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

It is of course Syria, as much as Iraq which should concern us here. There are strong indications that involvement in Iraq may be just the warm up act. And the NDP record on opposing sanctions, regime change agendas etc is nothing to write home about. Personally I wouldn't trust them as far as I can spit. No Canadian anti-imperialist/peace movement worth its salt should either.

What is the coalition force strategy here?
Is it not to be a US led coalition?

Has The USA not already admitted or at least suggested ground forces are needed and may already be in Iraq and Syria?
Has the Iraqi Premier not stated that he needs no foreign ground forces in Iraq?

Let`s get to the heart of the matter. Is not ISIS a USA creation with funding and serious economic support from Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia? Veterans Today has a great rarticle on US supplied ISIS weaponry)

Cannot people see that this is all a ruse for the USA with the support of Canada et al to take control through proxy of Iraq`s oil fields, and as part of its world war strategy to neutralize Russia?

Right now of course their oil is being stolen by ISIS and chanelled through Turkey and Kurdistan to Israel and USA etc.

So when they move in on ISIS surely won`t they seize the oil fields, as part of their global strategy, at Canada et als expenses.

The blueprints for this are all over the place (sorry I don`t have the references at the tip of my fingers).....

Does anyone believe that the NDP is going to challenge this scenario?

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

That's classic double-speak Pondering; of course you like. When are you enlisting?

I already did Arthur!  I have just been pulling your leg. I'm a General so you ought to salute me and be more respectful.

Oh Pondering, you STILL LOVE ME! Why after telling me I was "obnoxious", and you weren't going to waste anytime on me, you came back. I've been crying for days; I was heart broken! Oh, be still my heart, Pondering has come back!

I Love you too Pondering!

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

That's classic double-speak Pondering; of course you like. When are you enlisting?

I already did Arthur!  I have just been pulling your leg. I'm a General so you ought to salute me and be more respectful.

Oh Pondering, you STILL LOVE ME! Why after telling me I was "obnoxious", and you weren't going to waste anytime on me, you came back. I've been crying for days; I was heart broken! Oh, be still my heart, Pondering has come back!

I Love you too Pondering!

 LMFAO seriously that was the funniest thing ever posted to rabble.

iyraste1313 wrote:

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930617000996...

a call to prosecute the supporters of the ISIL

Now this is what I call a serious initiative...may the leadership of Exxon and Chevron and the zionists and their support charities in canada be charged with complicity in terrorism! May the backers of the CBC consistently supporting the jihadists in Libya and Syria be charged and swept out of power!

¨I want Mulcair to grow a spine¨

 

Anyone that thinks Mulcair will take any principled stand? Really?

Mulcair represents the gatekeepers...if enough Canadians begin asking questions, the NDP will be right there to take up the slack and gather precious more votes...and like Obama, his mentor in pure deception, will do nothing...

Meanwhile we will all sit in the background congratulating ourselves for getting Mulcair a few more seats.....

instead of doing something to shut down canada´s warfare corporate energy state!

What are you talkng about? Mulcair and Obama? Who do you think the Libs have been talking to? Or didn't you notice how "Hopey-Changey", Justin's messaging is? What is your point. And, it seems to me, you should be heaving more of that criticism towards Le Dauphin. Or am I missing somehting here?

ETA: I am Jewish; this Zionist reference stuff is giving me the creeps. Could you please stop using it that way you are? Its making me uncomfortable. I am believe the Israelis are quilty of war crimes, and that Israel shouldn't be supported over how its treated the Palestinians. I have even written that I think the Israeli's are acting like the South Africans did before the fall of aparthied. But your constant "Zionist" references are really starting to bother me. Please try and find some other way to speak about your concerns about Isreal. Not all Jews are "Zionists", the way you mean them and your blanket brush strokes on this are upsetting. OK? Thanks.

iyraste1313 wrote:

Although I appreciate your being bothered about my references to the zionists, and perhaps I have not laid out in full, the case against the zionist regime....have you not noticed how the Israeli zionist regime is supporting the Syrian jihadists?

or how they are buying ISIL´s oil through their Ashkelon Port?....I´m sorry if I have not the time here to go into the full list of evidence of Israel´s attempts to remove Assad at any price?

