I realize this is not the same as when Chretien got us involved in Afghanistan. However, in principle I strongly disgree with the West sticking it's collective nose into the affairs of sovereign nations. This usually comes back to bite the West on it's ass.
CC, is our resident muddle East expert, so I am curious to read her thoughts on this.
Quote
But the answer is clear.
On Friday the Conservatives, as promised, tabled a motion in the House of Commons on our proposed actions in Iraq to deal with the Islamic State.
On Monday MPs will vote on it.
These are the main points: "contribute Canadian military assets to the fight against ISIL, and terrorists allied with ISIL, including air strike capability for a period of up to six months" and "note that the Government of Canada will not deploy troops in ground combat operations."
The contribution is fairly modest: Some fighter jets, one mid-air refuelling plane and two surveillance aircraft.
We've been firm in our support of air strikes. We've also wary about the dangers a ground operation would present.
Anyone who thinks this is a replay of the 2003 operation in Iraq hasn't been paying attention.
This is our fight because the Islamic State has called us out. They're making it very clear they're a threat to the security of all Canadians.
Canadian youth have gone abroad to join these terrorists to fight and die alongside them.
Our citizens have been singled out in video messages as legitimate targets for slaughter. And not just the military--civilians too.
There is nothing beyond the pale for this group. The atrocities they've committed in recent months prove this.
That's why MPs should return on Monday to give the prime minister their full support.
Not all will. We understand NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has been doing what opposition leaders do.
He's asking critical questions although he hasn't totally ruled out supporting the mission. We share Mulcair's concern that this could turn into a lengthy engagement.
That said, Harper was smart to point out that eradicating the Islamic State can't be the goal. That would be impossible. We just need to degrade their capacity to hurt others and, most importantly, us.
This is a mission that can be accomplished.
But Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's refusal to back the mission is just another reminder he's not ready for primetime.
This is the most important vote of the year. Make it count.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/10/04/support-harper-on-iraq
I do not support it either. War caused this mess and war ain't going to help stop it. The current airstrikes have already been proven futile. They haven't slowed ISIS in any way and have only brought more members into their ranks. Civilians have already been killed, infrastructure has been destroyed, and that ain't winning hearts and minds. We don't have forces on the ground so we won't know exactly what we're hitting.
Canadian airstrikes in Libya only helped that country become a hotbed of extremism and a recruitment tool for what we are seeing today.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran have plenty enough manpower and hardware. The more they're involved, the less hostility to the West. Time to let them deal with it.
Quote from: "Romero"
Canadian airstrikes in Libya only helped that country become a hotbed of extremism and a recruitment tool for what we are seeing today.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran have plenty enough manpower and hardware. The more they're involved, the less hostility to the West. Time to let them deal with it.
The West has no right to stick it's nose into the sovereign affairs of any nation. What Canada, the US, Europe and Aussie are doing is an extension of colonialism.
[size=200]FUCK THE INTERFERING WEST!![/size]
While I would not completely rule out selective strikes on individuals setting up for attacks within the West, attacking IS en masse is as stupid as it gets.
Yes, IS would like to and will provide people into the West, but attacking their military moves is beyond stupid.
IS is merely "islam being true islam" exactly as exampled by and instructed by Mo ... with or without us doing a thing .... let Mo's wannabe supremacist islam "be itself" and destroy itself without us doing a thing
ac_popcorn
Quote from: "cc li tarte"
Yes, IS would like to and will provide people into the West, but attacking their military moves is beyond stupid.
IS is merely "islam being true islam" exactly as exampled by and instructed by Mo ... with or without us doing a thing .... let Mo's wannabe supremacist islam "be itself" and destroy itself without us doing a thing
ac_popcorn
I also believe an attack plays right into ISIS' hands. Watch their support soar once the West hits civilians or when ISIS uses children as shields.
I didn't want to ever get involved in Iraq.
Quote from: "Real Woman"
same here
Quote from: "Real Woman"
I don't know much about this ISIS or what the mission's aims are. But I do know I would rather fight them there than here.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
CC, is our resident muddle East expert, so I am curious to read her thoughts on this.
Quote
But the answer is clear.
On Friday the Conservatives, as promised, tabled a motion in the House of Commons on our proposed actions in Iraq to deal with the Islamic State.
On Monday MPs will vote on it.
