Hands off Syria!

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Good reporting there, U.

NDPP

posted to War in Syria Aug 25 re: MSF:

 

"Doctors' Behind Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims are Aiding Terrorists

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/doctors-behind-syrian-chemical-...

"MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack."

MegB

Do's and don'ts for progressives discussing Syria:

Quote:
1. DON’T in any way say or imply both sides are wrong and it’s not clear who we would be supporting if we get involved militarily. This is an insult to every Syrian who has and continues to go out in the streets and protest both the regime and those forces who are looking to use this time of war to assert their own power over others. It is a shame how many progressive groups in the US just jump on the “both sides are bad” wagon so we shouldn’t get involved. There are one million children who are refugees and that is the fault of the regime. It is the regime who is bombing cities with jets; it is the regime that has ruled the country with brutal force for decades. Any statement that doesn’t acknowledge this is again an insult to those who have sacrificed so much.

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/dos-and-donts-for-progressives-discussing-...

MegB

Ms. Kudaimi is, in fact, Syrian American. She has an MA in Conflict Resolution and writes for a number of progressive publications. She's a member of the Arab American Action Network and is Outreach Coordinator for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. But, of course, what could she possibly know?

NDPP

CP of Greece: Statement of Communist and Workers' Parties Against the Imperialist Military Attack Against Syria

http://www.solidnet.org/greece-communist-party-of-greece/cp-of-greece-st...

"....We call on the working class, the peoples all over the world to oppose and condemn the new imperialist war.."

Unionist

Rebecca West wrote:

 

Ms. Kudaimi is, in fact, Syrian American. She has an MA in Conflict Resolution and writes for a number of progressive publications. She's a member of the Arab American Action Network and is Outreach Coordinator for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. But, of course, what could she possibly know?

Actually, what I meant was that USians have a serious obligation to stand for non-intervention at a moment when their own government is getting ready for a military strike. I wasn't questioning her credentials or knowledge - just her stand.

Rebecca, do you agree with the portion of her article which I cited above?

Unionist

Yeah, Judy Rebick linked to that article by a "Syrian-American activist". It's really bad news, in my opinion. Some of the comments following the article are right on, e.g.:

Marco wrote:

You tell us that we shouldn’t fall into the trap that both sides are wrong. Well, I will tell you that in this case your so-called progressives are wrong just like the war-mongering neo-cons and neo-libs are wrong. The U.S. should stay out of Syria no matter how much it offends progressive sensibilities.

And back to the original article, listen to this:

Quote:
I personally don’t believe that US is going to get militarily involved. They promised weapons to the rebels and have yet to deliver. No way is the US getting in because as has been pointed out by Gen. Martin Dempsey and in a NYT opinion piece, it is so much for useful for US “interests” for Syrians to kill each other. I think taking a position of the US should not get involved through a military intervention is fine. DON’T put it as “Hands off Syria” implying this is some kind of American conspiracy. DON’T argue this is about US not having a right to taking sides in a civil war. DON’T make it all about money for home since we do want more humanitarian aid. DO frame it as what will help bring the suffering of Syrians to an end.

Sheesh.

Caissa

Harper says no plans for military action against Syria.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/29/pol-harper-syria.html

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

from: 4 of the worst arguments for invading Syria yet

"...Robinson takes the Obama administration’s claim that the Assad regime carried out the attack at face value. It’s clear that an attack took place. Less clear is who, exactly, carried it out. While the evidence certainly leans toward Assad being the perpetrator, the U.N. still has to do its groundwork, and cruise missile strikes can wait.

There are also other avenues for punishment if it becomes clear Assad did carry out a chemical weapons attack: the International Criminal Court and economic sanctions."

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Caissa, Baird already said Canada doesn't have the specific weapons that he has been told would be used against Syria. However, Harper backs NATO 100% - and anyone else who wants to be involved - in an attack on Syria. Harper obviously has "gun envy" and will likely work to fill the arms gap so he can get involved in wars in the future.

 

MegB

Unionist wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

 

Ms. Kudaimi is, in fact, Syrian American. She has an MA in Conflict Resolution and writes for a number of progressive publications. She's a member of the Arab American Action Network and is Outreach Coordinator for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. But, of course, what could she possibly know?