I am talking about the zionist Israeli government and their massive support in their country and North America. Thankfully there are a growing number of jews who are catching on to the reality that the jewish people have been manipulated, not to mention the orthodoz jews who have been opposed to the zionist experiment from day one!

regarding Mulcair and Obama...I am referrring to the strategy to buy off the left and idealists. 
I remember way back when the NDP came to power first time in BC, how many of my friends in the anti poverty movement, disappeared, later to have the Minister of Social welfare, whatever name it then was called, declaring the poor as welfare bums.....its has been ongoing.....

When Obama came to power under lies and deceptions (whatever his motive...most likely bribery and extorsion)...he successfully destroyed the left in the USA.

Mulcair of course won´t come to power in Canada because there is no left to speak of, no real opposition to speak of, to buy out!

And of course Trudeau will win the next political gameshow, because Harper is too honest too exposed about his ideals and plans, so Canada needs a master of lies and deceptions to take charge to carry oiut the work of the oligarchs that run this country.

Well, I don't know. Why do you have to say Zionist Government? Why not Israeli Government? My life experience says the use of this language is a catch-phrase for anti Jewishness. I am very uncomfortable with your choice of lanaguage.

Who ever said the left were pacifists?

France bombs Isis depot in Iraq

François Hollande's office says air strike destroyed logistics depot in north-east held by Islamic State

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/france-bombs-isis-depot-ira...

@ SJ

Yup, especially when you consider that what the State of Israel has turned into is not a symbol of Jewish power so much as Imperialist power, and many of its strongest supporters (supporters of that aspect, certainly) do so for right wing political, and Christian religous reasons.

Putting the onus on one race to stop it is at best nonsense.

I cringe a bit at some of the use of the term Zionist, because although it is certainly a racial term, not all who support it do so for the same Imperialist reasons. Although those roots were always there, it is also something which has been co-opted. But I do think it is fair comment.

OMG! Romance on Rabble? This is real Canadian-style too with lots of cussing and fighting.

Why don't we start with the premise that killing, rape, torture, and slavery is wrong. This includes war. As i have previously stated, in this world where there is still violence and killing on this scale, the only progressive posture is a defensive one. Indeed if you have a very progressive country, the imperialists and warmongers want to take you down, as you are an example of life without them.

People are very afraid of ISIL, as they have drawn the world map and shown how they intend to extend their 'State' to the furthest reaches of Islamic conquest in all centuries. They have also claimed all of India.

There may be in all of this a desire to help the people who have been abused by ISIL. More war such as on Gaza is not the solution, as all it does is kill people and leave wreckage. Not to its credit, Israel has backed down slightly from its Ariel Sharon stance. To its advantage, ISIL distracts attention from Israel, which is the main Islamic grievance with the world. Israel has the sophistication and cynicism to play both sides in a conflict if it distracts from them.

The Americans have been bragging how they can see every square inch of the world with their satellites, and how they can remote control military operations so that some gamer in a bunker in Kansas can blow up an enemy tank half way across the world. The missiles themselves have cameras and can have their courses altered in mid-flight. With this kind of technology, why would anyone need to send flesh-and-blood troops in? It must be the Americans have a much bigger hat than a horse. The main instrument of US power is financial in the form of the New York Federal Reserve. All currency transactions are crossed through the US Dollar. Being unable to conduct foreign trade will bring down a government quickly. It is widely suspected by my IRC troll chatterpeople this is what has caused Putin to cool his jets a bit.

So we have to ask, if we are opposed to ISIL, who is giving them material support either wittingly or unwittingly? Those issues can be handled in the course of business.

The only humanitarian option with force is not to wage war but to rescue actual human beings from misery, rape, torture, and war. Two WALK FREE people have gone missing in Qatar. WALK FREE is a dangerous calling, but we must fight slavery no matter what. Fans of the Bible will know that their Deity informed them he brought them out of slavery before laying down the law. (Exodus 20) Please support WALK FREE.

