Harper joins U.S. in Iraq, with support of Liberals

616 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

iyraste1313 wrote:

canada needs a total sweeping away of the system´s leadership and its institutional basis, totally corrupted by the dark powers lying deep inside these countries....

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I ask you again, "Pondering", in WW2, would you have said "its Mr. Roosevelt's War"? I think you would have while at the same time saying "our boys need to go overseas to stop the Nazis". That is the worst kind of hypcoricy.

And I tell you again I have no idea what your question means. Roosevelt was a US president. Didn't Canada enter the war first? Are you saying Canada should not have participated in WW2?

I cannot answer a question I do not understand.

P.S. If wanting to help cco's inlaws or my daughter's science camp friend who is back in Syria means I am a hawk then I plead guilty. I understand your solution is to ignore the whole thing and concentrate on renewable energy but I can't pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist like you do.

During WW2 "Pondering", there was a signficant portion of the upper crust who out of there hatred of Roosevelt and what he was doing for odrdinary Ameicans attacked him in every way possible This even extended to his fighting the Germans and the Japanaese. Hence, the use of the phrase, "its Mr. Roosevelt's War". That sentiment translated itself in many different ways throughout that period of history and extended itself through many parts of society. I was being ironic in one sense, but your position was held by some parts of society among those who wanted a fight but had no interest in partaking. That fits you.

As to the idea I "pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist", I have already told you that the Governments in that part of the world could easily deal with ISIL; again, "Pondering", Saudia Arabia has the 4th largest military in the World. And on top of everything, the US is prepared to send half a trillion dollars to the Suadi in "miliatry aid". The Saudis have much to do with the creation of ISIL and want the rest of the world to clean up their mess so they can hold onto their treasure. People like CCO and your daughter's "friend", know this. It is time for them to start leaning on the Saudis and the rest of those crimminal regimes and get them to step up.

You are so flippant. I told you, when did you ever have to expalin to someone why you were sending their spouse off to die, like I actually did. This isn't some kind of movie like they made in the 40s. This is real. We are being asked to sacrifice our National Treasure and our youth so that the Saudis and the rest of them can hold on to their blood stained oil treasure. It has to stop and it stops now. Its up to them to clean this up; it isn't up to Canada. I say it again. You seem quite prepared to watch young men and women go off to war for NOTHING, but I don't. Thats really big talk from someone who doesn't have it in them to step up and do the right thing. Spare me, you haven't the right.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Cool picture Unionist. Do they have a Church in Montreal? Maybe we could sing hymns like "Onward Christian Soldiers".

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Just saw on CBC; Hannah Thibeadeua talking about Canadian reaction shows Trudeau speaking on this to a reporter and no mention of NDP. Know Blair is sayiing we need ground troops. Given that Chretien said "you can't be a little bit in on this", why won't people like Trudeau, and other LPC shills just come clean on this and admit they know this is going to be another Middle East conflcit where young men and women go off to war to die so the Saudis and the rest of those barberous regimes can keep their riches?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Got a reply from Thibbdeau on Twitter, she said she wasn't shilling for Libs, "Trudeau was here for another interview". How funny is that?  Laughing Oh, another interveiw for no reason, oh, OK, that's much better.

terrytowel

Craig Oliver brought up a good point on Question Period wondering why the other countries in the Middle East stepping up to the plate first? As those countries are the ones most affected.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
You are so flippant. I told you, when did you ever have to expalin to someone why you were sending their spouse off to die, like I actually did. This isn't some kind of movie like they made in the 40s. This is real. We are being asked to sacrifice our National Treasure and our youth so that the Saudis and the rest of them can hold on to their blood stained oil treasure. It has to stop and it stops now. Its up to them to clean this up; it isn't up to Canada. I say it again. You seem quite prepared to watch young men and women go off to war for NOTHING, but I don't. Thats really big talk from someone who doesn't have it in them to step up and do the right thing. Spare me, you haven't the right.

Regardless of whether or not you are right about this particular situation it is offensive that on a political commentary board you would attack people individually on their right to an opinion based on their willingness to go to war.

 

 

Unionist

Thomas Walkom:

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/19/the_ndp_gets_it_right_on_l... NDP gets it right on latest Iraq war[/url]

Quote:

America’s latest Middle East war is a fool’s errand.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria is hastily conceived, relies on uncertain allies and risks further inflaming an already volatile region.

In Canada, the only major political party with anything resembling a sensible position on this war is Tom Mulcair’s NDP.

