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

616 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

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.

 

 

  for me it was a war picture I saw on the cbc of a naked african man being chased around by armed thugs who ended up cutting off his head and playing soccor with it. It sounds like aomething from a horror movie like the Hills Have Eyes series, or Wrong Turn, instead its sicking reality. It haunts me to this day. Thank and a picture of a young girl who had her limbs blown off by a scum sucking careless bomber.

 

 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

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!

The thing is Arthur you could be 100% right in your opinion that we shouldn't involve ourselves in Iraq and you would still be 100% wrong in the manner in which you treat me. The level of constant hostility and vitriol spewing from you is creepy. Within you lies the reason we have wars.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

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.

I wouldn't be too hasty about this conclusion, Arthur. After all, the late, great historian and activist Howard Zinn was also Jewish. He flew many bombing missions over Germany in the U.S. Army Air Force. He certainly believed that the war was justified at the time he fought in it, but in later years, he expressed serious misgivings about it.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"The thing is Arthur you could be 100% right in your opinion that we shouldn't involve ourselves in Iraq and you would still be 100% wrong in the manner in which you treat me. The level of constant hostitlity and vitriol spewing from you is creepy. Within you lies the reason we have wars.

Nope, nice try, can't blame that on me. I'm not the one saying we have a non existent moral duty to go off to war in the name of some blind and obscure responsibity to police the world. As to how I treat you, seriously Pondering, how can you say that to me or anyone else given how you respond to other posters on here? I mean, seriously, take a monent and think about what you wrote. You have a lot of nerve posting a comment like that. You are projecting in the most classic way. As I have said to you before, as with most of your other commentary, this post of yours I found simply astounding.

Vitriol implies unmeasured, and unsubstantiated commentary. I have offerd neither, nor have I cussed you out as you have others on this board. You simply have a lot of nerve tyring to lecture me in any way on this. As I just wrote above, you need to back up and take a look at what you wrote and how you react to others on this board. What you really mean is you simply don't want anyone to call you out in any way. You called me obnoxious if I remember correctly, and said you weren't responding any more to my posts and that was in relation to what I wrote about what I did while I was in the CF. What you are demanding is respectcompliance, and silence; now that is "creepy. All of that while being willing in no way to reciprocate. That is all there is to this, pure and simple. Once again, you are deflecting, and projecting.

ETA: I have been thinking about my response, and there is something I missed. My point is that I have heard no one who is a know authority figure on this, speak about the possibility of nukes falling into ISIS hands; Professor Juan Cole, an acknowledge expert on this, has NEVER mentioned this. It is a know fact that Collin Powell regrets to this day his UN speech, and that those close to him such as Colonel Lawerence Wilksonson knows Powell considers he misled the UN and the world through his speech. To bring up the spectre of nukes, is in my view, an attempt to play to a fear we all have regarding what may happen to us as the result of war. Now, whether you meant this or not, it raises fear in people, and keeps them from thinking clearly.

I know you have no regard at all for the fact I am a retired Naval Officer. But, to become one, I had to exercise judgement and an ability to make decisions. But more then anything else, it requried I display an ablitiy to think clearly at all times; in other words, make decisions based on the facts in front of me first and foremost as much as humably possible. Now, not being, say a Vulcan, I can't say I always did that, but overall, I did. The reason I could do all these things was because it is my personality. All of my life, I have NEVER made decisions out of fear. I do NOTHING out of fear. This is why I have never voted LPC and never will; Justin Trudeau or Harper, augh, same difference. Vote LPC....because.....Harper....NAH! For my money, your allusion to nukes falling into the wrong hands has no ratinal basis for cosnideration, other then some obscure, fear, that it could happen. I could get killed crossing the street, but I don't worry about it.

The argument you used was used by Bush and the neo-Cons. Why would you use it? I suggest it is because it likely reflects your real feelings on this. Bush killed hundreds of thousans because he made everyone afraid. That has to be prevented this time. "Lest we Forget", "Pondering", means NOT forgetting. We've beeen there and done that regarding this nuke scenario. It didn't produce good results before, and won't do so, now.

I say it again, I do NOTHING, out of fear. So, I won't hold back offering my opinon when it appears others are suggesting we do so. And yeah, its my opinon. But at least has some basis in history and experience.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

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.

