Hands off Syria!

I agree. I am afraid they are considering the old "boots on the ground" trick. This is one time Tom better not go "Ready, Aye Ready".

Chris Floyd has a post up about this that deserves to be read. He only mentions Obama and Cameron by name, but Harper (and Trudeau and Mulcair) deserve the same condemnation. The conclusion:

Chris Floyd wrote:

These leaders know that their action will murder innocent people (as so many of their actions do, week after week, year after year), they know (because their own analysts and experts tell them) that it will exacerbate extremism, worsen the conflict in Syria, destabilize the region, increase global tensions and lead directly and indirectly to the needless death and horrific suffering of countless people in the days and years to come.

They know all this, they will do it anyway. They know all this, but they do not care. They don't know how to care. They have given themselves over to Moloch -- to the insane, inhuman force of violent domination -- and they must blindly follow its dictates. Nothing can stop them, no reasoned argument, no moral objection, not even self-interest, national or personal. They are insane. They are stupid. They are enslaved to murderous power -- so they will kill.

Well,this should please Netanyahu.

.

.

Unionist wrote:

I'm not suppressing your "voice". I'd actually like to hear it.

Attack? Not attack? What?

My position? Not attack. Strict sanctions that are targeted to reduce the flow of weapons into Syria. Encourage a negotiated settlement.

"Canadians must raise their voices."

That includes asking Le Dauphin where HE stands. Don't bother, he'll do whatever the Amercans tell him to do. He' NOT his dad.

Unionist, do you want Trudeau to win. And by the way,  once he's PM, Le Dauphin will do whatever the Americans tell him to do. This is grand standing. So what, he wants a debate. Big deal; once he's  PM, he won't have a problem doing whatever the Americans tell him to do. I think you know that. And if you don't, well don't blame when I say to you, told you so. Trudeau is a Corporatist; he'll do whatever the Americans tell him to do. And I ask again, do you want Le Dauphin to be Prime Minister? I'd like to know;  that's what it looks like to me.

I told you, I served. I have first hand experience with sending people off to fight and how it affects them and their families. This isn't a game of gotcha.

And by the way, stop rubbing my face in it. I'm getting tired of it.

Unionist,

I am glad to see that you are still around.

If it was up to me we would stay out of Syria.

Obama is a stupid man, when he drew a line in the sand.

With the rebels losing, crossing that line in the sand became their motivation.

Also the American government has lost all credibillity.

And beside that we have enough on our hands to recapture our democracy from corporate control.

Well, I'll take Tom's quiet acquiescence over Le Dauphin's crocidile tears; at least its more honest.

But I will tell you one thing, I agree with you when you use the word a...... As I said I know first hand how this impacts the people who get called to go on these wars of self indulgence. These poliiticians think this is a G-d damn game; of course its easy to play it when you know nothing you decide will affect your loved ones. I guess its always been that way. But to say it makes me mad, is, to say the least, an understatement. I say it again, Tom better get this right. Mind you, they don't care what I think. He got my vote and my money. I don't know why I keep trying. I must be a masochist. It could be just a kind of a "next year in Jeruslem", thing. Brother.

We were lied to in the lead-up to the first invasion of Iraq (the incubator caper), we were lied to in the lead-up to the second invasion of Iraq (non-existent weapons of mass destruction).  Why is no politician or high-profile journalist in Canada asking some hard questions about the propaganda leading up to the anticipated attack on Syria? 

While we're at it, why not point out the obvious, which is that the Syrian Government has nothing to gain by using chemical weapons, as they have been gaining ground against the rebels, and as they know using them would likely result in an attack by the US and its minions?  The rebels, on the other hand, are losing ground, so they are more likely to become desperate, and therefore be more likely to resort to employing chemical weapons.

I see there's another thread about differences between the Liberals and the NDP on policy.  Well, here's a chance for Tom to demonstrate at least one difference, big time.

Unionist wrote:

Jack Layton knew how to set aside that bullshit when it came time to represent the best interests of Canadians. See if we can have a discussion about imperialist aggression against Syria without accusing each other of being closet Liberals or trolls or whatever.

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?

Let's compare this to Bush Jr. beating the war drum on Iraq. It was crystal clear back then that the US was manufacturing evidence of WMD to justify invading the country to secure its oil resources. It got so ridiculous Powell was saying this balsa-wood and duct-tape Red Green version of a drone was capable of delivering WMDs.

The two are not similar by any stretch of the imagination.

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.

Here is a hastily-written letter I just wrote to my MP on the Syrian subject. I encourage the rest of you to do likewise:

Quote:

Dear Mr. Bruinooge:

I am very concerned about the situation in Syria. While I share the government's outrage over the recent chemical attack, I do not agree with any military action whatsoever. You can spin it all you want, the fact is that a military action will inevitably result in the loss of civilian life, the very civilians the Canadian government is concerned about protecting. Furthermore, a military strike only risks destabilizing the situation further, which will cause more anger and frustration, and puts Canadians in more danger as a military strike gives terrorist organisations an excuse to recruit more members. The root causes of the strife in Syria are very complex, and I am asking that the Canadian government advocate, through the UN and other international agencies, for a negotiated settlement to the conflict. There are other means of controlling the violence, such as targeted sanctions against weapons that can be directed at the Syrian government that will not be nearly as destructive as a military strike. Furthermore, empowering the Syrian population to resolve the conflict without violence will result in a more stable region, will gain Canada respect, and provide fewer and fewer incentives for terrorist recruiting as people will no longer feel intense frustration.

