OK. The other countries are allowed their wrong-headed opinions. Let's pull our military assets out of that American-made mess and try and help in other ways. Quote
Big Guy Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 .. Then why would the coalition not tap into this specialty when devising a plan unless they have given up on Canada's participation as a valuable partner and contributor? I hope that Canada has decided that it has a right to its own foreign policy, this coalition getting involved in the Middle East civil war is a mistake and has decided to save a few Canadian lives and a whole bunch of taxpayer dollars by getting the heck out of there. They did not ask us how to get into this mess and now are looking for ways to get out. 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.
capricorn Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Let's pull our military assets out... Well that wouldn't take long. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
The_Squid Posted January 20, 2016 Report Posted January 20, 2016 Well that wouldn't take long. Exactly. We're not a military power of any consequence. We don't need to pretend to be one any more. Quote
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.