I wouldn't be too hasty about this conclusion, Arthur. After all, the late, great historian and activist Howard Zinn was also Jewish. He flew many bombing missions over Germany in the U.S. Army Air Force. He certainly believed that the war was justified at the time he fought in it, but in later years, he expressed serious misgivings about it.

So did my Dad, Michael. He could never understand why Truman used the Bomb and was outraged by "Bomber Harris". Fair comment, but while there is no such thing as a justifiable war, WW2 comes pretty close.

NDPP

A 'Few Hundred' Canadians Have Joined ISIL Or Are Likely To: Kenney

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/09/23/a-few-hundred-canadians-joined-isil-o...

A 'few hundred' Canadians have joined Islamist organizations like ISIL or are likely to do so, says Canadian Cabinet Minister Jason Kenney. 'We're aware, as you know, of something in the range of 200 Canadians who may have gone abroad to join jihadi organizations in the recent past and I'm just extrapolating from that. There may be others with the propensity to do so.'

Kenney's comments also come as ISIL released a videotape a few days ago urging its supporters to stage attacks in Western countries, including Canada by name.

'One of the strategic mistakes made, I would argue, in Syria was a year ago, the argument that the Islamic state organization was just a small group and could be contained.

I just did a trip to the ME last month adn I reminded my interlocutors that the Maoist faction of the Communist Party of China was a very small group, the Bolshevik faction of the Communist Party of Russia was a very small group. Small groups that are intense in their belief and willing to use violent tactics can wreak great havoc.'

 

Speaking of which -   Given that approximately the same number (200) of Canadians are reportedly serving in the terrorist IDF, an organization whose barbarism, savagery and mass murdering propensities, we have only just witnessed (again) I hope the passport revocation policy will be extended to these as well.

It is curious that the same 'Canadian' Takfiri terrorists that can now suddenly lose their passports or be bombed in Iraq, were until recently, trained, armed, paid and 'steered' by the West to 'wreak great havoc' on Syria in aid of regime change. Until now,  Kenney was just fine with that apparently. Don't be so sure things have changed...

Unionist

cco wrote:

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

We stop Harper, Trudeau, Mulcair, and anyone else who wants to act as world gendarme. We prevent them, oppose them, overthrow them. That's what we do. We don't send troops to "save" people. Agree or not - but you asked me. We do our job right here, right now.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Did the NDP come out against this new war?

If so,please direct me to a source.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Did the NDP come out against this new war?

If so,please direct me to a source.

I'd like clarification on this as well. Anyone have a link?

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I know you have no regard at all for the fact I am a retired Naval Officer.

And what combat did you participate in?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Thanks Art.

I didn't come across it. I'm quite impressed.

Unionist

alan smithee wrote:

Thanks Art.

I didn't come across it. I'm quite impressed.

I posted it here Sept. 22 at 12:06 pm.

JKR

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.

The solution to the conflict in Syria and Iraq is for Saudi Arabia to assume the role of police force of the area? But the Saudis don't want to take on that role and the other countries of the region don't want them to assume that role either. No country in the world is proposing that the Saudi Arabia military is the solution to the ISIS-Syria-Iraq conflict.

I think the world community should come together to deal with the conflict in Syria and Iraq that's very negatively affecting millions of people in the area. It would probably be wise if the leaders of ISIS were invited to take part in establishing peace in the area but my guess is they would likely refuse to take part as they see war and conquest that will establish a Caliphate as tho only just solution to the situation in the area. But an invitation should be made to ISIS to take part in a regional peace conference nonetheless. In a saner world all parties to the conflict would be brought together to establish a solution to the areas longstanding strife.

MegB

Paladin1 wrote:

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

Not cool. While rabble.ca isn't a propagandist for labour (we piss them off plenty), we support them and they support us. Unions are responsible for such things as paid maternity leave, health and safety regulations in the workplace, and a whole lot of other rights for working people. They also fund progressive initiatives that promote democracy, something sadly lacking in Canada these days.

Paladin1

I have no issues for or against unions.  My comment was an annoyed reaction to unionists sarcasim over "billions" of dead humans.

NDPP

Stephen Harper Considers US Request For Further Military Help in ISIS Fight

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-considers-u-s-request-for...

 

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada is considering a US request for further military contribution in the fight against ISIS.

Asked if he would rule out 'a direct military contribution' to any effort, Harper said no."

