Canada joins U.S. war in Iraq

68 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Canada joins U.S. war in Iraq
Unionist

I realize this is an old story (September), but it shows how our war against the people of Iraq and Syria is important not just to bring them the benefits of Western civilization, but also to help protect our staunchest allies from beheaders:

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/11/john-mccain-canada-border-jay-ca... McCain Warns ISIS Terrorists May Cross Canadian Border[/url]

Stephen Harper's name will go down in history.

 

sherpa-finn

Unionist

[url=http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/entree-en-guerre-du-canada-quebec-solidai...'s entry into war: Québec solidaire denounces a military operation which will resolve nothing[/url]

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'd expect nothing less from QS..They are real leftists.

I applaud the not-so-real leftist NDP for opposing the war and I must include the LPC in the applause.

The fact that there are people here echoing Conservative talking points and painting Trudeau's opposition to this war as a 'gaffe' is embarrassing.

Harper finally got his Iraqi war and can now bask in the glory of being remembered as a military PM (I'm surprised he's not walking around in a General's uniform)

If popular opinion is opposing war is a 'gaffe' ,then there's no point.

Fuck it,vote Conservative for the next 60 years and welcome to the freak show.

I'll take a seat and watch it all unfold eating a bag of popcorn.

Brachina

 Were not critizing Trudeau for opposing the war, we critizing him for making inapproaite penis jokes about the war, for hiding behind Mark Garneau because Justin is so out of his depth, for flip flopping on the issue.

 

 Mulcair has been the one leading on this issue, while Justin is just not useful.

Sean in Ottawa

Funny how far Trudeau's comment went. I guess I was wrong as well. I did not have a problem with it and did not expect it to get as much criticism.

I understood Trudeau as accusing Harper of having a personal macho approach to foreign policy. I do like what Mulcair has said but I refuse to criticize Trudeau for using language I might have used to get across the same idea that I happen to agree with. I do think that Harper likes using the military for more than policy. I think it gives him a little thrill of the dick measuring variety. It is a pity we can't say so as it explains more about what I think Harper's motives are than a mere policy answer would.

So I can accept that I was wrong to think that his comments were not a big deal but since I thought they were not a big deal I can understand how Trudeau would have thought so as well.

I get it was kind of crude but it was not in the House and it was in language widely used in prime time. Maybe I just don't get offended by this sort of comment as much as other people and just focused on the meaning which to my mind is valid. We have a pm who I think gets personal macho validation by using the military.

When I choose to criticize Trudeau it won't be for that comment even though I can see, as can everyone else, that obviously it did not go well and in hindsight was poor judgement -- albeit a mistake I could have made myself...

How many other people on the street who have no partisanship will hear that comment and say -- I could have said that myself?

 

Unionist

In brief, Sean, criticizing Trudeau for that comment is Harperite attack methodology, pure and simple.

Progressive people who care about peace and justice should be encouraging every tendency in Canada that opposes Harper's war - even if it arises through a "flip flop" in the Liberal party.

Unfortunately, some care more about polls than peace.

 

Brachina

 I'm not concerned with polls, I'm concerned with who ends up in office in 2015. Yours Unionist is a false choice, you can support peace and critize Justin, we have an alteenative in the NDP.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

 I'm not concerned with polls, I'm concerned with who ends up in office in 2015.

Correct. You are. I'm not - as long as it's not that warmonger Harper party.

I'm concerned with what Canada does in the world, today and in the future.

And if you ridicule Trudeau for penis jokes - at precisely the time when his party has flip-flopped (however temporarily) in the right direction - you will have difficulty being part of a broad alliance which fights for peace. You will, of course, receive a thank-you note from Stephen Harper.

That's why I open threads to praise Mulcair on his child care plan, just as I have on similar issues in the past - like when the NDP "flip-flopped" in September 2006 and decided to call (a few years late) for withdrawal from Afghanistan. I suppose I could have made Rip Van Winkle jokes about them. But I thought we progressive Canadians had bigger fish to fry.

