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

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Yeah, go kill 'em and "we" will be safe.

Is Trudeau gong to b e a "War Prime Minister"?

Mulcair is supporting intervention too. That is what started this thread. I defended Mulcair. But ooops, on the wrong topic.

Pondering, so?

When are YOU enlisting? Oh yeah, I forget, your a non pascifist, pascifist, concinetious objector, intervention supporter. Sorry, go confused.  I can't imagine why. Classic,  "Pondering", classic.

ETA: Opps, forgot my point, is Trudeau going to be a "War Prime Minister", and will you support him, when we're up to unr necks in it, "Pondering"?

Pondering wrote:

I am still on the side of helping the Kurds, but I have been reading and I am for wanting to help the Kurds. We are not bad people for this. At the very worst we are naive.being influenced. I am not alone in this thread

At this point westerners have swamped the Mid East with weapons and used factions against one another and trained terrorists etc. ad infinitum. Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Even if we could stop shipping all weapons tomorrow and washed our hands of the area it would still be a mess and they would still hate us with enormous passion and they would stil want to destroy us.

The "do nothing" alternative doesn't seem like a solution.

Arthur, it didn't occur to me that you would choose to continue attacking me in this thread. I will copy and respond to all of your attacks from this thread here: http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/pondering#comment-1457330

Moving my response to the following to the Current Mess thread at http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/current-mess-and-addition-new-f...

eastnoireast wrote:

isn't there something we all agree to when we sign up to rabble that says the parameters include some basic starting points - like not supporting warism, racism, sexism, etc?   

there is a lot of that bullshit here now, dragging the conversation down to "should we or should we not support harper's warmongering". 

no, no we should not.

That's an amazing post, "Pondering". Are you a Mod now too?

Pondering wrote:

I am still on the side of helping the Kurds, but I have been reading and I am for wanting to help the Kurds. We are not bad people for this. At the very worst we are naive.being influenced. I am not alone in this thread

At this point westerners have swamped the Mid East with weapons and used factions against one another and trained terrorists etc. ad infinitum. Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Even if we could stop shipping all weapons tomorrow and washed our hands of the area it would still be a mess and they would still hate us with enormous passion and they would stil want to destroy us.

The "do nothing" alternative doesn't seem like a solution.

Arthur, it didn't occur to me that you would choose to continue attacking me in this thread. I will copy and respond to all of your attacks from this thread here: http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/pondering#comment-1457330

Moving my response to the following to the Current Mess thread at http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/current-mess-and-addition-new-f...

eastnoireast wrote:

isn't there something we all agree to when we sign up to rabble that says the parameters include some basic starting points - like not supporting warism, racism, sexism, etc?   

there is a lot of that bullshit here now, dragging the conversation down to "should we or should we not support harper's warmongering". 

no, no we should not.

That's an amazing post, "Pondering". Are you a Mod now too?

"Pondering", this link, http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/09/the_politics_behind_canadas_iraq_war_adventure_walkom.html. says the NDP hasn't committed itself. Do you have a link that says the NDP, and Mulcair, specifically, says they support intevention?

This is a great artilce; http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/09/12/jackson-doughart-sunni-versus-shia-is-still-the-real-story-in-iraq/

Intervention cannot work. "Helping the kurds", simply will aggravate this. Anoyone who supports our intervention is simly helping ot perpetuate George W. Bush's lethat, and failed legacy in the Middle East. This is ill considered. ANYONE who supports this intervatnion is clearly not thinking this through. Canada, stay home. This is NONE of our business. And, entirely counter to the loudly trumpted legacy especially clung to by LPC partisans of Canada as "Peace Keeper". Pearson must be rolling in his grave at the idea of Trudeau going "Ready, Aye, Ready" whenever the Americans demand it.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Pondering", this link, http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/09/the_politics_behind_canadas_iraq_war_adventure_walkom.html. says the NDP hasn't committed itself. Do you have a link that says the NDP, and Mulcair, specifically, says they support intevention?

It was what I understood from Unionist's post and I can see from your link that the NDP is staying on the fence until they are forced to jump. This is much like the Liberals and NDP on prostitution.

