Canada to Bomb Iraq (and prob. Syria too!)

[broken_legs]

Poll Question: Should Canada Bomb Iraq?

House Approves Combat Mission
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/house-approves-combat-mission-against-isis-1.2042926


It authorises air strikes in Iraq for up to six months and states explicitly that no ground troops be used in combat operations.

The combat mission includes up to six CF-18 fighter jets, a refuelling tanker aircraft, two surveillance planes and one airlift aircraft. About 600 airmen and women will be involved.



Yay, fucking idiots.

Officially, Iraq has just become the second country after Libya I have had to leave due to Canada dropping bombs in less than 4 years. Now if Canada bombs Syria as well, thats a true fucking disgrace. This country is losing all moral high ground.

Instead of bombing Iraq and Syria, why dont we bomb Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Why isnt our government trying to find out and put a stop to whomever is funding ISIS?

This is absurd. It stinks more than the WMD justification for Gulf war 2. At least then, people only suspected that the WMD case was fake. This time its widely known and reported that our allies are funding, arming, and training the people we are going to bomb.

Where is the media asking the tough questions? How can this shit keep happening?

/rant


Mar 29 Update EDIT:
Gee that didnt take long at all.

Here's Harper with Peter Mansbridge 3-1/2 months ago:

What were very very clear on is that we dont want anything thats interpreted as a war on the government of Syria. We were invited by the government of Iraq, were doing that, thats why were there.
....

...But we have no desire to enter in a war with any government in that country (Syria)...

Fast Forward to 9:35
bZDvlCipyNM




March 24:


... The government is also seeking the support of this house for its decision to explicitly expand the air combat mission to include Syria

...

The government has now decided we will not seek the express consent of the Syrian government, instead we will work closely with our American and other allies
bXyyuO2tcBI


^^ So we are bombing a sovereign nation without declaring war.

Do ya think this might piss off some folks? Tehres already a bunch of other warring nations bombing that country. What exactly is Canada going to add to this???

Does anyone remember 9-11? People were outraged at the request to go to war in Iraq. Where is the outrage?? Why are we attacking Syria?

[broken_legs]

Prime minister Stephen Harper's Conservative Party introduced the motion last week and it was debated this week. Mr Harper has a majority of seats in parliament so the 157-134 vote was all but assured.

It authorises air strikes in Iraq for up to six months and states explicitly that no ground troops be used in combat operations.

The combat mission includes up to six CF-18 fighter jets, a refuelling tanker aircraft, two surveillance planes and one airlift aircraft. About 600 airmen and women will be involved.


Also just to clarify something. Im all for Canada to go bomb ISIS in KURDISTAN at KURDISTANS request.

Thats not whats goimg to happen though. We are going to bomb areas and cities where the locals are sympathetic to ISIS. Areas that are outside of Kurdistan in Iraq that are Sunni and probably happy that the Shiite Iraqi army is gone.

Im 100% against bombing syria and any other part of iraq (even with bagdhads approval)

This set of cf18s is exactly the same contingent we sent to Libya 3.5 years ago. That was a mess before we got involved and its still a mess now.

[slinkie]

Originally posted by broken_legs

Instead of bombing Iraq and Syria, why dont we bomb Saudi Arabia and Qatar?


:nut:

They make millions a day from syrian oil fields btw

[Go4Long]

I'm not sure what your poll is supposed to be asking since the questions you asked are not really able to be answered by yes or no responses...so as to why our media is not asking tough questions, or why we aren't bombing Saudi Arabia and Qatar, I answered undecided.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Go4Long
I'm not sure what your poll is supposed to be asking since the questions you asked are not really able to be answered by yes or no responses...so as to why our media is not asking tough questions, or why we aren't bombing Saudi Arabia and Qatar, I answered undecided.

The poll question is "should canada bomb iraq


Originally posted by slinkie


:nut:

They make millions a day from syrian oil fields btw

I believe thats a new phenomenon and greatly exagerated by western media. Whos buying it, and how are they paying for it? Why dosnt the US sanction those countries?






http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006

small but steady flow of money to ISIS from rich individuals in the Gulf continues, say current and former U.S. officials, with Qataris the biggest suppliers. These rich individuals have long served as "angel investors," as one expert put it, for the most violent militants in the region, providing the “seed money” that helped launch ISIS and other jihadi groups.