Your frank admission of what you care about is most welcome. We're in different camps. I wish you success with your election. And I hope your party does better in government than it has done every single time it was elected provincially. I don't plan to count on promises. I plan to work with others to push, kick, cajole, prod, and blackmail them to keep them honest. And to build real movements of real people that don't just sit and pray for the "right" party to get elected.

 

 

Brachina

http://m.torontosun.com/2014/10/15/mulcair-ignores-unconfirmed-reports-i...

 The right is up to it again, the magical appearance of weapons of mass destruction that seem only to exist when some "needs" to be invaded.

 Side note after see Oil prices drop my dad is convince this wars real purpose is to boost oil prices. So far it hasn't worked and too many counter forces are in play so I dob't think that even a war in the middle east can save big oil now. 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

In brief, Sean, criticizing Trudeau for that comment is Harperite attack methodology, pure and simple.

Progressive people who care about peace and justice should be encouraging every tendency in Canada that opposes Harper's war - even if it arises through a "flip flop" in the Liberal party.

Unfortunately, some care more about polls than peace.

 

 

Tempting as it may be I don't think it is helpful for the NDP to engage in Harper style attacks on Trudeau. I think it would be better to criticize Trudeau on very legitimate issues and avoid the more petty things that blow by. The NDP could even defend Trudeau from the more stupid Harper attacks while raising the more important questions about policy and even leadership. As I have said before, the China comment I think was fair ball but I remain uncomfortable with making a big deal about this one. To me it is not so much more than a fuddle-duddle moment.

It is not just the criticism itself -- it is the tone and proportion. It is fine to say this was ill-advised but something else to take it much further than that or focus much on it. And it suggests that there are not more important things to criticize Trudeau and the Liberals for -- when in fact there are.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is not just the criticism itself -- it is the tone and proportion. It is fine to say this was ill-advised but something else to take it much further than that or focus much on it. And it suggests that there are not more important things to criticize Trudeau and the Liberals for -- when in fact there are.

Exactly.

eastnoireast

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Funny how far Trudeau's comment went. I guess I was wrong as well. I did not have a problem with it and did not expect it to get as much criticism.

I understood Trudeau as accusing Harper of having a personal macho approach to foreign policy. I do like what Mulcair has said but I refuse to criticize Trudeau for using language I might have used to get across the same idea that I happen to agree with. I do think that Harper likes using the military for more than policy. I think it gives him a little thrill of the dick measuring variety. It is a pity we can't say so as it explains more about what I think Harper's motives are than a mere policy answer would.

So I can accept that I was wrong to think that his comments were not a big deal but since I thought they were not a big deal I can understand how Trudeau would have thought so as well.

I get it was kind of crude but it was not in the House and it was in language widely used in prime time. Maybe I just don't get offended by this sort of comment as much as other people and just focused on the meaning which to my mind is valid. We have a pm who I think gets personal macho validation by using the military.

When I choose to criticize Trudeau it won't be for that comment even though I can see, as can everyone else, that obviously it did not go well and in hindsight was poor judgement -- albeit a mistake I could have made myself...

How many other people on the street who have no partisanship will hear that comment and say -- I could have said that myself?

 

 

yeah i didn't see that this would be a shitstorm, till it was.  i kinda perked up actually, it was something i or friends would have (and have) said. 

which i suspect was the intended purpose, faux outflanking the left with hip words. 

i would be surprised if that comment was not discussed first with lib spinsters.

but it crossed that ever expanding line of "not supporting the troops" and was leveraged as such.  trudeau could have at least stood by the comment and made clear he was referring to how harper treats "the brave men and women of yada yada" .

though really, already outframed. 

there is almost no way to go anywhere near support the troops without being totally outframed.

there should be an alt nobel prize in communications/sociology to crack this paradox. 

what would it be worth to have that phrase rendered so that nobody would want to use it? 

to have it only 50% as effective?

i'd throw in a twenty.

-

 

Sean in Ottawa

Of course if Trudeau were to become PM -- and he ever wanted to go to war ... this will come back.

One good thing about this is the Liberals will know this and they will think twice if they even start considering a war.