In my opinion if the NDP commits it will be in favor of sending advisers possibly with some warning that they should not be in combat.

 

 

Oh, OK, so now Mulcair isn't supporting Harpe, he's on the fence now. So, that means that the NDP and the Libs don't have the same position, doesn't it. Oh, and then I see you decided to fall back on deflction, talking about something the LIBERAL'S DID. Did the NDP force the Liberals to do take that position? I don't think so; so, why bring it up? As to what the NDP did, at least they seemed to be hesitant about going "Ready, Aye, Ready", which the Liberals did without hesitiation. And frankly, how do you REALLY know what the NDP will do? You haven't any idea.

But back to the first point, you misrepresented Mulcair's position. He DIDN'T DO what TRUDEAU DID; he exercised BETTER judgement. How could that be possible; Le Dauphin is infaliable, just like the Holy Father, right?

ETA: I noticed no comment on the National Post article. That's kind of odd isn't it? It coudln't be because it expalins what a completely foolish, ill-considered decision supporting the kurds is, could it? Why that would mean Le Dauphin was wrong. He's infallibale right? Just like the Holy Father!

I don't agree laine. The rah rah peacenik approach doesn't address what action we should take. Those of us who are concerned about the power and brutality of ISIS want to know what the alternative is.

This was posted in the thread on the federal elections.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/federal-election-2015?page=32

Aristotleded24 wrote:

[url=http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I... and bombs will only escalate the situation[/url]

The article is simplistic because it's short but at least it suggests a different or additional path forward.

Quote:

What we should have heard from President Obama last night would have been a four-part diplomatic proposal. You know, there's at least four diplomatic things that should be done, but we didn't, unfortunately, hear any real emphasis on that.PERIES: Can you elaborate on what those four points might have been?BENNIS: Well, we could start with looking seriously at what is it going to take to change the dynamic of sectarianism in Iraq that creates support for ISIS. The reason ISIS is so powerful is because they have support on the ground, particularly from Iraqi Sunnis, particularly Sunni tribal leaders and their militias, Sunni generals from the former regime that are providing the kind of military strategy and training for ISIS. So we need to talk seriously about that and figure out what's it going to take to pressure the new government to reverse that. It's not going to happen on its own. And the U.S. doesn't have that much power. So this is a moment when the U.S. needs to engage with Iran, the other influential player in Baghdad. The U.S. and Iran right now are on the same side. Both want a newly inclusive government in Baghdad. So this is a moment for real negotiations, real diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran. That could be number one. Number two--....

The nuclear talks are going very well. Perhaps this should be a moment to try to expand those talks, to really look at the idea of a grand bargain with Iran that would take up the question of the regional crises and Iran's role legitimizing Iran's role as a regional power. That's perhaps not in the immediate agenda, but that's the kind of diplomacy we should be thinking about.

....

Third, we need to resume the failed diplomacy of a few months back to end the Syrian war, the six wars that are now being waged in Syria in the context of this broad civil war. The U.S. is president this month of the UN Security Council. Maybe this is a moment to urge the UN to restart those global negotiations. And just by the way, this could be a moment for the U.S. to resume negotiations with Russia, taking off on the successful negotiations between the U.S. and Russia that led to the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal. That could also help the tension that is now underway between the U.S. and Russia on Ukraine. But most importantly, it might be the beginning of real negotiations to end the war in Syria.

And fourth, the question of an arms embargo. You can have whatever negotiations you want at any of these levels. But as long as all sides are continuing to flood the war zones with more weapons, there's not going to be any hope of a political settlement. There needs to be serious pressure brought to bear on Saudi Arabia, on Qatar, on Turkey, on all the U.S. allies to stop sending weapons to the Syrian opposition, much of it going directly to ISIS. The U.S., if it has any hope of being able to persuade Russia and Iran to stop arming the Syrian regime, they've got to show some kind of a quid pro quo by pressuring their own allies to stop arming the opposition. So all of these four areas of diplomacy would have been a much better replacement for the four kinds of military that we heard from President Obama.

Pondering wrote:

 The rah rah peacenik approach doesn't address what action we should take. Those of us who are concerned about the power and brutality of ISIS want to know what the alternative is.