No one in the U.S. government is putting a number on the current rate of donations, but former U.S. Navy Admiral and NATO Supreme Commander James Stavridis says the cash flow from private donors is significant now and was even more significant in the early fund-raising done by ISIS and al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, the al-Nusrah Front.

[broken_legs]

"No boots on the ground" ( except the 26 Special Forces "Advisers" that are already there )



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-confirms-26-canadian-soldiers-now-in-iraq-1.2783846

"It is 26 [Canadian soldiers in Iraq] today," Harper said. "The government has authorized 69, as is well-known. That's obviously a maximum. Those numbers will fluctuate depending on the decisions of operational commanders."

Harper told the House on Sept. 16 that Canada was "in the process of deploying" 69 soldiers.
'Secrecy and evasiveness'

Employment Minister Jason Kenney told the House that same day that "69 brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are providing tactical advice to the Kurdish militias​."

On Sept. 26, James Bezan, parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, told MPs there were "69 members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are providing tactical advice in Iraq," although in a separate answer he'd said "up to 69" special forces were being deployed.

Nicholson himself told the House on Sept. 25 that Canada had "committed" 69 soldiers and that "69 members of the Canadian Armed Forces have the full permission and co-operation of the Iraq government​."

[Feruk]

This conflict will have at least one winner... Assad.


Originally posted by broken_legs
Whos buying it, and how are they paying for it? Why dosnt the US sanction those countries?

Funny enough, sounds like Assad is buying the oil. Also, there is a 700km border with Turkey which is poorly monitored. Can't sanction black market.

[GTS4tw]

No. We should only ever attack anyone if they pose a direct threat to Canada, or have directly attacked an ally. Otherwise we are horrible disgusting child-murdering pigs, but meh, too late now.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Feruk
This conflict will have at least one winner... Assad.



Funny enough, sounds like Assad is buying the oil. Also, there is a 700km border with Turkey which is poorly monitored. Can't sanction black market.

fair enough, lets look at the low case. Its been quoted up to 3 million $ per day, but lets take 1,000,000$

Oil diesnt sell for the spot price in iraq, most IOCs are getting 30-40 $ per bbl

1,000,000 $/day / 30$/bbl = 30,000 bbls of oil being sold per day

33,000 bbls/day / standard turkish 20,000 L tanker truck

Thats 262 turkish tanker trucks crossing the border everyday on a tightly controlled military manned border.

Turkey is part of NATO so should be pretty easy to get them to stop the trucks, right?

And what about the money? Are they transferring gold, cash, bonds all by hand? Wjy cant they shut down the bank accounts?

I see no way to stop this. Our hands are tied. Lets just bomb some more civilians. That will win usmore hearts and minds and surely discourage people from attacking Canada.

[Modelexis]

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/385609/canada-commits-to-iraq-war/


Originally posted by egmilano
They sent advisor's over to help the kurds, maybe some equipment ... big whoop thats not war

[revelations]

Too bad the Arabs and Muslims (ie different sects) couldnt just take care of their own probems :dunno:

[kertejud2]

I find it irresponsible that were sending our brave pilots in without the use of stealth.

Why doesn't this government care about the safety of our pilots?!

[n1zm0]

^I think that IS only has AA guns and MANPADs, but who knows, they might've captured the heavy SAMs from their plundering, so far no reports of aircraft getting hit by one that we know of, pretty sure they're going to be ok.


Originally posted by revelations
Too bad the Arabs and Muslims (ie different sects) couldnt just take care of their own probems :dunno:

I think all the surrounding countries are afraid to commit, plus they have their own local problems brewing, also there's just so many damned groups/borders involved now and none of it will ever come to an easy conclusion imo, it's a far larger deal than where they just started out in Syria last year fighting Assad, this 'campaign' is going to be a long one I think.