In our hearts, I think we want to protect people from violence, but we do not do that by making more violence. Mahatma Gandhi showed how in one way. As far as the UN goes, I think it is currently being run by a man with great compassion (Ban Ki Moon). He has spoken out against slavery, and we should support him if we can. I do not know about UN operations, but if I were in a troubled zone I would hope those blue helmets were not coming to kill me.

Someone (I think Unionist) made the brilliant implication that some people are progressive about the history of the past and reactionary about the present and the future.

This, I think, is based on fear of the unknown. The past can't happen to us (and thank everything that it doesn't according to what I am learning), we don''t know everything about the present, and we know nothing about the future. What we do not know, we automatically fear. But. We do know that slavery, torture, rape, and war are wrong. We don't even have to say what is right. Economically, I think most people here are opposed to speculation and rent as a principle. We would like to see artisanship, manufacturing, and service. We would like to see less extraction.

There used to be cedars in Arabia and North Africa. Now there is a desert and some pyramids and a gold mask. Log it for the iron smelters so you can make chains for more slaves and then send them down the gold mines. Farm it while the weather is still good and then when the land is dead move on. The iron furnaces are mentioned in the first five books.

"The end of history" has some way to go yet.

Honest question.

Suppose our worst suspicions are correct; US and friends created ISIS.  Suppose the US even directly laid out what they wanted ISIS to do and sent them on their way to chop heads off and murder thousands.  Totally 'our' fault.

What should we do about the mass-murdering taking place? Should we just shurg our shoulders and say sorry can't help/won't help?  Do we turn our banks on the masses being murdered in order to prove a point? Is a justifiable reaction "the US wants us to get involved so because of that we're not going to"?   We just mind our own business and let someone else worry about it?

Sounds like a plan. So until global revolution comes, what should we do about my in-laws who are about to be murdered? Call and tell them it's all Canada's fault?

Paladin1 wrote:

Honest question.

Suppose our worst suspicions are correct; US and friends created ISIS.  Suppose the US even directly laid out what they wanted ISIS to do and sent them on their way to chop heads off and murder thousands.  Totally 'our' fault.

What should we do about the mass-murdering taking place? Should we just shurg our shoulders and say sorry can't help/won't help?  Do we turn our banks on the masses being murdered in order to prove a point? Is a justifiable reaction "the US wants us to get involved so because of that we're not going to"?   We just mind our own business and let someone else worry about it?

Why not; Saudia Arabia has the fourth largest military in the world and is easily capable of delaing with ISIL itself. Add to the fact the wealth of the Saudi Royal Family, estimated at 300 Billion, at least, and there are more then enough resrources in the Middle East to deal with this.

We simply must not allow the Saudis any longer to fund groups like ISIL and other extremists while sitting on this tremendous wealth and demandng we do something about it because the Koran says Muslims shouldn't kill each other. Frankly, that is their book of beliefs and they can deal with it. There is no valid reason for us to be there. If they want to kill each other, let them. The hell with them.

There is NO justifiable reason to send our Sons and Daughters off to fight a war these folks don't seem to want to fight themselves with the tremendous waste of National Treasure. I am sick of this. Lets focus on becoming as self-sufficient of Gas and Oil as we can and let that part of the world fend for itself. Enough is enough; this is about oil and wealth, someone else's wealth. Its not up to us to perserve their privilege gained on the backs and blood of others.

Unionist wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

Thankfully there are a growing number of jews who are catching on to the reality that the jewish people have been manipulated, not to mention the orthodoz jews who have been opposed to the zionist experiment from day one!

You really should find a different way to express your thoughts, please.

 

lyaste1313, please stop using this kind of lanaguage, it is offensive and as a Jew, I can tell you I have had enough. Contain your hatred of Jews and Isreal and keep it to yourself. I tried to ask you nicely above without being direct. Now, I am asking you directly to stop it. Show some respect please.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Also Jews and Jewish merit a capital J.