The west already has about 25 years and counting of war, sanctions, bombings, more sanctions, and then more war, plus outright occupation in that region.  When is enough ever going to be enough for you burden carriers of the world?

Slumberjack wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 The rah rah peacenik approach doesn't address what action we should take. Those of us who are concerned about the power and brutality of ISIS want to know what the alternative is.

The west already has about 25 years and counting of war, sanctions, bombings, more sanctions, and then more war, plus outright occupation in that region.  When is enough ever going to be enough for you burden carriers of the world?

That NAILS it Slumberjack! You are so spot-on in this post. I completely agree.

The real solutions, like crippling the power of Corporations in that part of the world, bringing politicians to judgement for the mess they have created there, and working for real social and economic justice in that part of the world, the REAL causes of the horrors being committed in that part of the world, remain unaddressed The willingness of people to go along with the "we have to do something" attitude is the biggest obstacle to actually addresseing the real causes of burtiality and suffering in that part of the world, caused directly by the West's continued pursuit of these failed policies.

I have to say "Pondering", I am sick and tired of people like you disimssing those of us who are oppossed to to the continued use of military violence as "peaceniks'. You know that Tom Walkom, a Chickcenhawk, used that term just days ago to dismiss people like Slumberjack and I. For your info, Slumberjack served in the CF. Why are you so very willing to completely dimsiss the opinons of CF Vets with real experience who know what it acutally means, and have been impacted, on a PERSONAL LEVEL, by policies that advocates off military support, espouse and embrace?

You don't actually have any idea, "Pondering", what this "intevene to stop burtiality", policy advocacy, really means in terms of its effect on the lives of the men and women who served. Again, I remind you, when did you EVER have to explain to a spouse, why "you were sending their spouse off to get killed".  Especially since you told me you are not a Pacisificist but would NEVER volunteer to put yourself in "Harm's Way". For my money, based on my REAL and FIRST-HAND expereince, I find your position absolutely, beyond beleif. The unfortuante part is, solely because of the MSM, you are winning in swayiing in public opionion. By the way, the MSM is mostly full of Chickehawks. Don't expect their Sons and Daughters to be enlisting soon, either. Oh, and did I mention the Sons and Daughters of Liberal Party of Canada politicians?

ETA: And by the way, talking about "rah-rah, attitude", try looking in the mirror.
ETA 2: By the way, "Pondering", you never admitted you were actually wrong about Mulcair's stance on this.

Slumberjack wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I have to say "Pondering", I am sick and tired of people like you disimssing those of us who are oppossed to to the continued use of military violence as "peaceniks'.

Yeah, it seems to evoke Pierre Trudeau's statement regarding 'bleeding hearts.'  With liberals, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed. But it's more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of a soldier.

Nailed it! Almost 50 years later and still the same things coming out of the mouths of Liberals and their supporters.

Pondering wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

what strategies would you prefer...take your pick...I`ve given you lots of valid targets

If you had read my post you might have noticed it offered 4 non-military strategies.  I have found the background articles on the mid-east conflict uninteresting because they primarily focus on the nefarious doings of the west, the arming of both sides, etc. I don't know all the details of the individual sins but the conclusion is unchanged. It's a story of greed and the military industrial complex.

The article I cited was offering alternatives so I offered it as an example of explaining what else we can do rather than just reiterating that war is bad and the US is an evil empire. Be that as it may, it isn't a fresh point.

But "Pondering", War, is, bad! And the US, has, done, eveil things. You are answered lyrsate1313 wwith yet, another, non-response.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur, you know where my responses to your personal attacks are. You will find an answer to your Mulcair question there but you may want to check the title of this thread first as it is quicker.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

For your info, Slumberjack served in the CF. Why are you so very willing to completely dimsiss the opinons of CF Vets with real experience who know what it acutally means, and have been impacted, on a PERSONAL LEVEL, by policies that advocates off military support, espouse and embrace?

In a democracy the military doesn't determine where it will and won't be active. "War is bad" isn't exactly an illuminating concept so being in the military isn't necessary to absorb that gem of information.