After days of dithering, the New Democrats have decided to oppose Canadian involvement. Mulcair made that clear Tuesday night in a Commons debate.

Few noticed, so he announced it again Wednesday.

Given these welcome developments, I think it's time to change the thread title. I'll message the mods.

 

swallow swallow's picture

Unionist wrote:

Thomas Walkom:... Mulcair made that clear Tuesday night in a Commons debate.

Few noticed, so he announced it again Wednesday.

Laughing Best line in journalism for the month. 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Thomas Walkom:... Mulcair made that clear Tuesday night in a Commons debate.

Few noticed, so he announced it again Wednesday.

 

Laughing Best line in journalism for the month. 

Yup, loved that lol!

And thank you mods for changing the thread title. If the NDP are resisting the call to arms, we should applaud and encourage them to stay the course.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Tom Tomorrow's latest cartoon is about the U.S. but I think it applies in Canada as well.

Paladin1

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/21/isis-urges-jihadists-to-attack-c...

Quote:

The spokesman for the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham called for attacks on Canadians on Sunday in an apparent attempt to deter members of the military alliance that has formed to challenge the terrorist group.

 

In a 42-minute audio speech, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani urged ISIS supporters to kill Canadians, Americans, Australians, French and other Europeans, regardless of whether they were civilians or members of the military.

“Rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling,” he said.

JKR

terrytowel wrote:

Craig Oliver brought up a good point on Question Period wondering why the other countries in the Middle East stepping up to the plate first? As those countries are the ones most affected.

NATO has installed itself as the world's police force so NATO countries like the US, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, etc., are not about to allow countries like Saudi Arabia to weaken NATO's role as global cop. And if Saudi Arabia started bombing Syria and Iraq, Syria, and Iran might retaliate which could start a regional conflict that could even bring in other countries. If the Security Council wanted to they could encourage Middle Eastern countries to act unilaterally to deal with their region's problems. For good reason the Security Council has not done so.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Sort of a white man's burden, eh, JKR?

JKR

Greedy white men representing the U.S., Europe, and Canada have created a chaotic international political system. How the world could establish an international political system based on peace, democracy, and equity is not clear. The citizens of the U.S., Europe, and Canada should support democratizing our international political system but due to xenophobia that doesn't seem likely to happen.

That being said, our current world order should confront and engage violent groups like ISIS.

Slumberjack

So, the NDP is opposing on the basis that all of the details about the 'mission' haven't been properly explained to them?  Not about the right or wrong of it, but because Harper hasn't sufficiently consulted with them?  It boils down to the fact that he hasn't telegraphed his game plan and exit strategy to the NDP's liking?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

JKR wrote in part:

"That being said, our current world order should confront and engage violent groups like ISIS."

So lets fight wars all over the world because a bunch of lunatics beheaded two Americans?

Paladin1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 

So lets fight wars all over the world because a bunch of lunatics beheaded two Americans?

Two Americans and thousands of other human beings. 

Unionist

Billions.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 

So lets fight wars all over the world because a bunch of lunatics beheaded two Americans?

Two Americans and thousands of other human beings. 

We woudn't be talking about this is they hadn't beheaded the Americans. And, this whole thing is abotu Oil. Saudi Araibi as the 4th largest Army in the world. Let them solve this. We have problems here at home; lets fix them. No war.

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 

We woudn't be talking about this is they hadn't beheaded the Americans. And, this whole thing is abotu Oil. Saudi Araibi as the 4th largest Army in the world. Let them solve this. We have problems here at home; lets fix them. No war.

Bravo, Arthur.

 

iyraste1313

. And, this whole thing is about Oil. Saudi Araibi as the 4th largest Army in the world. Let them solve this.

...Yes it's about oil, or more specifically oil pipelines and who is to provide oil and gas to the consumers market of Europe...so it's about war with Russia and Iran and Syria......the solution to the problem is to prevent the forces of North America and Israel and their allies in the middle east, specifically Turkey and Jordan and of course Saudi arabia...

so let's just let Saudi Arabia settle this? Yes let's send off the flower of their youth to die in the allies sponsored false flag war of ISIS?

...so I see the NDP has been removed from the title? Because Mulcair wants Harper for his approval first? So he can play games with tens of thousands of peoples lives?

So has Mulcair denounced USA and Israels support for ISIS not to mention Turkey and Jordan?

The thread coordinator and all those in support of the so called NDP anti war with ISIS will have egg on their faces soon enough....