I have certainly listened to a number of Jewish commentators on world affairs and politics for many years. To say they have been manipulated implies a group-think that does not exist. Have you spent any time around Jewish people arguing politics? Let's just say it looks just like any other random group of people arguing politics with political views on offer from one end to the other.

 

Exactly the point I have been trying so poorly to make. To the point as always, Sean!

When Tom say he's against it?

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

When Tom say he's against it?

I thought that was the consensus, but even if not the title says Harper has NDP support and that certainly isn't the case. It's why I assumed the NDP had supported the mission.

That's too bad you don't have a quote; I'd really like to think that Tom is listening to people like Juan Cole, and not some dopey advisor.

MegB wrote:

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.

never go into war threads I did this one because one of my friends 10 year old son is upset because he thinks we are going to be bombed by the Russians any day after listening to the news and not understanding it. the propaganda flying around is harmful and those participating in it are a poor excuse for a human being in my mind.

iyraste1313 wrote:

What should we do about the mass-murdering taking place...!

cco wrote:

what should we do about my in-laws who are about to be murdered? Call and tell them it's all Canada's fault?

This is why I support Canadians being involved in whatever the heck is going on overthere.  I'm less concerned about the politics and more concerned about families running for their lives.  I'll let smarter people than me figure out who started it, whos responsible and how to make sure it doesn't happen again; I just want to save the lives of as many people as possible.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The problem is that the US will not give up on the idea that it alone deserves to control the world, and that is what is preventing them from taking such a sensible approach.

We can't over look the milti-billion dollar price tag of training, equiping, flying, housing and feeding soldiers and contractors.  War is great business if your company is responsible for feeding $20'000 mouthes 3 times a day. Or bringing that company it's food. Or providing trucks for fuel to transport that food. Etc..

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I am STILL waiting for a Lib supporter on this board to tell me why Justin Trudeau is smarter then Juan Cole, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Jim McDermott, and Canada should go along with Harper and get involved in the latest Middle-East quagmire as Trudeau seems so ready to do. Well? We all know you hate Mulcair and any position Tom takes can be easily dismissed. Why dont' you guys actually tell us why Juan Cole has it wrong and Trudeau has it right? Go ahead!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/17/mulcair-harper-iraq_n_5837620.ht...

Quote:

"I support the current mission as designed, with the caveat — the important caveat — that we continue to have parliamentary oversight, that we continue to have debates on this mission to make sure that it continues to be a mission that Canadians understand is important."

"And for me, training (the) local army and providing a support role, non-combat, is perfectly acceptable as something that Canada has expertise in and should be able to share."

That you assume it will lead to combat roles for Canada does not mean that is what Trudeau is supporting.

Oh COME ON "Pondering"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Juan Cole and others have said this can't help but escalate. YOU, on the other hand, despite what History shows, believe that "this time, things will be different". It is IRREVLEVANT what Trudeau supports because what he is supporting is FANTASY. Come on Pondering, come on, just for once, admit you are wrong.

By the way, I still think you have no business offering any opinon on ths. As a Vet, I am completely offended by you and your "let them fight but don't expect me to do it", attitude. I say it again, during WW2 would you have said, "its Mr. Rooosevlets War".

 How is the view from the cheap seats, "Pondering"?

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 As a Vet, I am completely offended by you and your "let them fight but don't expect me to do it", attitude. I say it again, during WW2 would you have said, "its Mr. Rooosevlets War".

 How is the view from the cheap seats, "Pondering"?

This challenge has been thrown out to multiple posters.

Are the only people who should have a right to express an opinion on whether or not we go to war, those who are willing to go fight it?

Is this the majority progressive view on babble?

Seems rather militaristic to me and I should think it would lead to more wars not fewer wars.

 

What an unbeleviable deflection Pondering. What is the matter, do you need others to fighht your wars here on Rabble; oh wait, you do. I was talking about you Pondering. What a faint-hearted dodge. You are the one who said you would never serve, and would tell every one else not to serve while demanding Canada taking Miitary action. Who is the real Militaristic Hawk here. Why, its YOU, Pondering.