Syria:
http://i.imgur.com/2h77rSA.png

Iraq:
http://i.imgur.com/2zhP1yl.png

Kurds supplied by the Iraqis have barely enough firepower to stay aloft, the YPG/PKK also have barely anything to fight off an attack from heavy Soviet howitzers and tanks, the FSA and IF have nothing really (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiyyWiO-IKY), IS has taken control of so much hardware, armour, field guns and logistics equipment, the only thing that can stop them imo is another well equipped/trained land based army trained in conventional warfare. The only real country (and NATO ally with the 2nd largest army within the organization behind the US) that would maybe (and reluctantly) push in somewhat on the ground would be Turkey (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/isis-knocks-on-turkeys-door/381178/) , since their parliament just approved military action along the Syrian border, but most likely wont do anything unless IS breaks through.

Although it seems the airstrikes repelled the take over of Kobani and those major dams in Iraq, I think they're more or less useless in the end since IS has so much manpower and equipment, at most maybe some good combat training for aircraft and ships as well as a financial boost for defence contractors.

[dubhead]

Originally posted by broken_legs



Instead of bombing Iraq and Syria, why dont we bomb Saudi Arabia and Qatar?



/rant [/B]

Likely because Saudi and Qutar have joined in on the ISIS bombing campaign too

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by dubhead


Likely because Saudi and Qutar have joined in on the ISIS bombing campaign too

Strange that Saudi, Qatar, UAE, and Jordan have only committed to bombing Syria (without collaboratiin of the asad government).

Why is that?

What kind of relationship does the Asad government have with the abive mentiined sunni countries?

What do these countries gain by attacking isis?
What would they gain by removing Asad from power?

Gee, I hope theres no stray bombs meant for ISIS that will some how be landing on Syrian government positions.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by broken_legs


fair enough, lets look at the low case. Its been quoted up to 3 million $ per day, but lets take 1,000,000$

Oil diesnt sell for the spot price in iraq, most IOCs are getting 30-40 $ per bbl

1,000,000 $/day / 30$/bbl = 30,000 bbls of oil being sold per day

33,000 bbls/day / standard turkish 20,000 L tanker truck

Thats 262 turkish tanker trucks crossing the border everyday on a tightly controlled military manned border.

Turkey is part of NATO so should be pretty easy to get them to stop the trucks, right?

And what about the money? Are they transferring gold, cash, bonds all by hand? Wjy cant they shut down the bank accounts?

I see no way to stop this. Our hands are tied. Lets just bomb some more civilians. That will win usmore hearts and minds and surely discourage people from attacking Canada.

From what I've read, Turkey's 700km border is very poorly controlled. Are you proposing we bomb 262 trucks a day? Based on your math, that'd be $3800/truck that ISIS is making vs tens of thousands (if not more) for dropping a bomb on it. And worse... they'll just get another truck.

Most of the money came from robbing banks is Mosul. Hard currency and gold vs electronic, so cannot simply freeze it.


Originally posted by broken_legs
Strange that Saudi, Qatar, UAE, and Jordan have only committed to bombing Syria (without collaboratiin of the asad government).

Why is that?
My understanding is ISIS is Sunni and Assad is Alawite (or something) which is a brand of Shia. Populations of a lot of those countries wanna see Assad dead before they see ISIS dead.

[broken_legs]

^^

Exactly. This has nothung to do with ISIS.

This has everything to do with removing Asad.


In regards to the trucks... ? Who said anything Biut bombing trucks? Just close the border. End of discusion. Somehiw they can keep the kurds out, yet they cant control almost 300 tanker trucks per day??

Its only porous because Turkey allows it to be.

They allow it because they want ISIS to take out Asad.

Starting to see the common thread here?

[broken_legs]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/120-canadian-forces-personnel-assigned-to-iraq-mission-to-leave-next-week-for-middle-east


The U.S.-led bombing campaign has been hitting ISIL targets in Iraq and Syria. Canadian warplanes will only attack ISIL in Iraq, the government says.

^^Lets see if Harper can keep his word on this.



Looks like our boys will be flying out of Kuwait.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/09/kuwait_base_to_host_canadas_military_planes_for_iraq_mission.html


OTTAWA—The Conservative government has announced that Canada’s fighter jets and surveillance planes bound for the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant will be based in Kuwait.
A status of forces agreement with the emirate, which already hosts a Canadian military supply hub, has been concluded.
The base will host CF-18 jet fighters, two CP-140 Auroras and a C-150 Polaris.
It will be about three weeks before the aircraft are in place and ready to conduct operations.