 

Servile, idiotic comprador regime - or as George Galloway so aptly described it: 'little more than an embassy for Benjamin Netanyahu'

Debater

I think we now know why Harper is running again in 2015 even though his support is way down from 2011.  I had a conversation about this issue with Jacob on another thread.  Jacob says it's because Harper is an egomanic, and I said I think Harper has a strategy for 2015.

And this is it.  Harper knows he has lost a lot of ground domestically and is extremely disliked in certain parts of the country.  In order to get re-elected, he has to convince Canadians that he is more trustworthy and knowledgeable on more than just the economy.  He is pulling the same stunt that many leaders throughout history have -- get the country involved in a war and then run as a 'war leader'.

Harper will argue that neither the Liberals nor the NDP can be trusted to run Canada's involvement in the war and that it will be dangerous to change captains halfway through a military engagement and so we must re-elect him to conclude the war in the years ahead.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

I think we now know why Harper is running again in 2015 even though his support is way down from 2011.  I had a conversation about this issue with Jacob on another thread.  Jacob says it's because Harper is an egomanic, and I said I think Harper has a strategy for 2015.

And this is it.  Harper knows he has lost a lot of ground domestically and is extremely disliked in certain parts of the country.  In order to get re-elected, he has to convince Canadians that he is more trustworthy and knowledgeable on more than just the economy.  He is pulling the same stunt that many leaders throughout history have -- get the country involved in a war and then run as a 'war leader'.

Harper will argue that neither the Liberals nor the NDP can be trusted to run Canada's involvement in the war and that it will be dangerous to change captains halfway through a military engagement and so we must re-elect him to conclude the war in the years ahead.

That's really stretching things Debater, even for you.

NorthReport

Lies the media repeats about Iraq: Phony patriotism, fake Syrian “moderates” and the very real end of empire

We have made a shocking mess in the Middle East.

This new adventure sets America up for incredible decline

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/lies_the_media_repeats_about_iraq_phony_...

Unionist

We really do need more journalists like Thomas Walkom:

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/25/canada_drawn_further_into_... drawn further into America’s latest Iraq war[/url]

Quote:

[Harper] said his government had not yet decided whether it will do what Obama wants. But that’s almost certainly hooey.

If Harper hadn’t decided to accede to the U.S. request he never would have risked embarrassing Obama by revealing it.

And this:

Quote:

Whatever action Ottawa takes must fit four political criteria:

First, it must be bold enough to fit the government’s rhetoric. In a war to protect civilization from the barbarians, supplying sleeping bags to Kurdish irregulars will not suffice politically.

Second, it must be roughly in line with what the Americans have asked for. Otherwise, Harper risks annoying Washington unnecessarily.

Third, it must avoid the kind of ground combat that would lead to politically inopportune casualties that could cost Harper votes in next year’s general election.

Fourth, it shouldn’t be too expensive. The Afghan war cost Canada more than $1 billion a year. But now, the government hopes to save its money for pre-election goodies and tax breaks.

The bottom line, however, is that we’re in it for the long haul. Just a few months after we extricated ourselves from Afghanistan, Canadians are being drawn further into another war of uncertain length and dubious aims.

Judging by the Afghanistan timelines, it should take the NDP and the Liberals approximately 7 years to start calling for withdrawal of Canadian troops. The NDP is still in the "let Parliament debate and vote" mode that Jack Layton ran the 2005-6 election campaign on. Better than nothing, but you need a microscope to tell. As for Major-General Justin Trudeau, he stands ready to serve.

 

eastnoireast

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater wrote:

I think we now know why Harper is running again in 2015 even though his support is way down from 2011.  I had a conversation about this issue with Jacob on another thread.  Jacob says it's because Harper is an egomanic, and I said I think Harper has a strategy for 2015.

And this is it.  Harper knows he has lost a lot of ground domestically and is extremely disliked in certain parts of the country.  In order to get re-elected, he has to convince Canadians that he is more trustworthy and knowledgeable on more than just the economy.  He is pulling the same stunt that many leaders throughout history have -- get the country involved in a war and then run as a 'war leader'.

Harper will argue that neither the Liberals nor the NDP can be trusted to run Canada's involvement in the war and that it will be dangerous to change captains halfway through a military engagement and so we must re-elect him to conclude the war in the years ahead.

That's really stretching things Debater, even for you.