MegB

That's not an image that anyone should see Paladin. A number of people, women especially, would be traumatized. Suffice it to say, we know atrocities are being committed.

I should have checked the thread, your description, before viewing the image. Had I done so I would not have looked. I'll store that image in my memory along with the picture of the body of a Sierra Leone woman, raped, murdered, left in a ditch, being eaten by feral dogs. Goes back to my early years as a journalist. 20 years that image has haunted me. Now it has a friend.

 

Pondering

MegB wrote:

That's not an image that anyone should see Paladin. A number of people, women especially, would be traumatized. Suffice it to say, we know atrocities are being committed.

I should have checked the thread, your description, before viewing the image. Had I done so I would not have looked. I'll store that image in my memory along with the picture of the body of a Sierra Leone woman, raped, murdered, left in a ditch, being eaten by feral dogs. Goes back to my early years as a journalist. 20 years that image has haunted me. Now it has a friend.

I'm glad I read you comment first. Your description of what happened to that women is graphic but it isn't hitting me too hard because it was in the past. I have skipped even reading Paladin's description of whatever picture he linked to because I know I would find it disturbing.

I understand Paladin's motivation in posting it. Seeing images like that does not mean military intervention is the best or only solution but it makes it more difficult to say "whatever, not our business".

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/charlie-rangel-war-tax_n_5863964.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular Bravo; I wish a MP would introduce this kind of a bill in the House. Maybe people who are Trudeaubots on this forum would bel less pro-war if they new their Grad sons/daughters/nieces/nephews/sons-daughters of friends would be going to fight. Maybe we'd be woriried about Social Spending instead of War spending. Rangel proves without a doubt that Vets "get it". People with no Service who call for War where they don't want to participate, don't.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/charlie-rangel-war-tax_n_5863964.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular Bravo; I wish a MP would introduce this kind of a bill in the House. Maybe people who are Trudeaubots on this forum would bel less pro-war if they new their Grad sons/daughters/nieces/nephews/sons-daughters of friends would be going to fight. Maybe we'd be woriried about Social Spending instead of War spending. Rangel proves without a doubt that Vets "get it". People with no Service who call for War where they don't want to participate, don't.

Well I don't know about the people you are referring to but I have long thought the draft and a war tax are preferable to an all volunteer armed forces as we have now. Even so, as we have not declared war anywhere I don't think a draft would come into play. Furthermore I am not sure that Canada has formally rejected the draft.

I would also support a minimum age of 21 or even 25 for joining the military or for active deployment.

The best way to reduce Canada's participation in conflicts would be to redesign our military. As long as it exists in it's current form this is the sort of intervention it will be used for because this is what it is designed for. (regardless of whether or not this particular mission is justified). People volunteering for the armed forces as it currently exists should understand what they are volunteering for but should be free to quit at any time.

Unlike you I don't think anyone should be forced to go to war.

Another approach would be to require a declaration of war before military involvement in anything other than exercises.

cco

Not everyone who thinks Da'ash should be stopped is a Trudeau supporter. Not everyone who cares about the slaughter just started noticing when a couple Americans were beheaded.

Unionist wrote:

Billions.

Nice sarcasm. So thousands of dead Gazans are a crime against humanity, and thousands of dead Syrians are a laughable rounding error. Maybe my family shouldn't have fled in '48; then progressives would give a shit whether they die.

Paladin1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 

So lets fight wars all over the world because a bunch of lunatics beheaded two Americans?

Two Americans and thousands of other human beings. 

We woudn't be talking about this is they hadn't beheaded the Americans. And, this whole thing is abotu Oil. Saudi Araibi as the 4th largest Army in the world. Let them solve this. We have problems here at home; lets fix them. No war.

 

I agree we probably wouldn't be talking about it if Americans weren't beheaded; that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

X- Edited my description of the graphic image - X

The way humans are being treated there is beyond monsterous.

Paladin1

MegB wrote:

That's not an image that anyone should see Paladin. A number of people, women especially, would be traumatized. Suffice it to say, we know atrocities are being committed.

I should have checked the thread, your description, before viewing the image. Had I done so I would not have looked. I'll store that image in my memory along with the picture of the body of a Sierra Leone woman, raped, murdered, left in a ditch, being eaten by feral dogs. Goes back to my early years as a journalist. 20 years that image has haunted me. Now it has a friend.

 

Sorry Meg, I can only apologize for that image disturbing you like that. I should have left it at a graphic description or even less.