[Arash Boodagh]

Broken_Legs you seem pretty active in Canadian politics... whats your interpretation of Paul Calandra getting a standing ovation by his party for his firm stance to attack ISIL for Isreal but then having to apologize soon after for that very statement in tears?

http://www.680news.com/files/2013/11/OTTK110140767_low.jpg

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
Broken_Legs you seem pretty active in Canadian politics... whats your interpretation of Paul Calandra getting a standing ovation by his party for his firm stance to attack ISIL for Isreal but then having to apologize soon after for that very statement in tears?

http://www.680news.com/files/2013/11/OTTK110140767_low.jpg

No idea what or who youre talking about. I dont follow Canadian Politics, but I couldnt help but notice when Canada decided to bomb Iraq where i have lived and worked for the last 3 years +.



.... Blehaghabf

[broken_legs]

Gee, that didn't take long. :thumbsdow



Canada's combat mission in Iraq could last beyond 6 months
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-combat-mission-in-iraq-could-last-beyond-6-months-1.2803575


The coalition mission against ISIS militants is "not likely" to achieve its goals within six months, Canada's senior general said Friday.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson said the mission is a difficult one, against a "barbarous opponent."

​"I think it's a bit strong to expect that all the measures of success will be fulfilled in six months. Is there a scenario where it could happen? Maybe, but not likely," Lawson told reporters.


And don't worry about the boots on the ground, were not actually going there to fight just "advise":



During the briefing, they acknowledged that (Canadian) special forces advising Iraqi troops on the ground could come under fire from ISIS extremists as the battle continues.


OK, so maybe it might be more than 6 months. But all we have to do is "fullfill measures of success" and "achieve goals". Should be pretty quick and easy right?



Criteria for success, which Vance said included the rehabilitation of Iraqi armies "to get them on their feet."


Well they just wrapped up a 10 year occupation, which from day 1 included training and creating a new Iraqi army.

So to sum up:
- Were going to war
- Our soldiers will be getting shot at
- Civilians will be killed
- Most of the civilians will be in ISIS friendly Sunni areas, and will probably hate us
- We already know we'll be there for longer than 6 months
- We cant leave until we rebuild the Iraqi army, which just failed after 10 years of training

This is obviously a winning play for Canada that will reap large dividends.

I can't possibly think of anything better to spend the taxpayers money on and generate good will towards Canadians abroad.

[broken_legs]

Remember Libya?



Operation Mobile officially ended Oct. 31, after the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Canada's contribution to the air and sea campaign cost a total of $347 million.

And though the end of the mission was celebrated with an $850,000 Parliament Hill party, three years later, Libya has been overrun with violence between militia groups and extremists fighting for control of the country.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ctv-qp-a-look-back-at-canada-s-last-airstrikes-mission-1.2039249#ixzz3Gec8EwF6


348 million dollars of money we borrowed from banks that will have to be paid back at interest. Thats only 10$ per Canadian!!

What did we get for that smoking good deal?



http://online.wsj.com/articles/rival-governments-dispute-control-of-libyan-oil-1413660615
A dispute between rival Libyan governments over control of the North African nation’s oil industry is escalating, potentially complicating the production and sale of its most vital resource.

Islamist rebels took control of the Libyan capital Tripoli in August and set up their own government, while the internationally recognized government led by Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thani and parliament fled to the east of the country.


OK, so we just helped ISIS type people take over another country.

But we're winning hearts and minds, right?



Canada was involved in a mission that created more anti-western feelings in the region



Sweet.