 

sounds entirely plausible to me.

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Obama scored a major coup in the UN Security Council. 

NDPP

Stephen Harper More Open With Americans, UN Than With Parliament  - by Chris Hall

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-more-open-with-americans-...

"Canada to make decision 'shortly' on more Iraq help, Harper tells US audience..."

 

US Plans to Divide Iraq: Analyst Sabah Jawad: Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation-London (and vid)

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/09/25/379948/us-plans-to-divide-iraq/

"...The vast majority of people in the Middle East do not trust the Americans. They occupy and control on the pretext of the fight against terrorism. They went into Iraq in 2003 in order to fight terrorism and it was all lies.

Now there is a new opportunity because of the ISIS takeover of Mosul. It was a very good pretext for America to get back into Iraq and finish plans they had for it in the first place.

Their plan is to divide Iraq into three autonomous regions, to build their military bases..."

Debater

eastnoireast wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater wrote:

I think we now know why Harper is running again in 2015 even though his support is way down from 2011.  I had a conversation about this issue with Jacob on another thread.  Jacob says it's because Harper is an egomanic, and I said I think Harper has a strategy for 2015.

And this is it.  Harper knows he has lost a lot of ground domestically and is extremely disliked in certain parts of the country.  In order to get re-elected, he has to convince Canadians that he is more trustworthy and knowledgeable on more than just the economy.  He is pulling the same stunt that many leaders throughout history have -- get the country involved in a war and then run as a 'war leader'.

Harper will argue that neither the Liberals nor the NDP can be trusted to run Canada's involvement in the war and that it will be dangerous to change captains halfway through a military engagement and so we must re-elect him to conclude the war in the years ahead.

That's really stretching things Debater, even for you.

sounds entirely plausible to me.

Indeed it is very plausible.  Harper is a very smart strategist and is a survivor.  If he's running again, he has a plan.

Arthur, you don't like me and you often disagree with me for the sake of it.  That's fine up to a point, but rather than just shooting down all my theories, why not propose one of your own?

This post isn't about the Liberals vs. NDP rivalry that we usually have on this board, this is about Harper and the Conservatives.  What is your theory as to why Harper is running again?  What do you think his campaign strategy is?  Why is Harper talking about terrorism every day, and the threat of ISIS?  Why has he been trying to puff himself up on the world stage in front of the UN and the US for Canadians to see?

What does it all mean?  I could be mistaken about this, and if so, I'd be genuinely interested to hear what other Babblers think Harper is up to.

Pondering

He needs to solidify his legacy, get the trade deals and leave with a huge surplus. Resigning would be like confessing he can't beat Trudeau. He doesn't believe a new leader could win in 2015. He's probably right about that. The leadership battle is going to be tense I think.

Debater

Justin Trudeau issued a statement tonight criticizing Harper for misleading Canadians about the Iraq mission:

>>>>>

Quote:

“Prime Minister Harper has a duty to be upfront and a responsibility to be truthful. This should be especially the case when Canadian Forces personnel are being sent into harm’s way. For them and their families this is a matter of life and death.

“Tonight’s report that Mr. Harper misled Canadians at this very serious time is very troubling.

“Mr. Harper must come clean to Canadians about his intentions in Iraq. Canada cannot be blindly drawn into an unexpected mission in the Middle East.

“It now appears as though the Prime Minister omitted a key detail about the American request for further Canadian participation in Iraq. It was not the U.S. asking Canada for help. It was the other way around.

“It was Mr. Harper who first contacted the U.S. to offer further Canadian aid for the mission in Iraq. President Obama then sent a letter back, in response to Mr. Harper’s offer.

“The Prime Minister should not be playing coy political strategy games and fudging the truth when the lives of our soldiers are on the line. It is unacceptable.

“Any change to Canada’s non-combat mission in Iraq must only be made with rigorous and effective Parliamentary oversight.

“We expect the Prime Minister to answer all questions pertaining to this deployment fully and openly in the House of Commons in front of Canadians.

“Prime Minister Harper must be clear with Canadians. He must present his plan for our involvement in Iraq. He must tell the truth.”

----

http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/statement-liberal-party-cana...

Jacob Two-Two

Yeah, when Mulcair was duking it out in the House, Justin went to a different topic, then told reporters how awesome the Speaker is. Now that it's become a big deal, he joins in. As always, following the tides, committed to nothing.