 

NDPP

War in Iraq

http://www.presstv.com/section/351020201.html

"Iraqi army fights ISIL near Baghdad"

NDPP

Canadian Troops Entering A Messy Iraq War: Walkom

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/15/canadian_troops_entering_a...

"...In short, this war is a mass of contradictions.

Some of our friends are at daggers drawn. Others are playing footsie with the enemy.

This is the war that Canada's roughly 670 fighter pilots, ground crews and special forces operatives will face when they arrive."

Doug Woodard

Brachina wrote:

 Side note after see Oil prices drop my dad is convince this wars real purpose is to boost oil prices. So far it hasn't worked and too many counter forces are in play so I dob't think that even a war in the middle east can save big oil now. 

Brachina, I don't think that the moves against ISIS have anything to do with oil other than making sure that ISIS doesn't lay its hands on any. The Americans are still net importers and I expect they are happy to go along with the Saudis who it seems are going for market share instead of price while sticking it to the Rusians and the Iranians.

See

http://nyti.ms/1nppV31 

I have no doubt that Putin finds low oil prices most inconvenient, just as the Soviets did before him. I expect he remembers the "geopolitical disaster" that ensured for the Soviet empire.

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I have been bearish on oil for some time now. Strategically, the US wants to reduce its dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf. Germany wants to reduce its dependence on Russia. China wants to reduce pollution. All over, investments in renewables seem to be more attractive than hydrocarbons. On top of that, people hate oil companies, and would pay a little more to avoid using them.

I don't think this war is going to affect oil prices. The world wants rid of oil, and for once the money seems to be speaking with the same voice as the world.

swallow swallow's picture

I'm curious as to why Trudeau's comment, reminiscent of Helen Caldicott's argument about "missile envy," is objectionable. It seemed spot-on to me as an explanation of why our current federal government wishes to join this war.

I see why the Con spin machine is attacking it, and of course it's no shock that many small-c conservatives would leap to the defence of male privilege and militarism, but I'm genuinely curious why people who identify as on the left would object to it. Other than a general dislike of Trudeau fils, that is.

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

I'm curious as to why Trudeau's comment, reminiscent of Helen Caldicott's argument about "missile envy," is objectionable. It seemed spot-on to me as an explanation of why our current federal government wishes to join this war.

I see why the Con spin machine is attacking it, and of course it's no shock that many small-c conservatives would leap to the defence of male privilege and militarism, but I'm genuinely curious why people who identify as on the left would object to it. Other than a general dislike of Trudeau fils, that is.

This is what I am thinking. Even if a criticism is valid onthis point it is a minor one and the over-reaction is telling.

I really don't like seeing New Democrats going after this for several reasons -- one being that it is better to thank someone for doing that right thing than shit on them. The criticism Trudeau is making was entirely valid the way he did it is a minor controversy not a huge problem. I understand the idea that some may criticize the statement as crude but it was also plain and easy to understand putting across that Harper has a macho bias towards using the military rather than an evidence-based purpose.

Unionist

swallow wrote:

I see why the Con spin machine is attacking it, and of course it's no shock that many small-c conservatives would leap to the defence of male privilege and militarism, but I'm genuinely curious why people who identify as on the left would object to it. Other than a general dislike of Trudeau fils, that is.

Not a "dislike" of Trudeau. Fear of his polling results. Which generates desperate attempts to find ways to discredit him. Even if it means forgetting that this is all about Canada embarking on an unjust war, and maybe we should forget about poll results for a minute and see if we can build an alliance for peace and non-intervention. Too much to ask I guess.

 

 

Pondering

swallow wrote:
I'm curious as to why Trudeau's comment, reminiscent of Helen Caldicott's argument about "missile envy," is objectionable. It seemed spot-on to me as an explanation of why our current federal government wishes to join this war.

I see why the Con spin machine is attacking it, and of course it's no shock that many small-c conservatives would leap to the defence of male privilege and militarism, but I'm genuinely curious why people who identify as on the left would object to it. Other than a general dislike of Trudeau fils, that is.

That is exactly why it is happening and it shows and has been showing for quite some time.