 

 

cco wrote:

Nice sarcasm. So thousands of dead Gazans are a crime against humanity, and thousands of dead Syrians are a laughable rounding error. Maybe my family shouldn't have fled in '48; then progressives would give a shit whether they die.

Bias at it's best (worst).

Unionist

cco wrote:

Nice sarcasm. So thousands of dead Gazans are a crime against humanity, and thousands of dead Syrians are a laughable rounding error. Maybe my family shouldn't have fled in '48; then progressives would give a shit whether they die.

I'm sincerely not sure what you're talking about. The slaughter of Gazans by Israel is a violation of international law on many fronts, and of U.N. resolutions. Still, I'm not recommending Canadian invasion to settle the issue.

Are you recommending Western intervention, in the absence of a U.N.-led initiative to save some Syrians or Iraqis or whatever?

That's really what this thread is about. My mockery of Paladin is merely this: those who spread fearmongering propaganda about Islamic atrocities in order to justify Canadian aggression abroad deserve much more than mockery - but I'll confine myself to that, lest I be accused of being a "100% pacifist". We should be very wary of those who only demonize whoever Harper and Obama are demonizing that particular week.

I note that Bashar Al-Assad has welcomed the U.S. air strikes within Syria. Do you? Answer, please.

ETA: Just in case you haven't seen the news, here you go:

[url=http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/russia-condemns-us-airstrikes-on-i... Condemns U.S. Airstrikes on ISIS and al-Qaeda; Assad Approves[/url]

Let me know what you think of the U.S.-Syrian struggle against terrorism.

 

 

Paladin1

CCO, Thousands of brutally murdered men women and children is just propaganda. It would be different if they belonged to a union though.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Are you recommending Western intervention, in the absence of a U.N.-led initiative to save some Syrians or Iraqis or whatever?

I think cco is referring to relatives in Syria so referring to some Syrians or Iraqis or "whatever" is insensitive.

cco

Unionist wrote:

Are you recommending Western intervention, in the absence of a U.N.-led initiative to save some Syrians or Iraqis or whatever?

To save the Syrians, and Iraqis, and "whatevers", from the Da'ash, whose avowed creed is slavery, torture, and global imperialism. Yes. I'm also recommending the West stop fucking giving them weapons to begin with. It's possible to simultaneously condemn one and support the other.

Quote:

That's really what this thread is about. My mockery of Paladin is merely this: those who spread fearmongering propaganda about Islamic atrocities in order to justify Canadian aggression abroad deserve much more than mockery - but I'll confine myself to that, lest I be accused of being a "100% pacifist". We should be very wary of those who only demonize whoever Harper and Obama are demonizing that particular week.

Do I fall into that category? I can't speak for Paladin and have no idea what's in his head. I don't know whether he supported the original invasion of Iraq, or Libya, or arming Syrian terror groups to begin with. He can speak for himself. Pondering can speak for herself. It is possible, on occasion, to be right for the wrong reasons.

Quote:

I note that Bashar Al-Assad has welcomed the U.S. air strikes within Syria. Do you? Answer, please.

Yes.

Quote:

ETA: Just in case you haven't seen the news, here you go:

[url=http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/russia-condemns-us-airstrikes-on-i... Condemns U.S. Airstrikes on ISIS and al-Qaeda; Assad Approves[/url]

Let me know what you think of the U.S.-Syrian struggle against terrorism.

It would be a whole lot easier if the US hadn't armed any of these groups to begin with. It would be even easier if there had been no Iraq war. And the supposed "Free Syrian Army" Obama is arming right now will be the next group America's bombing, a year or five or ten down the line.

I'm still not willing to sacrifice my family to Khmer Rouge-level slaughter to prove some kind of larger geopolitical point that anyone with an iota of sense already knew: that the Iraq war was a terrible idea and a crime against humanity. America's crimes against humanity don't somehow justify the Da'ash's. Saudi and Qatari guns and bombs are no healthier or more "authentic" for the Levant than American ones.

Unionist

Sorry. When I said "whatever", I should have said Kurds. Syrians or Iraqis or Kurds. It's hard to keep up with the daily changes in whom we're supposed to hate and whom we're supposed to love. My abject apologies.

 

cco

I try to stick with judging them by their works. Then I never have to feel like Saudi Arabia is "on my side".

Paladin1

cco wrote:
? I can't speak for Paladin and have no idea what's in his head. I don't know whether he supported the original invasion of Iraq, or Libya, or arming Syrian terror groups to begin with.