As to Harper, of course he has a plan. Nobody runs for office without a plan, and you're probably right about what the plan is, but having a plan is a long way from having one that works. When have Canadians ever saved or sank a government on the strength of foreign affairs? That stuff plays well down south, but it's really not our cup of tea. We're more about peace, order, and good government and tend to mistrust leaders who beat the war drums too hard.

This is actually a classic example of a Conservative misstep. They always craft policies that assume that the public are like them and react to things the way they do, then quickly find out they're wrong. Like this kerfuffle in QP lately. They assumed that outrage over the NDP's lack of support for Israel would eclipse the contempt they were showing for parliament's conventions. Wrong again. Reminds me of when they tried to drive a wedge in the voters by floating their anti-child porn bill, only to realise everyone else was on the other side of the wedge. The Cons can't figure Canadians out. The only reason they ever got into government in the first place was because the Libs were self-destructing so hard. This time they stand no chance.

MegB

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Yeah, when Mulcair was duking it out in the House, Justin went to a different topic, then told reporters how awesome the Speaker is. Now that it's become a big deal, he joins in. As always, following the tides, committed to nothing.

As to Harper, of course he has a plan. Nobody runs for office without a plan, and you're probably right about what the plan is, but having a plan is a long way from having one that works. When have Canadians ever saved or sank a government on the strength of foreign affairs? That stuff plays well down south, but it's really not our cup of tea. We're more about peace, order, and good government and tend to mistrust leaders who beat the war drums too hard.

This is actually a classic example of a Conservative misstep. They always craft policies that assume that the public are like them and react to things the way they do, then quickly find out they're wrong. Like this kerfuffle in QP lately. They assumed that outrage over the NDP's lack of support for Israel would eclipse the contempt they were showing for parliament's conventions. Wrong again. Reminds me of when they tried to drive a wedge in the voters by floating their anti-child porn bill, only to realise everyone else was on the other side of the wedge. The Cons can't figure Canadians out. The only reason they ever got into government in the first place was because the Libs were self-destructing so hard. This time they stand no chance.

I mostly agree, but it's not only that they don't understand how Canadians think, they don't believe we think at all. We're all too stupid and ignorant (except for those evil scientists, environmentalists, academics, activists).

Their lack of understanding is, I agree, our best advantage. So long as we use it. We have to remember that they, as monied and powerful as they are, are few. We are many many more and we'll win.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It's funny that in Canada and for the most part in the US.,the biggest war hawks are people who never served in the military,could not punch their way out of a wet paper bag and probably can't even win a game of Risk.

Funny as in pathetic and sickening.

Hand these priviledged suits a pair a boots and an M-16 and dump them in the desert,get a film crew and make a new reality TV show out of it.

It would be quite entertaining.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I'm on an archive roll... here is a thread about the US pondering a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, dating July 2002:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20060309183341/http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ul...

Unionist

Great thread, laine!

Look at all those progressive babblers in 2002 swallowing the "weapons of mass destruction" bullshit (er Bush-shit). And look at all the folks today, who have bought the notion that we're facing a new monstrous enemy which will come behead us in our beds if we don't invade those countries and save the women and children.

Nothing ever changes, except the names. Memories are wiped clean. Thank Allah for the internet.

 

NDPP

I agree, perhaps this will help...

George Galloway's Comment: Anti-ISIL Alliance: Boom or Bust? (and vid)

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/09/26/380103/antiisil-alliance-boom-o...

"It is an alliance of the great and the gruesome. And by 'great' I certainly don't mean good. I mean 'great' as in extremely powerful. 'Gruesome', you could take your pick as to which of the grisly alliance members, the 'Coalition of the Killing' Barack Obama has assembled, as to which is the most gruesome..."

MegB

Unionist wrote:

Great thread, laine!

Look at all those progressive babblers in 2002 swallowing the "weapons of mass destruction" bullshit (er Bush-shit). And look at all the folks today, who have bought the notion that we're facing a new monstrous enemy which will come behead us in our beds if we don't invade those countries and save the women and children.

Nothing ever changes, except the names. Memories are wiped clean. Thank Allah for the internet.