These are the main points: "contribute Canadian military assets to the fight against ISIL, and terrorists allied with ISIL, including air strike capability for a period of up to six months" and "note that the Government of Canada will not deploy troops in ground combat operations."
The contribution is fairly modest: Some fighter jets, one mid-air refuelling plane and two surveillance aircraft.
We've been firm in our support of air strikes. We've also wary about the dangers a ground operation would present.
Anyone who thinks this is a replay of the 2003 operation in Iraq hasn't been paying attention.
This is our fight because the Islamic State has called us out. They're making it very clear they're a threat to the security of all Canadians.
Canadian youth have gone abroad to join these terrorists to fight and die alongside them.
Our citizens have been singled out in video messages as legitimate targets for slaughter. And not just the military--civilians too.
There is nothing beyond the pale for this group. The atrocities they've committed in recent months prove this.
That's why MPs should return on Monday to give the prime minister their full support.
Not all will. We understand NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has been doing what opposition leaders do.
He's asking critical questions although he hasn't totally ruled out supporting the mission. We share Mulcair's concern that this could turn into a lengthy engagement.
That said, Harper was smart to point out that eradicating the Islamic State can't be the goal. That would be impossible. We just need to degrade their capacity to hurt others and, most importantly, us.
This is a mission that can be accomplished.
But Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's refusal to back the mission is just another reminder he's not ready for primetime.
This is the most important vote of the year. Make it count.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/10/04/support-harper-on-iraq
I really don't know what to say about this other than I pray everyone who leaves for Iraq returns home safely to their families.
Face it folks, War mean MONEY. I see something really bad happening in 2 maybe 3 years. (not that war isn't bad already)
I said it first ac_beating
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Wanna help stop terrorism? Stop flooding the region with weapons!
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote
The data, part of a larger sample of captured arms and cartridges in Syria and Iraq, carries an implicit warning for policy makers and advocates of intervention.
It suggests that ammunition transferred into Syria and Iraq to help stabilize governments has instead passed from the governments to the jihadists, helping to fuel the Islamic State's rise and persistent combat power. Rifle cartridges from the United States, the sample shows, have played a significant role.
//http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/world/isis-ammunition-is-shown-to-have-origins-in-us-and-china.html?_r=0
Wanna help stop terrorism? Stop flooding the region with weapons!
Oh I know that. It's ironic that the West is now de facto allies of Assad in his fight with ISIS.
The best way the West can protect itself from Islamofascism is outlaw Islam and revoke the citizenship/permanent residency of immigrants who refuse to renounce that violent, hateful ideology.
agreed. except to say i like the fact there is always an opportunity over there to test new weapons systems on real live targets...you can't underestimate the value that provides to military planners...but should we be flying around over there wasting our money....fuck no
if the west was really serious it would simply close off the middle east entirely and leave them to rot in their own shit.....which is what they should do..outside of Israel and Turkey...nobody in or out...no air traffic, no ships, no cars
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote
The data, part of a larger sample of captured arms and cartridges in Syria and Iraq, carries an implicit warning for policy makers and advocates of intervention.
It suggests that ammunition transferred into Syria and Iraq to help stabilize governments has instead passed from the governments to the jihadists, helping to fuel the Islamic State's rise and persistent combat power. Rifle cartridges from the United States, the sample shows, have played a significant role.
//http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/world/isis-ammunition-is-shown-to-have-origins-in-us-and-china.html?_r=0
Wanna help stop terrorism? Stop flooding the region with weapons!
Oh I know that. It's ironic that the West is now de facto allies of Assad in his fight with ISIS.
The best way the West can protect itself from Islamofascism is
ac_wot
Give it a bit more time. islam will leave no alternative ... all on its own
ISIS and 100s of other murderous misogynist islamic radical groups that exactly follow the actions and word of Mohammed are not anomalies .. they are merely islam being islam
That apartment in Calgary with 12 ISIS supporters, 6 off to fight, 3 killed doing so, is not anomaly ... it is just an
Quote
An armed rebellion in Iraq. Debate at Westminster on how to counter the insurgency. The deployment of RAF bombers to defeat the uprising.
With British planes once again in the skies over Iraq, it sounds like a story from the last few days. But Britain first tried to exercise control over Iraq from the air in the 1920s.
One of Britain's mandates was Iraq - Mesopotamia as it was then. But welding together a new country and subjugating disparate ethnic and religious groups who felt that they had simply swapped one imperial Turkish master for another British one proved costly.