Actually, what I meant was that USians have a serious obligation to stand for non-intervention at a moment when their own government is getting ready for a military strike. I wasn't questioning her credentials or knowledge - just her stand.

Rebecca, do you agree with the portion of her article which I cited above?

I largely agree with most of her statements, with some reservations. I would state more forcefully that military intervention would, predictably, be a disaster for Syrian non-combatants, and am not as confident as Ms. Kudaimi that the US won't intervene militarily.

ETA The quotes you put around "Syrian American activist" weren't a mistake on your part - you don't make those kind of mistakes and know full well the impact of how you word your posts and the effects of punctuation, among other things, texture your POV.

Aristotleded24

Rebecca West wrote:
Unionist wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

 

Ms. Kudaimi is, in fact, Syrian American. She has an MA in Conflict Resolution and writes for a number of progressive publications. She's a member of the Arab American Action Network and is Outreach Coordinator for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. But, of course, what could she possibly know?

Actually, what I meant was that USians have a serious obligation to stand for non-intervention at a moment when their own government is getting ready for a military strike. I wasn't questioning her credentials or knowledge - just her stand.

Rebecca, do you agree with the portion of her article which I cited above?

 

I largely agree with most of her statements, with some reservations. I would state more forcefully that military intervention would, predictably, be a disaster for Syrian non-combatants, and am not as confident as Ms. Kudaimi that the US won't intervene militarily.

And again, it is a false choice to insist that the US invades OR does nothing. There are other steps that can be taken to encourage a peaceful settlement that don't involve military action or inflaming the situation to make it worse.

MegB

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:
Unionist wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

 

Ms. Kudaimi is, in fact, Syrian American. She has an MA in Conflict Resolution and writes for a number of progressive publications. She's a member of the Arab American Action Network and is Outreach Coordinator for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. But, of course, what could she possibly know?

Actually, what I meant was that USians have a serious obligation to stand for non-intervention at a moment when their own government is getting ready for a military strike. I wasn't questioning her credentials or knowledge - just her stand.

t. Objecting to milita

Rebecca, do you agree with the portion of the article which I cited above?

p>

 

I largely agree with most of her statements, with some reservations. I would state more forcefully that military intervention would, predictably, be a disaster for Syrian non-combatants, and am not as confident as Ms. Kudaimi that the US won't intervene militarily.

And again, it is a false choice to insist that the US invades OR does nothing. There are other steps that can be taken to encourage a peaceful settlement that don't involve military action or inflaming the situation to make it worse.

It would be a false dichotomy if that were presented, but it is not. Rejection of military intervention does not, in any way, imply a binary.

Unionist

Rebecca - leave me alone. Deal with the content of my posts. Not what you blithely assume is my style and character. Thanks a bunch in advance.

janfromthebruce

There are one million children who are refugees and that is the fault of the regime. It is the regime who is bombing cities with jets; it is the regime that has ruled the country with brutal force for decades. Any statement that doesn’t acknowledge this is again an insult to those who have sacrificed so much.

Exactly

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

There are one million children who are refugees and that is the fault of the regime. It is the regime who is bombing cities with jets; it is the regime that has ruled the country with brutal force for decades. Any statement that doesn’t acknowledge this is again an insult to those who have sacrificed so much.

Exactly

This is the kind of opinion which enables the NDP's craven capitulation to imperial aggression. Shame.

A Montreal Paul

nakedApe42 -"NATO bombing stopped the war in Kosovo" - on the contrary, the Serb response to NATO bombing was a dramatic escalation of its "counterinsurgency" (ie scorched Earth tactics against civilians to flush out the KLA). What stopped the war was the threat of a ground invasion. Do you think it would be a good idea to threaten a ground invasion of Syria? Would you like Canadian troops to sink into an Iraq-style quagmire in Syria? Juzt asking.