The Islamic State is like the Lord's Resistance Army - it has about as much to do with the Islamic faith as the LRA had to do with Christianity. But of course, because the IS is taking over oil resources NATO is bound and determined to wipe the earth of this hoard of Islamic monsters and the MSM is lock-step in playing to the horror of beheading. The Saudis, close allies with the West, have beheaded more than 180 people so far this year. Oh, the outrage. Wait. Where's the outrage?

Is the IS committing atrocities? Of course. Is the West's response all about a humanitarian crisis? Hell no. They don't give a shit, never have, never will.

ETA: It's nearly impossible to figure out, between the competing interests and the propaganda, what is really going on unless you're on the ground. The image that I can't unsee, of the woman being murdered, is double-edged propaganda. The caption claims she is a Christian woman, which is intended to inflame Westerners who identify with that faith. The ritualistic slaughter is an obscene parody of halal ritual butchering.That will outrage both observant and non-observant Muslims. The image is real, but it's been Photoshopped for maximum effect, likely a conglomeration of photos taken throughout the ritualistic killing. Appalling, yes, but worse is that NATO will blunder around, killing masses of innocent non-combatants, making the whole mess much worse without having any effect against the extremists. All to protect Western capital interests.

NDPP

Exclusive: US Asks Canada For Combat Aircraft, Refueling, Surveillance To Fight ISIS (and vid)  -  by Vassy Kapelos

http://globalnews.ca/news/1584408/u-s-asks-canada-for-combat-aircraft-re...

"The United States has detailed how Canada can contribute to coalition efforts against ISIS with combat aircraft, refueling capabilities and surveillance, Global News has learned. The details are included in a letter to Defence Minister Rob Nicholson from the US department of defense.

Global News revealed it was Canada that first asked how it could contribute to coalition efforts in countering Islamist rebels, which led to a letter Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he received from the Americans.

Harper said while Canada makes its own decisions based on capacities, 'there is no reluctance here' to help in the fight against ISIS. 'This phenomenon is a direct threat to the security of this country.

We do not stand on the sidelines and watch. We do our part, that's always been how this country has handled its international responsibilities and as long as I'm prime minister that's what we will continue to do.'

The Canadian government has promised the House of Commons would consider an expanded military role and that it would come before the House."

 

Canada Sends Special Forces to Assist in the Fight Against ISIS (and vid)

http://www.funker530.com/canada-sends-special-forces-to-assist-in-the-fi...

"Harper said that this was a Canadian initiative, not a wider NATO mission, and that the forces are expected to operate from Baghdad..."

NDPP

P.O.V : Do You Support Canada Sending CF-18s in the Military Action Against ISIS?  -  by Rosemary Barton

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2014/09/power-...

Yes - 50%   No - 49%   Not Sure - 1%

Debater

NDPP wrote:

P.O.V : Do You Support Canada Sending CF-18s in the Military Action Against ISIS?  -  by Rosemary Barton

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2014/09/power-...

Yes - 50%   No - 49%   Not Sure - 1%

Looks like Canadians are pretty divided on this issue.  (Although this poll is not a random sample obviously since it's just the CBC audience).

But there may be more support out there for Harper's war plans than we think.

Debater

Liberals, NDP wary of backing combat role in war against Islamic State militants

Monday, Sep. 29 2014

Opposition MPs are expressing concerns about the government’s handling of Canada’s deepening role in the war against Islamic State militants, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears ready to seek parliamentary approval to once again send the country into a Middle East conflict.

In interviews Sunday, NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said his party opposes a combat role for Canada in the campaign against the Islamic State (IS), while Liberal critic Marc Garneau said the government must be crystal-clear on the objectives and role for Canada’s military to guard against an open-ended commitment and mission creep.

Both MPs slammed the government’s lack of transparency on the issue so far – including Mr. Harper announcing while in New York City last week that the United States has asked for Canadian assistance in the fight as Washington seeks to build as broad a coalition as possible. 

----

More:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-ndp-wary-of-backin...

NDPP

Iraq Says No To Foreign Boots (UPDATES and vid)

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

"Iraq PM rejects deployment of foreign ground forces to his country in campaign against ISIL..."

Debater

Will he have a choice in the matter?

Usually the U.S. military-industrial complex makes these decisions regardless of what another country may want.

NDPP

No. And will again...

Slumberjack

Does anyone know what became of Canada's anti-war movement?  Maybe that TV program about celebrities who had faded away long ago would be interested in doing a 'where are they now' segment.