Incase you were interested,

I supported the first invasion of Iraq.  I was 13 and though hey this guy is an asshole lets get rid of him.  I was wrong. With the removal of Saddam after Gulf War 2 (an invasion which I absolutely opposed) they traded a dictator who murdered a bunch of his own citizens for chaos and lots of dead citizens from a number of countries and causes.

I have no idea what happened in Libya save for a failed rescue mission in the 80s or 90s and I guess canadian jets were a part of some air campaign there very recently.

Arming terror groups is never a great idea. The US, or west if you will, has an obvious habit of arming groups that just as quickly turn on them (us).

Quote:
I'm still not willing to sacrifice my family to Khmer Rouge-level slaughter to prove some kind of larger geopolitical point

Respectfully replacing your family humans I completely agree. It feels like some people are opposing this just to prove some kind of point.

cco

Paladin1 wrote:

I have no idea what happened in Libya save for a failed rescue mission in the 80s or 90s and I guess canadian jets were a part of some air campaign there very recently.

*facepalm*

Unionist

Countless members of my family were slaughtered by the Nazis. That bequeaths to me a hatred of racism, ethnocentrism, imperialism, oppression of all kinds. It does not (thank God) imbue me with a "Responsibility to Protect" disease, whereby Obama and Harper and Cameron and Hollande and Putin and Netanyahu get to civilize the barbarians. Just in case anyone has the slightest interest in where my principles come from.

cco

So it's all well and good to oppose the Holocaust, so long as no military force is used to prevent it?

Unionist

cco wrote:
So it's all well and good to oppose the Holocaust, so long as no military force is used to prevent it?

The Holocaust happened, even though many countries were at war with Nazi Germany. No one gave a shit, as it happens. But we are in a new era, where there is supposedly a world body which opposes aggression and violations of human rights. If the U.S. and Canada and Britain and France act unilaterally to kill their enemies (always on the pretext of saving your relatives or mine), then progressive people must condemn them. Why? Because they kill their enemies. One day they're bad people, another day they're good innocent people.

The world can't function that way. Nor can we excuse someone who deplores the stoning of some woman in Afghanistan by the Taliban, while justifying the mass murder of Afghan civilians by foreign invaders. The foreigners, of course, never invade and murder for their own interests. They are only there to defend the women and children.

Like the Soviets, when they invaded Afghanistan in 1980.

Like the Russians, on their current mission to defend peace and freedom in Ukraine.

Fuck. This is Anti-Imperialism 101. But like many other courses, it has to be re-taken every single time there's a slight change in the world situation. Because we have no powerful means of information and truth, like the imperialists do.

So cco, I didn't get your answer. Do you support our boys going to Iraq, Syria, wherever? This is not a complicated question. It's already happening. We need to take a stand.

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
So cco, I didn't get your answer. Do you support our boys going to Iraq, Syria, wherever? This is not a complicated question. It's already happening. We need to take a stand.

I got it. Are you opposed to Canada having gotten involved in the war against the Nazi?  Should my father have stayed home?

nicky
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:
So cco, I didn't get your answer. Do you support our boys going to Iraq, Syria, wherever? This is not a complicated question. It's already happening. We need to take a stand.

I got it. Are you opposed to Canada having gotten involved in the war against the Nazi?  Should my father have stayed home?

You are trying to conlfate two completely different things and then thinking Unionist is going to answer you; he probably won't, I will. Apples and Oranges "Pondering". By the way, Unionist is Jeiwsh. I don't think it would be very smart to challenge him, or me, another Jew, on whether we thought the Allies should have fought Hitler. But nice try.

Unionist

nicky wrote:

Mulcair creams Calandra in Question Period:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tempers-flare-in-the-house-over-iraq-mis...

Ha, brilliant! Thank you Nicky.

Clips like these remind me of why I've voted for Tom Mulcair in three consecutive elections.

See, here's Paul Calandra, the best friend forever of the "Jewish state". In another time, this lying bastard would have walked my relatives into the death camps.

It's very very important to be able to distinguish your friends from your enemies. Otherwise, one ends up licking Harper's boots as he sends Canadians to murder people abroad, in the name of protecting poor innocent women and children and of course old folks.

cco

Unionist wrote:

But we are in a new era, where there is supposedly a world body which opposes aggression and violations of human rights. If the U.S. and Canada and Britain and France act unilaterally to kill their enemies (always on the pretext of saving your relatives or mine), then progressive people must condemn them. Why? Because they kill their enemies. One day they're bad people, another day they're good innocent people.