 

A Montreal Paul

Anyone promoting military intervention has the moral obligation to explain to us what they realistically hope to achieve through said intervention, since 1) Assad seems to be winning the civil war; 2) It's far from clear we really would want the rebels to win anyway, considering that they can't seem to agree on anything except they hate Assad and many of them are quite unsavoury; 3) A bombing campaign is unlikely to tip the balance unless it is massive, resulting in much loss of civilian life. Dropping  bombs might help some people feel better about hundreds of people being gassed in Syria than if we did nothing, but frankly "we must do something" is not an argument for doing anything in particular, it's just another form of handwringing.

MegB

Unionist wrote:
Rebecca - leave me alone. Deal with the content of my posts. Not what you blithely assume is my style and character. Thanks a bunch in advance.

A sad commentary on a genuine criticism of how you post. You've been bullying babblers who don't agree with you for years, and now you're crying foul?

Shame on you for thinking we're all so easily cowed.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

UK Parliament just rejected David Cameron's motion to act against Syria. On CNN, a White House source says Obama is prepared to go it alone if necessary.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

eastnoireast wrote:

nakedape42 wrote: Syria is a shithole. What on earth would any "imperialist" power want with it?

the whole country? your comment is a racist shithole.

nakedape42 wrote: Have you even considered the possibility Western countries are simply outraged over the use of chemical weapons and want to see the conflict stopped sooner rather than later?

ha ha ha. "western countries", white and pure as the driven snow, outraged at the brown folks in their self-made shitholes.

and, oh yeah, this is the same syrian regime canada was happy to have mr arar tourtured by.

Calling Syria a shithole may not be politically correct, but it's far from racist. Just saying the country is a mess which no developed country has any interest in.

BTW, social-cons like to play the race card on Israel, trying to put its critics in the same league as Nazis. It's all bullshit. 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

E. May today:

“I expressed to Mr. Baird that no military action should take place in the absence of a UN resolution. Military action is unlikely to resolve the conflict and could, in fact, worsen the humanitarian crisis.

Not surprising May is taking the Chamberlain approach. But I doubt rainbows and unicorns will dissuade Assad from mass murdering more innocent civilians.

Aristotleded24

nakedApe42 wrote:

eastnoireast wrote:

nakedape42 wrote: Syria is a shithole. What on earth would any "imperialist" power want with it?

the whole country? your comment is a racist shithole.

nakedape42 wrote: Have you even considered the possibility Western countries are simply outraged over the use of chemical weapons and want to see the conflict stopped sooner rather than later?

ha ha ha. "western countries", white and pure as the driven snow, outraged at the brown folks in their self-made shitholes.

and, oh yeah, this is the same syrian regime canada was happy to have mr arar tourtured by.

Calling Syria a shithole may not be politically correct, but it's far from racist. Just saying the country is a mess which no developed country has any interest in.

BTW, social-cons like to play the race card on Israel, trying to put its critics in the same league as Nazis. It's all bullshit. 

Okay, you still haven't explained how Western countries killing innocent civilians is an effective response to the Syrian government killing innocent civilians, assuming it was the Syrian government responsible.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:

Syria is a shithole. What on earth would any "imperialist" power want with it? Have you even considered the possibility Western countries are simply outraged over the use of chemical weapons and want to see the conflict stopped sooner rather than later?

A chemical weapons attack which the UN has blamed on a terrorist group, not the Syrian government.

Actually, one UN official believes the rebels used chemical weapons. That's not the UN's official position. The official cautions she has "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof." 

In any case, Assad is torturing and murdering thousands of innocent civilians. He needs to be stopped.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Besides, think of your logic. You want to kill Syrian civilians to stop the Syrian government from killing civilians.

That's certainly not my logic. We are capable of using laser-guided smart bombs to take out Assad's military installations and war machines. We can also enforce a no-fly zone to stop atrocities. There's no need (or desire) to put soldiers on the ground.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Good on Elizabeth May for being the only Opposition Leader to oppose the use of military force in Syria. My quibble with her statement is that I would ammend it to say no military action, period.
 

In other words, let the slaughter continue unabated...

Geoff

Here's an article that summarizes nicely the argument for skepticism towards those who advocate against attacking Syria: http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4052387-be-skeptical-be-very-skepti...

The responses that follow the article are nothing more than ad hominem attacks against the author, but no one has anything substantial to say that would contradict his facts.  It's a very good article.