Conservatives and pundits are trying to use it to build a case that it illustrates immaturity, recklessness, another "gaffe" to add to the list and the NDP is jumping on the bandwagon. Mulcair used the word "childish" which was a really poor choice as it makes him seem paternal and really old. I'm surprised he didn't call Trudeau "a young whippersnapper".

It benefits Trudeau which is why he doesn't defend himself or try to elaborate. To do so would empower his critics. There is only so long they can talk about it without becoming ridiculous. One of Trudeau's themes is that he trusts Canadians. He knows, like some of you know, that most people hearing that comment will agree with it. They won't care about his China comment either.

Trudeau wants the Conservatives and the NDP all over him on inconsequentials. The details don't matter. The point is to associate the NDP and the Conservatives as the old negative parties intent on old-fashioned politics and polarization.

 

Unionist

Wanna know how bad things have gotten in Harper's Canada? Jean Chrétien is starting to sound good:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-true-role-in-the-mid...'s true role in the Mideast conflict[/url]

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Wanna know how bad things have gotten in Harper's Canada? Jean Chrétien is starting to sound good:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-true-role-in-the-mid...'s true role in the Mideast conflict[/url]

 

I think Chrétien usually sounded good -- except when he was PM and then he was something else.

Martin has sounded good as well since he was turfed.

It is their governments I have a problem with.

swallow swallow's picture

Accept 50,000 refugees from Syria and give $100-million for humanitarian relief for "Islamic State" victims, while avoiding a Western combat role certain to make things worse. Yeah, that makes sense. 

NDPP

Chretien Speaks Out Against Canadian Military Mission in Iraq  -  by Mark Kennedy

http://www.canada.com/News/politics/Chretien+speaks+against+Canadian+mil...

"Former prime minister Jean Chretien stepped up his criticism of Canada's military combat mission against Islamist extremists in Iraq Monday, warning that it is just the latest in a long history of interventions by western countries that have left 'scars' on the Middle East.

Ultimately, he added, the coalition's aerial bombardment of ISIL will not be successful.

Chretien rejected Harper's argument that Canada is obliged to join others in the military campaign if it wants to keep its international voice. 'He is wrong on that,' said Chretien, adding that Canada in the past has only taken this sort of military action under the umbrella of the UN or NATO."

 

 

Unionist

Linda McQuaig at rabble.ca:

[url=http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/10/harper-tries-to-intimidate-us-perpet... tries to intimidate us into perpetual war[/url]

 

NS NS's picture

Canadian CF-18s drop "laser-guided" bombs over Iraq.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-canadian-cf-18s-drop-laser-guided-bombs-over-iraq-1.2821425

Makes it sound so much better than the regular flesh-tearing bombs.

eastnoireast

first and last sentences of the article, if one can call it that.  to save you from having to read the whole thing.

bolding mine.

-

KUWAIT CITY — Canadian warplanes involved in the American-led bombing campaign against militants in Iraq had their baptism of fire on Sunday launching the first air strike since deploying to the region.

 

Harper has said it is imperative to halt ISIL and reduce its capacity to launch terrorist attacks outside the region, including Canada.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/world/1248292-canadian-jets-attack-militants-in-iraq 

 

-

 

 

Unionist

eastnoireast wrote:

KUWAIT CITY — Canadian warplanes involved in the American-led bombing campaign against militants in Iraq had their baptism of fire on Sunday launching the first air strike since deploying to the region.

We love our brave boys! Support our troops! Yay Jesus Christ and John the Baptist!!

 

Quote:
Harper has said it is imperative to halt ISIL and reduce its capacity to launch terrorist attacks outside the region, including Canada.

Looking forward to reading this butcher's indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

NDPP

Don't hold your breath U...this is Canada - 'Ready, aye Ready!'

Analysis: Canada's Air Assault Faces Daunting Mission Against ISIS

'If mission remains an air war, it will neither be quick nor easy to destroy ISIL'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-air-assault-faces-daunting-miss...

"The coalition's mandate is also a problem. It says there will be no fighting ground troops in either Iraq or Syria...In Syria, the coalition won't work with Bashar Assad, the president both Washington and Ottawa say they want removed. It also won't work with some other jihadist groups but will support certain rebels...