An uprising in Iraq in May 1920 united Sunni and Shia briefly against the British. It was put down, but required the deployment of more than 100,000 British and Indian troops. Thousands of Arabs were killed. Hundreds of British and Indian soldiers died. The military campaign cost Britain tens of millions of pounds - money it could not afford after the Great War.
A new way of controlling Iraq was needed, and the man who needed it most was Winston Churchill. As war secretary in Lloyd George's coalition government, Churchill had to square huge military budget cuts with British determination to maintain a grip on its mandate in Iraq.
The result became known as "aerial policing". It was a policy Churchill had first mused on in the House of Commons in March 1920, before the Iraqi uprising had even begun.
"It may be possible to effect economies during the course of the present year by holding Mesopotamia through the agency of the Air Force rather than by a military force. It has been pointed out that by your Air Force you have not to hold long lines of communications because the distance would only be one or one-and-a-half hours' flight by aeroplane. It is essential in dealing with Mesopotamia to get the military expenditure down as soon as the present critical state of affairs passes away."
//http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29441383
Sound familiar?
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote
An armed rebellion in Iraq. Debate at Westminster on how to counter the insurgency. The deployment of RAF bombers to defeat the uprising.
With British planes once again in the skies over Iraq, it sounds like a story from the last few days. But Britain first tried to exercise control over Iraq from the air in the 1920s.
One of Britain's mandates was Iraq - Mesopotamia as it was then. But welding together a new country and subjugating disparate ethnic and religious groups who felt that they had simply swapped one imperial Turkish master for another British one proved costly.
An uprising in Iraq in May 1920 united Sunni and Shia briefly against the British. It was put down, but required the deployment of more than 100,000 British and Indian troops. Thousands of Arabs were killed. Hundreds of British and Indian soldiers died. The military campaign cost Britain tens of millions of pounds - money it could not afford after the Great War.
A new way of controlling Iraq was needed, and the man who needed it most was Winston Churchill. As war secretary in Lloyd George's coalition government, Churchill had to square huge military budget cuts with British determination to maintain a grip on its mandate in Iraq.
The result became known as "aerial policing". It was a policy Churchill had first mused on in the House of Commons in March 1920, before the Iraqi uprising had even begun.
"It may be possible to effect economies during the course of the present year by holding Mesopotamia through the agency of the Air Force rather than by a military force. It has been pointed out that by your Air Force you have not to hold long lines of communications because the distance would only be one or one-and-a-half hours' flight by aeroplane. It is essential in dealing with Mesopotamia to get the military expenditure down as soon as the present critical state of affairs passes away."
//http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29441383
Sound familiar?
Wow Romero wants us all to understand that the strategies as well as the cost of conventional warfare haven't changed since 1920.
Brilliant, fucking brilliant, you're a God damn genius. ac_lmfao
But what you obviously don't get is that air power and its effectiveness has improved just a wee bit since the 1920s where bailing wire and canvas biplanes and manually thrown bombs were state of the art. ac_rollseyes
Quote from: "Renee"
No, my point is the West has been bombing Iraq on and off for nearly 100 years.
Quote from: "Renee"
Tell that to the current wave of dead civilians. 18 more Iraqis killed by US airstrikes reported today.
Quote from: "cc li tarte"
ISIS and 100s of other murderous misogynist islamic radical groups that exactly follow the actions and word of Mohammed are not anomalies .. they are merely islam being islam
That apartment in Calgary with 12 ISIS supporters, 6 off to fight, 3 killed doing so, is not anomaly ... it is just an
Oh I have no doubt a clash of civilization will happen in Europe. At some point, Westerners will get the hint Islam is NOT interested in assimilating into liberal values. Instead Islam wants to destroy it.
It is happening. Many are in place throughout the West .. and many more to come
Breaking News: Serious plot hopefully completely broken in London UK - wanted to behead many in the streets
It was live report from London - Not seen it in print yet
Edit:
BBC - Four men are arrested in London as part of an ongoing investigation into Islamist-related terrorism, police say.
No surprise. It's islam, eh? Who's next up?
Quote from: "cc li tarte"
Breaking News: Serious plot hopefully completely broken in London UK - wanted to behead many in the streets
It was live report from London - Not seen it in print yet
Edit:
BBC - Four men are arrested in London as part of an ongoing investigation into Islamist-related terrorism, police say.
No surprise. It's islam, eh? Who's next up?
Good for the British police stopping this horrific plot.