NDPP

Good question. Apparently we won't be needing it because Harper 'promises'...

 

Stephen Harper Promises Not To Drag Canada Into 'Quagmire' in Iraq

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/defence-chief-briefs-cabinet-on-m...

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his government will decide in the coming days whether to expand Canada's military involvement in Iraq to stop radical jihadists from committing 'genocide' - adding he doesn't want to sink this country into a 'quagmire'.

Speaking in the House of Commons Tuesday, Harper reiterated the importance of fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and said Canadian military advisers already in Iraq have been helping Iraqi forces resist 'a force bent on the genocide of the people who live there.'

He also voiced support for the recent US-led bombing campaign against ISIL forces in Iraq and in Syria. The attacks have destroyed vehicles and infrastructure such as gas plants, power stations and grain silos.

'These are necessary actions, they are noble actions,' Harper said. 'And when we thing something is necessary and noble, we don't sit back and say other people should do it. The Canadian way is you do your part.'

frampq

Canada should partake in Nato's mission in Iraq, but Canadians should only act in a supportive role. We cannot risk loosing our equipmemt, let alone more human lives, nor can we absorb the cost of war as easily as other Nato members. 

Unionist

frampq wrote:

Canada should partake in Nato's mission in Iraq, but Canadians should only act in a supportive role. We cannot risk loosing our equipmemt, let alone more human lives, nor can we absorb the cost of war as easily as other Nato members. 

Hope that answers your question about Canada's anti-war movement, SJ.

Apparently we are allowed to kill, but not be killed. Sounds cool. We should buy us some drones. It's the white way to wage war.

Oh and frampq, there is no NATO mission in Iraq. Please do your research before deciding which mission you want Canada to partake in. I personally have no problem joining a non-existent mission. The risk of losing our equipment is minimal.

 

 

iyraste1313

Canada's Anti war movement?

Yesterday took part in the Kelowna Greens gathering focussing on healthful living sustainable economics, quality food and agriculture, offering our products and ideas and strategies...the activist community was not present. The anti war movement was not present?

Why?

Took part in the Social Forum in Ottawa. Only the anti war activisties, their workshop and Assembly was weak. And when I tried to introduce some relevant proposals re Canada's participation in the imperialist plans for the planet, shot down by some leader? with virtually nobody in attendance!
Part of the problem definitely is the leadership of the last antiwar movement in Canada. O no we can't say that, do that!

But look at this thread page! People actually believe Canada is going to war against a terrorist movement in Syria?

I'm still waiting to hear the NDP's "conditional" support for the war.

We have to look at the mind numbing media, starting with the CBC, responsible for putting people to sleep...

But yes we have to rebuild a movement! It may be critical for our planetary survival, especially given what a key role Canada does play, globally!

sherpa-finn

A discerning piece by Chantal Hebert on the partisan politics playing out around this issue:  Harper & Co were always for military intervention in Iraq, while the NDP was always against it.  So no surprises there.

So, the only substantive political questions are:

- do the Liberals have the political courage to vote NO?

- and does Harper have the political courage to send the troops if the Liberals do vote NO?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/01/stephen_harper_not_helping_himself_by_recycling_iraq_war_rhetoric_hbert.html

Paladin1

NDPP wrote:

P.O.V : Do You Support Canada Sending CF-18s in the Military Action Against ISIS?  -  by Rosemary Barton

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2014/09/power-...

Yes - 50%   No - 49%   Not Sure - 1%

 

Quote:

- Yes: 1429 votes (55%)

- No: 1134 votes (44%)

- Not sure: 27 votes (1%)

NDPP

Stephen Harper CONfirms 26 Canadian Soldiers Now in Iraq

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-confirms-26-canadian-sold...

'Ready, Aye, ready!'

 

CrossTalk: Obama's Folly (and vid)

http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/191920-obama-foreign-policy-isis/

"America's foreign-policy elite appears to have no idea what it's doing. We are told Obama wishes to obliterate the Islamic State - by air - without helping Iran or Assad or alienating Sunnis. Is this hardly possible? What could possibly go wrong? CrossTalking with Massameh Torfeh, Stephen Schlesinger and Hillary Leverett."

Slumberjack

I missed Kropotkin's middle fingered adios from upthread.  As an Anarchist, it seems that the list of things to be against grows longer by the day.

Pages

Topic locked