Canada's mission has been approved for six months by Parliament, but even top generals say a year is more realistic. US officials predict a multi-year campaign."

Clearly this is only the opening of our wade into this new US ME quagmire. Watch for a renewed western atttempt at regime change in Syria and support for 'moderate' rebels like the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is neither.

NDPP

Canadian Government Exploiting Shootings to Promote Militarism, Attack Civil Rights  -  by Roger Jordan

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/10/31/cana-o31.html

"...The US military and political establishment is also pressing for a major expansion of the intervention, with growing calls for the deployment of ground forces.

While both Ottawa and Washington continue to publicly promote the new Mideast war as a 'humanitarian' mission aimed at defeating Islamacist terrorists, this is only an initial and partial objective.

The war's real target is Syria's Baathist regime, a close ally of Iran and Russia, and its overriding objective is to shore up and broaden US strategic hegemony over the Middle East, the world's most important oil-exporting region..."

Slumberjack

Questions we won't be hearing anytime soon from the opposition:

What are the targeting parameters being used by the pilots?

Under what circumstances would a strike mission be aborted?

Explain how the Canadian AirForce assesses the target to be struck in order to avoid civilian casualties?

Is a battle damage assessment carried out following a strike?

Is it Canadian Airforce practice to conduct a secondary strike on the same area initially struck, where rescuers and relatives, and civilian community members might be gathered to try and save lives from under the rubble?

What kind of ordinance is used, ie: how many pounds of explosives per bomb, and what is the estimated killing radius of the blast area once detonated?

What is the source of the targeting information?  How can we be assured of the accuracy of this information?

Are strikes being conducted in urban areaa, and is extra caution being given in light of reports that urban areas are where many refugees fleeing the fighting are taking refuge?

Will Canadians be informed of the kill ratio, 'terrorists' to civilians, that will accrue from the bombing missions that Canadians by and large support?

NDPP

Top Soldier Links Airstrikes to Vincent's Death

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/03/air-force-commander-appears-...

"...The commander of the air force appears to be injecting a new element into their objective: revenge.

A photograph was posted to Lt Gen Yvan Blondin's Twitter account Saturday from the funeral of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, killed in October by a known jihadist.

Along with the photo, Blondin wrote: 'Dear ISIL, thinking of you - Some of my colleagues are in your area. Hopefully, they'll have a chance to drop by.'

The tweet was removed on Monday afternoon..."

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I guess I'll put this here.

 

This is why this day matters.

Today, Lisa Laflammed closed her CTV remarks on her Rememberance Day coverage expressing her belief today was a day to "express our gratitude to Canada's Vets". She is completely and totally, painfully, absolutely, painfully, wrong.

Can we keep or eye on the ball today please? Its Lest we Forget; not thanks for serving your country. Today is about remembering so we don't do this again. I simply cannot believe how the MSM and so many people are missing why Rememberance Day is important. It seems to me more and more we are falling into glorifying war and calling everyone who servves "a hero". I served over 20 years; I wasn't a "hero". I simply did my day. I was ALLOWED to Serve; it was an honor but also a PRIVILEGE! I can't stand all this mindless Jingoism and rah-rah stuff. My country said OK, we'll let you serve because we think we are willing to allow you the opportunity to do your duty to for your country and its citizenry.

Let's keep our eye on the G-d Damn ball please! If we don't, we'll keep doing it over and over and over.

Aristotleded24

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I guess I'll put this here.

 

This is why this day matters.

Today, Lisa Laflammed closed her CTV remarks on her Rememberance Day coverage expressing her belief today was a day to "express our gratitude to Canada's Vets". She is completely and totally, painfully, absolutely, painfully, wrong.

Can we keep or eye on the ball today please? Its Lest we Forget; not thanks for serving your country. Today is about remembering so we don't do this again. I simply cannot believe how the MSM and so many people are missing why Rememberance Day is important. It seems to me more and more we are falling into glorifying war and calling everyone who servves "a hero". I served over 20 years; I wasn't a "hero". I simply did my day. I was ALLOWED to Serve; it was an honor but also a PRIVILEGE! I can't stand all this mindless Jingoism and rah-rah stuff. My country said OK, we'll let you serve because we think we are willing to allow you the opportunity to do your duty to for your country and its citizenry.