Everyone who is against military action in principle, should quit the military, not hang around until they can collect a pension. If they are solely against military intervention in this particular case then they need to make a better argument than "war is violent". I should think they would have figured that out when they picked up a gun in basic-training.

I am grateful to my father for having fought in WWll but when he returned he quit the military and joined another profession because he didn't want to be an army officer anymore and I don't blame him one bit. Other people remained in the armed forces after the war and I respect them too for their willingness to continue to serve.

The reason members of the armed forces are respected is because of their willingness to leave family behind and be deployed wherever the country chooses to send them. If they are unwilling to do that they need to find another profession like millions of other Canadians.

"Pondering",, my dad was first wave ashore at Normandy, second man off his landing craft. He fought his way through France and Belgium. His WW2 Service is no more relevant to this discussion then you dad's; it has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing here. He was anti war all of his Adult life; would you dismiss him as a "Peackenik", as well? As to other threads, I don't care whether you think you can tell me how and where I am going to respond. so knock it off.

As is the always the case with you, you have no answer and choose to deflect. I ask again "Pondering", how many times did you have to explain to someone's spouse "why you were sending their spouse off to die"? Frankly, you have no right to an opinon on this issue of Canadian military involvement in the Middle East. You gave that up when you said, everyone else can go, but you won't be there. As to "hanging around for a pension", how patronizing, how demaining, how insulting, how patronizing. Well thanks for that comment, that tells everyone who reads that comment everything they need to know about you and what you think of Vets. Hey you Vets, you are collecting a pension, so shut the hell up, NOW! That's shameful, "Pondering".

You know, your attitude reminds me of the paltitudes one heard during WW2 in the US; would you have also argued "its Mr. Rooosevelt's War"?

ETA: Oh, by the way, if you are going to try and use the lingo, at least get it right. It would be pretty hard for a new recruit to pick up a gun, they weigh hundereds of pounds and are called artillery. Going forward, use the proper, accepted, and correct word, weapon, please. Thanks.

PPCLI also call themselves Dirty Patricias ;)

 

Arthur with respect to your position of not wanting to endanger Canadian lives is there a point in which you would support Canadian soldiers deployed against ISIS?   What about if ISIS starts kidnapping Canadian nationals and murdering them?  Terrorist attacks on Canadian soil?

 

While searching for an ISIS training video on youtube I came across a video of ISIS members rounding up 1500 Iraq army POWs putting them in a ditch and shooting them. They're also randomly shooting people in the head and kicking them into rivers.  I'll post the video, I wouldn't consider it safe for work (it's age restricted on youtube).   Mods I'm not sure if it violates the babble policy, I read the policy and couldn't find anything pretaining to it but by all means delete the link if it's inappropriate.

 NSFW    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGrZ3GJkK9Q

I don't make the reference lightly but these ISIS members remind me of footage of Nazi's in WW2. It's wholesale murder going on over there. Do you think by ignoring them or not getting involved in some sort of action plan against ISIS they will just go away or be content with remaining in Iraq or the middle east?

ISIS is not likely to attack us on our own soil. If they do, I'' probably remain opposed. Police Action has worked the best; asked Richard "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike the US", Clark. As to the Middle East, the Canadian Government should issue an advisory and tell Canandians not to go to the Middle East. Here in Canada, lets focus on becoming more self-sufficient in alternative energy. No thanks; no more wars.

Paladin1 wrote:

Arthur I respect your experience and opinion but I simply don't think the majority of Canadains will write off the thousands being murdered reminicent german death squads while we work on energy projects. 

It appears that ISIS very much wants a war, I don't think saying no thanks will dissuade them.

I'm Jewish; I say that's a stretch. This isn't WW2, and ISIS isn't the SS.

Paladin1 wrote:

Did you watch the video I posted?  I can't help but find the images and footage eerily similar.

Nope, dom't want to. I know what is happening; don't have the stomach to watch it. And I'm being honest about it. I do the same thing when they show videos from the Camps. I don't need to see it to know its there. If anyone by the way should be respecting anyone's experience, its me. Again, thanks for your Serviice and the very real sacfices you have made over the course of your career.