Please do not lend any support, military, moral, or otherwise, to this dangerous mission, and advocate for a peaceful settlement.

Sincerely,

*personal contact information removed*

CC: Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Robert Nicholson, Minister of Defence
Thomas Mulcair, Opposition Leader
Paul Dewar, Opposition Critic for Foreign Affairs
Jack Harris, Opposition Critic for National Defence
Justin Trudeau, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
Dominic Leblanc, Liberal Critic for Foreign Affairs
John McKay, Liberal Critic for National Defence
Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada
Bruce Hyer, Independent Member of Parliament for Thunder Bay-Superior North
Brent Rathgeber, Independent Member of Parliament for Edmonton-St. Albert

It's bad enough that American citizens do not have the option to vote against a violent foreign policy, but it appears Canada is going down that same path.

I think some of you may want to reconsider your support of "sanctions" as well.  The term sounds nice, but it is just a slower form of violence against a country you wish to subdue.  Sanctions includes cutting off imports of food and products used to grow food domestically.  The last people to get fed during times of economic suppression ARE the most vulnerable...the women and children. 

By the way, after Canada told the US that Canadian troups would not go into Iraq, that is when western Canadian ranchers got the mysterious "BSE" outbreak from an American rancher ranching in Alberta with an American infected cow. Western Canadian ranchers know how hard sanctions can hurt, and I think that people had better look at the role sanctions play internationally as a silent form of agression against another country and the long term consequences of such violence.

Unionist wrote:

Goggles Pissano wrote:

I think some of you may want to reconsider your support of "sanctions" as well.  The term sounds nice, but it is just a slower form of violence against a country you wish to subdue. 

Agreed.

Hence my arguing for targeted sanctions, particularly when it comes to weapons. I know that sanctions can cause harm but I believe they can also be a useful tool if done properly. I believe we should be advocating for the reduction of weapons world wide in any case. The fewer weapons available, the fewer people who are going to get killed.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 

Hence my arguing for targeted sanctions, particularly when it comes to weapons. I know that sanctions can cause harm but I believe they can also be a useful tool if done properly. I believe we should be advocating for the reduction of weapons world wide in any case. The fewer weapons available, the fewer people who are going to get killed.

That was the excuse the Canadian government used to justify their sanctions against the Mohawks at Oka during the Oka standoff.  All we heard from the MSM  during the whole ordeal was that the Mohawk warriors had weapons.  Then, when I watched the independent video documentaries after the fact, I saw for myself exactly what "TARGETED" sanctions really meant.  Canadian troups bayonetted all the flour coming into the reserve thus wrecking the entire shipment by making it unsanitary. The Canadian troups justified their actions citing that there could be "weapons" being smuggled in. Food rations were slowed down to a trickle and all food imports closely supervised and inspected by Canadian forces thus violating the privacy of the Oka Mohawk people.

This is how Canadian forces behave with fellow Canadians. Just imagine how they would react with people who are not their neighbours and when they are not on home soil.

As for weapons, since the beginning of civilization, people have had and used weapons.  Any time the economy is bad and in a recession, you can expect the United States to invade another country somewhere on the planet.  One can also expect them to use the other country's weapons as a justification for going to war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defe...

Tell me again about the outrage over the use of chemical weapons.

Killing Civilians to Protect Civilians in Syria

excerpt:

The United States and its allies must refrain from military intervention in Syria and take affirmative steps to promote a durable ceasefire and a political solution consistent with international law. If the U.S. government were truly interested in fomenting peace and promoting accountability, it should apologize to and compensate the victims of its own use of chemical weapons around the world.

By the way, for those who want to pin the failings of NDP foreign policy on Mulcair, does anybody here believe for one second that Jack would have taken a different position on Syria than what Mulcair is doing now?

I certainly don't.

nakedApe42 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Jack Layton knew how to set aside that bullshit when it came time to represent the best interests of Canadians. See if we can have a discussion about imperialist aggression against Syria without accusing each other of being closet Liberals or trolls or whatever.

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?

While eastnoireast's remark "your comment is a racist shithole" lacks elegance, it's essentially true. Your ignorance of Syria and Mid-east politics is staggering, and is certainly no excuse for such a position. Your inability to understand the underpinnings of imperialism is also evident. I suggest you educate yourself on the issues before claiming that Syria is a shithole that holds no interest for the West.

Outraged over the use of chemical weapons? Yeah, like they were outraged when Saddam obliterated entire Kurdish villages with poison gas. Your naïveté, if that's what it is, is jaw-dropping.