Answer the question, would you have said its Mr. Rooosevelts war. What are you afraid of.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

  Answer the question, would you have said its Mr. Rooosevelts war. What are you afraid of.

I can't answer the question because I don't understand it.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

What an unbeleviable deflection Pondering. What is the matter, do you need others to fighht your wars here on Rabble; oh wait, you do. I was talking about you Pondering. What a faint-hearted dodge. You are the one who said you would never serve, and would tell every one else not to serve while demanding Canada taking Miitary action. Who is the real Militaristic Hawk here. Why, its YOU, Pondering.

Unlike you I am here for political discussion not squabbling which you noted you have difficultly resisting.

You have expressed a philosophy about what kind of people have a right to an opinion on Canadian military action that I consider troubling.

If anyone supports intervention your first question is whether or not they are willing to fight personally. I don't consider that a valid question in a debate on military intervention which should be focused on the issue of what is in Canada's best interests.

Who do you think you are kidding.? You aren't here to discuss; you're here to pontificate.

You are a hawk who doesn't want to fight. You don't seem to be bothered by the idea that military intervention means others, sooner or later die. All you know is Canada has some kind, of obscure, indefinable "duty" to intervene for whatever reason you have decided fits, "to help the Kurds". I have provided you with plenty of references that show this is a fool's folly that will needlessly lead to suffering and death and in fact is completely baseless; but that's OK, it doesn't bother you. You think you know better then everyone including people like Jaun Cole, Elizabeth Warren and Jim McDermott. And on top of it, and most importantly, there is no way under any set of circumstances you will admit Trudeau has this wrong. You can't. It undermines everything you have argued here since you started posting, and you know it. And, everyone here knows it too.

"Pondering", advisors advise others how to fight and KILL. There is NO way to escape that reality. What I object to regarding your stance is  you want intervention at no cost to you. For my money, that's to say the least, "objectonable". I don't care what you consider a valid question; of course you don't consider anything a valid question that doesn't fit YOUR DESIRED FRAME! That is all it is about. You are quite happy living in your little bubble of smug self-assuredness. After all, it doesn't cost you anything.

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

You are a Hawk and won't show the necessary moral fortitude an admit it. I have no issue with you being a Hawk; but I sure as day have an issue with you not being willing to admit. I've earned the right to call you out, and I'm calling you out. All this debate on these pages of this website in a real way doesn't matter, "Pondering". And this is because, when its all said and done, I know what you are. Bluster all you want, the fact remains you are in-directly, and maybe without volition, unabashedly and unapolgoeticly, pro-war. How "Progressive". Again, you can be as pro War as you want. Just, have the fortitude to admit it.

Shame.

from thierry meyssan´s latest...(voltaire network)...

 This is a letter from the commander-in-chief of the FSA, Salim Idriss and dated January 17, 2014. It reads: "I hereby inform you that this ammunition sent by the chiefs of staff to leaders of the revolutionary military councils of the Eastern Region must be distributed in accordance with what was agreed upon: two-thirds to the warlords of the el-Nosra front, the remaining third to be distributed between the military and the revolutionary elements in the fight against the bands of IEIL (Islamic Emirate in Iraq and the Levant). We thank you for sending us the proof of delivery of all ammunition, specifying the quantities and qualities, duly signed by the leaders and warlords in person, so we can forward them to the Turkish and French partners. "In other words, two NATO powers (Turkey and France) have delivered ammunition for two thirds to the Al-Nosra Front (classified as a member of al-Qaeda by the Security Council) and one third to the FSA so that it can fight against the "Islamic Emirate", headed by one of its senior officers. In fact, the FSA has disappeared on the ground and the munitions were therefore intended for two-thirds to al-Qaeda and one third to the "Islamic Emirate".

With this dual role device, NATO will be able to continue to launch its hordes of jihadists against Syria while claiming to fight them.¨