I don't believe there are any warmongers in this thread:

war·mon·gerˈwôrˌməNGgər,-ˌmäNG-/nounnoun: warmonger; plural noun: warmongers; noun: war-monger; plural noun: war-mongersa sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.synonyms:militarist, hawk, jingoist, aggressor, belligerent "the president's critics were quick to label him a warmonger"

Some of us support responding to cries for help from people who are being slaughtered by an invading force.

It is possible you are all right about refusing any military aid including advisers but we are not warmongers.

If all you can see is two extremes then extremists is all you will ever be while the "warmongers" as you put it will have the ears of the public.

 

laine lowe wrote:

I guess we were collectively deaf when Israel was assualting the citizens of Gaza. Why did we not send special forces to stop the IDF's onslaught on innocents?

I wish we had sent peacekeepers long ago and I wish we were supporting Israeli peace activists and I wish everyone would tell Israel they wouldn't get another dime or another bullet until they moved out of the settlements and sat down for serious negotiations.

laine lowe wrote:

I guess we were collectively deaf when Israel was assualting the citizens of Gaza. Why did we not send special forces to stop the IDF's onslaught on innocents?

One reason was that the UN Security Council did not support such actions. On the other hand ISIS has managed to pit itself against most of the world so Canada's participation in anti-ISIS military efforts is not controversial. The UN Security Council, EU, Arab League, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Iran, etc... all are supporting the defeat of ISIS.

How often are China, India, the US, Russia, Iran, the Arab League, Turkey, The Kurds, Israel, the EU, NATO, and Al Queda all on the same page?

I find using the UNs stance in debates like this is a bit of a hollow action sometimes.

I find people bring up the UN until the UN makes a decision that they don't agree with then the UN is just as wrong as everyone else.

Unionist wrote:

Welcome warmongers to the new babble! In the name of diversity and tolerance, amen.

got to tell my mom about this thread!! she told me, long ago now, she joined rabble back in 2003, because it was the only place around the net she found who had a consistent anti-war stance in the face of all the propaganda in the invasion of Iraq. 

finding it really really sad young minds are being harmed from the pushing of war propaganda. 

 

I think that the majority of Canadians do not want war, not here, and not elsewhere.  And, I respectfully think that the majority of our neighbours to the south have had enough of this too.

The war machine has motive.

JKR wrote:

... ISIS has managed to pit itself against most of the world so Canada's participation in anti-ISIS military efforts is not controversial. The UN Security Council, EU, Arab League, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Iran, etc... all are supporting the defeat of ISIS.

How often are China, India, the US, Russia, Iran, the Arab League, Turkey, The Kurds, Israel, the EU, NATO, and Al Queda all on the same page?

So why isn't the Arab League taking care of it? I understand that the Kurds were under-armed but the Peshmerga are famous as ground fighters are they not? It seems to me the entire region has lots and lots of experience warring. I am not adverse to helping them stop the advance of ISIS but what is it we have that they don't?

Why is it so difficult to avoid bombing wedding parties? How can it be that difficult to identify invading ground troops? Couldn't they just be spotted by air to inform the Peshmerga? Why can't we just see everything by satellite? I saw satellite pictures of trucks on a road when they were trying to prove that Saddam had WMD.

quizzical wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Welcome warmongers to the new babble! In the name of diversity and tolerance, amen.

got to tell my mom about this thread!! she told me, long ago now, she joined rabble back in 2003, because it was the only place around the net she found who had a consistent anti-war stance in the face of all the propaganda in the invasion of Iraq. 

finding it really really sad young minds are being harmed from the pushing of war propaganda. 

 

Rabble takes a nuanced approach to war - it provides analysis, critique and criticism. It's nothing as simple as anti-war. As for babble, some of the most popular and well populated threads are the white male dominated war threads. As for warmongerers, one person's warmongerer is another's ally to insurrectionists.

Genuine question here: why are you guys all hung up on armed conflict? Whether you're in favour or against, you sure can't seem to get enough of it. What gives? On the rare occasion I wade into a war thread, it's only to point out the humanitarian crises armed conflict creates, the mass deaths of non-combatants. Rarely does my post get a response. What, not interesting enough? It's more fun to argue about who is right and who is wrong than it is to see warfare for the fucked up thing it really is? Enquiring minds want to know.