Aristotleded24

Ten years ago, this could have read:

nakedApe42 wrote:
In any case, Saddam Hussein is torturing and murdering thousands of innocent civilians. He needs to be stopped.

...

That's certainly not my logic. We are capable of using laser-guided smart bombs to take out Saddam Hussein's military installations and war machines. We can also enforce a no-fly zone to stop atrocities. There's no need (or desire) to put soldiers on the ground.

These are the same media outlets who lied about Kuwaiti babies being taken from incubators, and about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Why do you trust them to tell you the truth now?

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

A Montreal Paul wrote:

Anyone promoting military intervention has the moral obligation to explain to us what they realistically hope to achieve through said intervention, since 1) Assad seems to be winning the civil war; 2) It's far from clear we really would want the rebels to win anyway, considering that they can't seem to agree on anything except they hate Assad and many of them are quite unsavoury; 3) A bombing campaign is unlikely to tip the balance unless it is massive, resulting in much loss of civilian life. Dropping  bombs might help some people feel better about hundreds of people being gassed in Syria than if we did nothing, but frankly "we must do something" is not an argument for doing anything in particular, it's just another form of handwringing.

Well worth repeating as is the article posted by Geoff:

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4052387-be-skeptical-be-very-skepti...

I was wondering whether Hans Blix would add his perspective to this mess. Thanks for finding that, Boom Boom.

Aristotleded24

nakedApe42 wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Besides, think of your logic. You want to kill Syrian civilians to stop the Syrian government from killing civilians.

That's certainly not my logic. We are capable of using laser-guided smart bombs to take out Assad's military installations and war machines. We can also enforce a no-fly zone to stop atrocities. There's no need (or desire) to put soldiers on the ground.

And just what is the record on US drone and air strikes in terms of reducing civilian casualties?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

UK Parliament just rejected David Cameron's motion to act against Syria. On CNN, a White House source says Obama is prepared to go it alone if necessary.

I think this is a huge story. The Guardian summary, followed by the live-blogging transcript is here. Apparently, 30 Conservative MPs and 11 Lib Dems voted against the motion. It failed, even though 30 Labour MPs were not in the House to vote. Is it possible that democracy is breaking out in the U.K.?

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Unionist wrote:

Quote:
What on earth would any "imperialist" power want with it?

Kill people, on a whim. They do that a lot you know.

Nonsense. US presidents, for example, have had a specific reason for every military action they have engaged in.

There are many examples where the agenda was corrupt; some actions can be rationally judged as war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or violations of founding democratic principles and international law.

But each agenda and action must be judged on a case-by-case basis because each sitation is different. 

Unionist wrote:

Quote:
Have you even considered the possibility Western countries are simply outraged over the use of chemical weapons and want to see the conflict stopped sooner rather than later?

I've considered the possibility that it's opinions like yours that are responsible for all the evil in the world, with few exceptions. Thanks for showing me the darkest side of the human face. It's scary, but educational.

It's laughable that you are attempting to take the high moral ground by advocating nothing be done while a brutal dictator tortures and murders thousands of innocent civilians.

What about Hitler and the Holocaust? Do you believe he was in his rights as a leader of a "sovereign state and people" and the rest of the world should've stayed out it?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about the roots of evil. Pure animal desire for power tops the list. Greed is a good second. Third is good people doing nothing allowing evil to triumph...

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Quote:
Is it possible that democracy is breaking out in the U.K.?

Well that would be refreshing. Wish the same would happen here.

Still, relieved to see that the secret dossier of evidence approach that Blair used for Iraq is not fooling anybody.

I am so sickened by how quickly so many forget that the way to deal with criminal acts is through criminal courts. From the aftermath of the terrorist attack on 9-11, reasoned international lawyer called for a criminal approach to prosecuting terrorism and called the attack on Afghanistan completely illegal. Since then, we have seen one illegal attrocity after another, all claiming to be part of some kind of humanitarian intervention - much like the militaristic human rights approach that Ignatieff alway favoured. Syrians don't need more bombs. They need a negotiated peace settlement now that the western powers have fomented a full-on civil war.