Let's keep our eye on the G-d Damn ball please! If we don't, we'll keep doing it over and over and over.

I find the voices of current and former military men and women to be of great value in terms of discussing matters of war, peace, and militarism. It's these people who have to go to military service in the first place because there is no other work (remember how many Prairie farmers went to war against Hitler compared to bankers from Toronto), they get hurt in the war and are quickly cast aside once they are no longer "useful."

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

During ww2 these Bankers were called Facist sympathizers. Today we call them Chickenhawks; they are the same thing. The only thing that's changed is the year.

NDPP

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 Today is about remembering so we don't do this again. I simply cannot believe how the MSM and so many people are missing why Rememberance Day is important. It seems to me more and more we are falling into glorifying war and calling everyone who servves "a hero".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NDPP:

Yes, And quite deliberately so too it seems to me. War is again being 'sold' as a noble calling of self-sacrifice and high ideals. It was this plus a desire to escape the farm and have some adventures which drew a dear old departed Uncle of mine to the 'Great War', where he fought in most of the big battles and told me all about it.

I'll never forget.

Nor will I 'buy' its awful glorification - especially on behalf of the Dominion or its overlords..

NDPP

Dishonouring Remembrance Day: Harper's Photo-Op Hop Across the Pacific  -  by Duncan Cameron

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/11/dishonouring-remembrance-day-harpers...

"The Harper government wants the tribute at the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month to be a celebration of the Canadian Forces participating in a war on terrorism..."

NDPP

Airstrikes Following International Law: DND  -  by Murray Brewster (CP)
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/11/20/jets-following-international...

"Capt Paul Forget, a spokesman for the country's operations command, said Thursday there's no way to know for certain if Canada's recent two missons caused any civilian casualties.

'I can't guarantee anything when it comes to buildings,' he said. 'I can tell you the process (of selecting targets) is carried out very vigorously.'

The mission, at the moment, is authorized to last six months..."

Paladin1

Canadian citizens heading to the middle east to oppose ISIS.

"1st NorthAmerican Expeditionary Force"

https://www.facebook.com/1stNorthAmericanExpeditionaryForce

 

 

Unionist

Will they beheading there soon?

sherpa-finn

OMG - I never saw this coming! Who woulda thought .....

Syria could be next target of Canada's CF-18s

Behind closed doors, Canadian officials are working feverishly to prepare for Canadian jets to strike targets inside Syria, CBC News has learned. 

Sources have told CBC that Canada is close to clearing away “the legal hurdles” that stand in the way of extending the combat mission from Iraq into Syria, should the government decide to expand the mission.

The legal case is critical, because, unlike Iraq, whose government invited Canada and its coalition partners to join the fight against ISIS, Syria under its leader Bashar al-Assad is considered an enemy. The U.S. has laws that allow it to engage in pre-emptive strikes in a sovereign nation, but Canada does not....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syria-could-be-next-target-of-canada-s-cf-18s-1.2845309

Paladin1

lol

Unionist

sherpa-finn wrote:

OMG - I never saw this coming! Who woulda thought .....

Syria could be next target of Canada's CF-18s

Holy crap, the NDP is gonna freak out over this. Why, just a couple years ago, they were praising the "peaceful pro-democracy protests" (who could blame them for not having heard of ISIS, Al Nusra, etc.), and pushing Harper to take a tough stand against the Syrian government, withdraw our ambassador (which Harper only did 3 months later), etc.

Shouldn't our CF-18s be bombing Bashar's bunker?

Someone call Mulcair. I am soooo confused now.

Well, thanks to Paladin's info from Facebook, at least we'll have some brave young fun-seeking Canadians who'll beheading to the region soon to fight for freedom.

PS: Any word on which side they'll be fighting on? Against? Or how many sides there are?