The UN rubber-stamped the Libya invasion. Did that make it a good thing? Resolutions condemning Israel are always vetoed. Does that give Israel an imprimateur of legitimacy? A world body whose veto-wielding members are the US, UK, France, Russia, and China is unlikely to be a bulwark against imperialism. And the US could very likely get through a resolution endorsing a war against Da'ash in Iraq only. Russia is only condemning the fact the US isn't coordinating with Assad. Would that make the air strikes acceptable in your book?

Quote:

The world can't function that way. Nor can we excuse someone who deplores the stoning of some woman in Afghanistan by the Taliban, while justifying the mass murder of Afghan civilians by foreign invaders.

Where in this thread have I ever argued for the war in Afghanistan? You're arguing with an imaginary opponent who believes in the white man's burden and "civilizing the barbarians".

Quote:

So cco, I didn't get your answer.

Yes, you did. Explicitly. Though you phrased the question slightly differently.:

cco wrote:
Unionist wrote:
I note that Bashar Al-Assad has welcomed the U.S. air strikes within Syria. Do you? Answer, please.

Yes.

Unionist wrote:

Fuck. This is Anti-Imperialism 101. But like many other courses, it has to be re-taken every single time there's a slight change in the world situation. Because we have no powerful means of information and truth, like the imperialists do.

I didn't get your answer. What should be done to stop imperialism? (Any definition of imperialism that doesn't include Da'ash is worthless. Or do they just count as "the resistance"?) All military force of any kind is apparently only furthering Western imperialism, which is clearly inferior to the Da'ash variety, so that's out. Guess we just sit back, go to the occasional protest march, and cluck our tongues at the mutilated corpses.

cco

Unionist wrote:

It's very very important to be able to distinguish your friends from your enemies. Otherwise, one ends up licking Harper's boots as he sends Canadians to murder people abroad, in the name of protecting poor innocent women and children and of course old folks.

So the only Syrians and Iraqis that are "worthy" victims, the ones we can speak of as being murdered, are the Da'ash? The poor innocent women and children (and men) are fictional?

This is trolley problem 101. If your moral calculus considers it more acceptable (from a perspective far, far from the battlefield) to allow the Da'ash to murder everyone who's not one of them than to allow Canada to murder the Da'ash, I don't think we're going to agree. I'll thank you for having the conversation in a reasonably polite and mutually respectful manner, and I'll take my warmongering ass to another thread.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:
So cco, I didn't get your answer. Do you support our boys going to Iraq, Syria, wherever? This is not a complicated question. It's already happening. We need to take a stand.

I got it. Are you opposed to Canada having gotten involved in the war against the Nazi?  Should my father have stayed home?

You are trying to conlfate two completely different things and then thinking Unionist is going to answer you; he probably won't, I will. Apples and Oranges "Pondering". By the way, Unionist is Jeiwsh. I don't think it would be very smart to challenge him, or me, another Jew, on whether we thought the Allies should have fought Hitler. But nice try.

Then my comment is all the more appropriate. cco has relatives in Syria. ISIS seems intent on working it's way across the Mid East much as Hitler was determined to work his way across Europe.

So what if the Nazi threatened our allies and this war supposedly doesn't. That doesn't make the people being slaughtered any the less human. The Nazi wouldn't have stopped at Europe and ISIS won't stop with conquering the Mid East. It's a world wide threat and the mid east does have nuclear weapons which would fall into the hands of ISIS if they succeeded in their goal.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, start PAYING ATTENTION. The Saudis have the 4th largest Military in the World. LET THEM HANDLE IT!

Nuvlear weapons falling into the wrong hands, hey, that sound vaguley similiar to this, "the smoking gun will turn into a mushroom cloud". Pondering, you old neo-Con you! Wink

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!

Unionist

Sorry, cco, I totally missed your post [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/harper-joins-us-iraq-support-l..., where you did indeed answer my question about whether you support U.S. air strikes in Syria. As you can see, I posted 1 minute later in reply to something else, and I just never looked back. My apologies.

cco wrote:
I didn't get your answer. What should be done to stop imperialism?

Two things:

1. We don't side with one against another (Putin, Obama, Harper, etc.).

2. We start by defeating it HERE. You know, like Canada. Québec. Not by bearing arms and crucifixes in foreign lands.

Hope my view is clear.

 

NDPP

Lest We Forget - Nathan Cullen NDP-MP on Libya

http://rabble.ca/comment/1317271#comment-1317271

"...In future we must seek greater and deeper council before we commit to armed aggression again."  Nathan Cullen, Feb 2012

Pages

Topic locked