Unionist

Rebecca West wrote:
Unionist wrote:
Rebecca - leave me alone. Deal with the content of my posts. Not what you blithely assume is my style and character. Thanks a bunch in advance.

 

A sad commentary on a genuine criticism of how you post. You've been bullying babblers who don't agree with you for years, and now you're crying foul?

 

Shame on you for thinking we're all so easily cowed.

The above is written by a "moderator". Yes.

Do you have the power to delete my account? Go ahead and do it. Show us how you deal with people who have been "bullying babblers for years".

ETA: I apologize for this tantrum - I lost it - and I apologize specifically to Rebecca and all babblers. Stupid me.

 

mmphosis

The world reacts to the crisis in Syria - The Oatmeal

Aristotleded24

nakedApe42 wrote:
What about Hitler and the Holocaust? Do you believe he was in his rights as a leader of a "sovereign state and people" and the rest of the world should've stayed out it?

Allied involvement in WWII had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. The Holocaust wasn't known until after the war, it was the Russians who discovered the death camps, and in the lead-up to the war, many countries including Canada closed their doors to Jewish refugees despite their pleas for help.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Naked Ape:

You wrote in part:

"

It's laughable that you are attempting to take the high moral ground by advocating nothing be done while a brutal dictator tortures and murders thousands of innocent civilians.

What about Hitler and the Holocaust? Do you believe he was in his rights as a leader of a "sovereign state and people" and the rest of the world should've stayed out it?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about the roots of evil. Pure animal desire for power tops the list. Greed is a good second. Third is good people doing nothing allowing evil to triumph..."

Lets think this through. You realize that doing something about evil means "boots on the ground", right? I am sure you do. So, that means that Libs and Tories have to be ready to send the sons and daughters of other people off to war; their kids aren' going to be the ones

So, lets get this straight. I servedf 20 plus years in the Navy. I have first hand experience explaining to wives why their loved ones were being sent of to go and possibly meet their maker. So what about you Sport. Are you stll young enough to serve; if not do you sons and daughters you are ready to sacifice in the name of this great cause. If you don't want to serve, and don't want to send YOUR sons and daughters, Maybe you should stop condemning those of us who are opposed to this military folly, I served. I've earned the right. As to those who haven't but are oppossed to this, they have rightousness on their side. For my money, if you won't put up, well, maybe you shuld just shutup. I'm just sayin'.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

laine lowe wrote:

I was wondering whether Hans Blix would add his perspective to this mess. Thanks for finding that, Boom Boom.

I'm having loss-of-memory issues, but I do recall Blix in an earlier engagement (Iraq?) and wanted to read what he had to say about the Syria "situation".

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

All evening CNN has been bringing people forward who support Obama going it alone. Nauseating. I think Obama (and America) has a 'hero complex' - he probably feels if he intervenes alone the world will hail him as a hero and probably award him a second Nobel. (cross-posted to BNR)

Aristotleded24

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

UK Parliament just rejected David Cameron's motion to act against Syria. On CNN, a White House source says Obama is prepared to go it alone if necessary.

I think this is a huge story. The Guardian summary, followed by the live-blogging transcript is here. Apparently, 30 Conservative MPs and 11 Lib Dems voted against the motion. It failed, even though 30 Labour MPs were not in the House to vote. Is it possible that democracy is breaking out in the U.K.?

Isn't it ironic that George-go-it-alone-Bush had more support among the international community for invading Iraq than Obama seems to have now?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Harper said today he fully supports a military strike in Syria, probably wishes he had the right weapons to join alongside Obama. And David Cameron is probably fuming at his loss today.

NDPP

Boom Boom wrote:

laine lowe wrote:

 

I was wondering whether Hans Blix would add his perspective to this mess. Thanks for finding that, Boom Boom.

 

I'm having loss-of-memory issues, but I do recall Blix in an earlier engagement (Iraq?) and wanted to read what he had to say about the Syria "situation".