 

NDPP

Anyone following the Syrian thread will know that the destabilization/dismemberment of Syria was always a target. And Syrian regime change will likely be followed by Iran and Lebanon. Once again it is supposedly an obviously evil Russia and Putin that obstruct 'democracy' (not to mention a good part of Syrians).  For the habitues of MSM and the cult of BWTTY  (believe whatever they tell you), your confusion is understandable and deliberate. And yes, as alluded to by U above, the No Difference Party played their part too. Stay tuned for the new and improved 'Free Syrian Army' (FSA) champions and the usual suspects here telling us why it is right and good that it should be that way...

Paladin1

They're joining up with Kurdish units.   If you're interested in helping I think they're taking donations, and if you're interesting in joining them I can lend you body armor, a helmet and a cool tactical vest.  I'm getting tired of wearing it while playing video games anyways.

sherpa-finn

Unionist wrote: Holy crap, the NDP is gonna freak out over this. Why, just a couple years ago, they were praising the "peaceful pro-democracy protests" ... Shouldn't our CF-18s be bombing Bashar's bunker? Someone call Mulcair. I am soooo confused now.

I am sure the NDPers here will appreciate your concern about our mental health, Unionist. And don't be upset, - its alright to be confused.

Over time, you will surely come to appreciate that most conflict situations (an dmost particularly civil wars) are complex and multi-layered with power dynamics that shift and evolve over time. So I suspect that the only heads exploding around here are those on the shoulders of Babblers who feel compelled each day to stuff every single international situation into the fixed boxes and square holes of their pre-defined ideologies.

FWIW, I find it helpful in thinking through distant conflicts to try and align my general political sympathies (which I will self-describe as mildly progressive / democratic / humanitarian) in solidarity with what I see as my counterpart citizens (my political doppelgangers?) in that far-off land and  context.  So, in the case of Syria, where would these sympathies take me ...

Looking at available options, I find they generally lead me towards support for the Free Syrian Army. Not an ideal choice, in any sense, - but life is full of real choices. I recognize that assorted international actors have since announced support for the FSA (US, UK, Kuwait, etc) and others have vehemently denounced it (most notably Russia).  And that accordingly there is a rush amongst Babblers to align themselves on one side or another, in keeping with their respective world views and geo-politics.  Fair enough: the Syrian people are simply pawns on your global chess board.

But for me, I ask myself "If you were there, on the ground in Damascus or Aleppo, sherpa-finn - which side would you be on?"

Sometimes this exercise makes for tough choices. Not so much this one, when the substantive options are limited to Assad, FSA and ISIS. If there's a fourth (Green Party? Gandhian?) option, I haven't heard of it.

Unionist

Your allegation that babblers react in knee-jerk fashion to international politics based on some prefabricated "ideologies" is so much akin to red-baiting that I'll ignore it once I reach the period at the end of this sentence.

sherpa-finn wrote:

But for me, I ask myself "If you were there, on the ground in Damascus or Aleppo, sherpa-finn - which side would you be on?"

That's the fundamental and fatal flaw in your world outlook. You're not there. Taking sides, in your case, means deciding which warring faction to send arms and money to, and which other faction to commit aerial or ground slaughter against.

It's not the attitude of a humanitarian.

Do you always ask yourself questions like that? How about:

"If I were Aboriginal, whom would I support for National Chief of the AFN?"

"If I were a female victim of sexual abuse, would I go public/to the police?"

"If I were a Quebecer, would I support independence or federalism?"

These are not questions posed by allies of oppressed and marginalized folk.

So ask yourself this instead:

"If I were a Canadian, how could I best support the cause of world peace and respect for sovereignty of people?"

I'm fairly sure your answer would not be: "By sending bombers and troops to Afghanistan/Libya/Iraq/Syria and killing people, always recognizing that the complex nuanced shifting dynamics of world affairs are such that the people I kill today I may have to kiss tomorrow, and vice versa. I am the Lord!"

 

sherpa-finn

From our multiple exchanges on this topic, U, I suspect that the underlying tension is between what I understand as a fundamental to the values of 'international solidarity' and what you understand as fundamental to the values of 'sovereignty of people'.

I just do not subscribe to the belief that the 'sovereignty of people' includes either the right to massacre or the right to be massacred. And thus the slippery slope...

Pages