[01RedDX]

.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by broken_legs
- We cant leave until we rebuild the Iraqi army, which just failed after 10 years of training
Iraq already has a strong army... It just happens to work for ISIS. :rofl:


Originally posted by 01RedDX
Just watched an interesting doc about Gaddafi, he was truly insane, killed a staggering amount of people, funded wars, assassinations and all kinds of terrorist plots, not only in Africa but around the world. Not a huge stretch to blame him for the squalid conditions in Liberia and western Africa and the ebola epidemic.
He wasn't a nice guy in a country of not nice people. He did keep the crazies at bay for years though. He falls, and immediately after Lybia falls apart and all his former opponents start tearing Mali apart too. As for Ebola, I think that can be blamed on world problem #1: Islam. Then again so can just about everything else in that region.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Not a huge stretch to blame him for the squalid conditions in Liberia and western Africa and the ebola epidemic. It's on CBC tonight:

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/episodes/mad-dog-the-secret-world-of-gaddafi

I see a bright future for you in the Ministry of Truth. ;)

[01RedDX]

.

[01RedDX]

.

[broken_legs]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/21/jean-chretien-speaks-out-against-marginal-canadian-military-mission-in-iraq/
me minister Jean Chretien stepped up his criticism of Canada’s military combat mission against Islamist extremists in Iraq Monday, warning it is just the latest in a long history of interventions by western countries that have left “scars” on the Middle East.

In a conference call with journalists, Chretien described Canada’s military contribution of CF-18 fighter jets as “marginal” and “expensive.”

Last week, he penned an op-ed in the Globe and Mail in which he said Canada should be putting its emphasis on humanitarian assistance for the refugees in the region. He reiterated that message Monday, warning that western nations should not be “massively” involved in a combat exercise to defeat ISIS. Instead, he argued, it is better for Middle East countries to do the job themselves.



Here's the link to Chretiens Op-Ed
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-true-role-in-the-mideast-conflict/article21138349/

[16hypen3sp]

I read his article and completely understand what he's saying.

There is just one huge flaw in his idea... they won't solve the problem on their own.

[finboy]

Originally posted by 16hypen3sp
I read his article and completely understand what he's saying.

There is just one huge flaw in his idea... they won't solve the problem on their own.

And clearly neither does sending troops, drones, bombs, etc. over there. We've seen that with the failures of the last 13 years, so maybe we should try taking a LESS hands on approach that kills our reputation abroad and makes us a target. Canada =/= world police.

[googe]

Whether or not a particular leader or group are deplorable assholes does very little to substantiate the idea that blowing them up is a net improvement.

Any conflict in which we did not play a purely defensive role to protect one country from being invaded has been a catastrophic failure. Every last one. We either create power vacuums that are filled with groups who are even worse, incite hate that said power vacuums exploit with their propaganda to get even more recruits, inflict inexcusable collateral damage, or accomplish absolutely nothing at all.


Originally posted by 16hypen3sp
I read his article and completely understand what he's saying.

There is just one huge flaw in his idea... they won't solve the problem on their own.

I hear what you're saying, but there is just one huge flaw in this idea... neither will we.

[Toma]

From chicken shit chicken Hawk Harper, who hides in cupbaords while other MPs prepare for action.

Easy to decide to murder people form the safety of your armchair.

"It has also emerged that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hid in a cupboard in parliament for about 15 minutes during Wednesday's attack as MPs sharpened flagpoles to use as spears against the gunman.."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29752077

Although No ISIS link exists to this attack, it has brought to light that WE ARE AT WAR with the mid east for 13 years, and are setting ourselves up. This guy hits the nail on the head.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...cked-soldiers/

"In sum, the national mood and discourse in Canada is virtually identical to what prevails in every Western country whenever an incident like this happens: shock and bewilderment that someone would want to bring violence to such a good and innocent country (“a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu”), followed by claims that the incident shows how primitive and savage is the “terrorist ideology” of extremist Muslims, followed by rage and demand for still more actions of militarism and freedom-deprivation. There are two points worth making about this:

First, Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses perpetrated by the U.S. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister revealed, with the support of a large majority of Canadians, that “Canada is poised to go to war in Iraq, as [he] announced plans in Parliament [] to send CF-18 fighter jets for up to six months to battle Islamic extremists.” Just yesterday, Canadian Defence Minister Rob Nicholson flamboyantly appeared at the airfield in Alberta from which the fighter jets left for Iraq and stood tall as he issued the standard Churchillian war rhetoric about the noble fight against evil."

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by 16hypen3sp
I read his article and completely understand what he's saying.