Blix Interviewed by RT:

'Saudi In Syria to Weaken Iran, Not For Human Rights' - Ex IAEA Chief (and vid)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-kEzXzR8uU

Bubbles

 

Boom Boom,

It should not be all that difficulf for Harper to develope a homeopatic valium bomb in the next few hours.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

 

Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

 

Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines

Yep!

mark_alfred

I don't really follow international politics and/or history too much.  So, I don't know too much about what is going on here.  That said, some interesting developments I've learned about.  Seems Britain is not going to be joining any upcoming campaign in Syria, which is a surprise.  Harper has given no clear indication, but it's been tepid support at best for any campaign, and currently nothing is planned for Canada's involvement.  I don't know if the UN will authorize something, or if the States will just go in for a day with weapons blazing on their own -- seems the States will do a brief hit regardless of what position the UN takes, given Kerry's speech.  Kerry cites evidence, but given the misleading claims of WMD justifying Iraq, it may pay to be skeptical.  However, now there's also social media that provides some evidence.  Hard to know what to think.  From what I hear, France would likely join, I'm guessing. 

Anyway, I'll keep reading the different posters here.  Good to see the different perspectives on this issue I know little about.

Unionist

Need to revive this old thread, because:

1. Canada is still bombing Syria and Iraq.

2. The Paris attacks will likely provide Trudeau with a pretext to "postpone" his promise to stop the bombing.

3. Saudi BFF Philippe Couillard, who has been on the "bomb ISIS" bandwagon forever, now has a new lease on death (sounding like his colleague Hollande):

[url=http://www.ledevoir.com/international/europe/455276/philippe-couillard-c... ready to respond to "acts of barbarism"[/url]

Quote:

The Québec premier called on Canada to be strong in the face of the "acts of barbarism" perpetrated in Paris. Couillard believes that Canada must show that it is "available" if the international community asks it to intervene. 

His opinion leans clearly in favour of military intervention. "You'd have to be very naive to think that we're not in a state of war", he told media Saturday morning, before adding: "When you're facing a mortal enemy, you have to fight it with proportional weapons."

So - Canada is in trouble, because the voices of peace and non-aggression are going to be fewer and further between than they were the day before yesterday.

iyraste1313

What is upsetting is the lack of info on the recent Iraqi government seizure of a Canadian aircraft with Russian guns and grenades en route to Syria Kurdistan...what was the purpose of this illegal smuggling of weapons from Iraq? Why were the Canadians carrying Russian weapons?

This must be investigated and expósed as to what really is Canada´s role in the area?

Unionist

The Liberal government has said it will withdraw the CF-18s... doesn't say when... and then makes sure to say "we support the coalition!" and that Canada will send soldiers to "train" the inferior races who don't know how to fight ISIS.

Rona Ambrose of the Conservatives demands that we continue to bomb people. She needs to show leadership by going there, now, in a CF-18.

The cowardly NDP has said nothing whatsoever.

Where are the voices of Canadians demanding that the bombing of Syrians and Iraqis must stop, now?

Mr. Magoo

The people of Syria will oust ISIS wihout our meddling intervention the same way the people of Poland gave the Nazis the heave-ho without our meddling intervention.  When will we ever learn?

Unionist

Excellent article by Gerry Caplan on rabble.ca (reprinted from the Globe):

[url=http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gerry-caplan/2015/11/after-paris-more-wa... Paris, more war will change nothing[/url]

Quote:

But what does Mr. Trudeau do now in the wake of Paris? There will be relentless pressure on him from many sides not just to maintain Canadian fighters in Iraq but to augment Canada's contribution. My bet is, first, that he will soon find it impossible to resist and that Canada will shortly be in the middle of another futile Middle East war. And second, that most Canadians will applaud the decision. I devoutly hope I'm wrong.

History teaches us some things sometimes, and one is that Western military intervention in Arab and Muslim lands has almost never achieved its declared goal. This has been true in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, and against the Islamic State. We will surely kill a lot of Arabs and/or Muslims. But to what end? Whatever success we now claim we have achieved is the result of significantly diminishing, often ignoring, the aims we once had for intervention.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The people of Syria will oust ISIS wihout our meddling intervention the same way the people of Poland gave the Nazis the heave-ho without our meddling intervention.  When will we ever learn?

Your sarcasm is as weak as your analogy.

Pages