There is just one huge flaw in his idea... they won't solve the problem on their own.

Who cares? Its not our problem to solve.

Since when did it become Canada's job to straighten out terrorists in a country on the other side of the globe?

[01RedDX]

.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


I agree, just challenging the idea that things were so much better under Gadaffi. Also, his days were numbered without our involvement, and it can be argued that Libya would have descended into chaos regardless.

Yeah but hard to argue that the people of Libya were better off after NATO bombarded the civilian infrastructure for 6 months in an attempt "to weaken" ghadaffi.

How come the first thing NATO does is blow up the civilian infrastructure every time we invade? The first people to suffer are ALWAYS the civilians.

[01RedDX]

.

[16hypen3sp]

I just think that Canada is going to have to get their hands dirty on this one.

[01RedDX]

.

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Why this one? Why not South Sudan? Boko Haram in Nigeria? Kim regime in N. Korea? Somalia? Central Africa? These have been going on for much longer, with many more deaths and atrocities committed.

Just yesterday, jihadists blew up 26 Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai. So again, why does Canada have to "get their hands dirty on this one?"

Too much humanitarian focus on Africa maybe. Terrorist cells in Africa don't really come to Canada?

And... like Chretien says, maybe we have left them alone so they can "figure it out for themselves." - Judging by your response above 01RedDX, that appears to NOT be working at all.

[googe]

Also let's be real, Canada's contribution is a joke. This is purely for political reasons. The US needs to point to other nations backing them, they don't actually want or need the resources. It's a drop in the bucket over there.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by googe
Also let's be real, Canada's contribution is a joke. This is purely for political reasons. The US needs to point to other nations backing them, they don't actually want or need the resources. It's a drop in the bucket over there.

This.

This deployment comes at a big cost to Canada.

CONS:
- Loss of respect around the world, especially in the MENA
- 600 million + CAD for a 6 month deployment (imagine how many lives could be saved with 600 million spent on healthcare, or police!)
- Possible loss of Canadian soldiers and airmen
- Guaranteed collateral damage and civilian deaths
- New generation of people who got bombed out of their mud huts by foreign invaders who grow up hating us
- Blowback...

Pros:
- Marginal impact. Airstrikes are already being called ineffective
- Harper gets re-elected?
- Saudi, Qatar, Israel, the USA all give Canada a collective "Hi-5"

Sounds like a great deal for Harper, Barrack and the our "allies" in the middle east, not so much for the average Canadian.

[broken_legs]

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/october/26/once-peaceful-canada-turns-militaristic-blowback-follows/



Once-Peaceful Canada Turns Militaristic; Blowback Follows

written by_ron paul


In 1968 the government of Canada decided to openly admit Americans seeking to avoid being drafted into the US war on Vietnam. Before, would-be immigrants were technically required to prove that they had been discharged from US military service. This move made it easier for Americans to escape President Johnson’s war machine by heading north._

Although a founding member of NATO, Canada did not join the United States in its war against Vietnam. The Canadian government did not see a conflict 7,000 miles away as vital to Canada’s national interest so Canada pursued its own foreign policy course, independent of the United States.

How the world has changed. Canada’s wise caution about military adventurism even at the height of the Cold War has given way to a Canada of the 21st century literally joined at Washington’s hip and eager to participate in any bombing mission initiated by the D.C. interventionists.

Considering Canada’s peaceful past, the interventionist Canada that has emerged at the end of the Cold War is a genuine disappointment. Who would doubt that today’s Canada would, should a draft be re-instated in the US, send each and every American resister back home to face prison and worse?

As Glenn Greenwald_pointed_out this past week:

Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war._It_actively participated_in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an_enthusiastic partner_in some of the most_extremist_War on Terror abuses_perpetrated_by the U.S.

Canada has also enthusiastically joined President Obama’s latest war on Iraq and Syria, pledging to send fighter jets to participate in the bombing of ISIS (and likely many civilians in the process).

But Canada’s wars abroad came back home to Canada last week.

Though horrific, it should not be a complete surprise that Canada found itself hit by blowback last week, as two attacks on Canadian soil left two Canadian military members dead.

Greenwald again points out what few dare to say about the attacks:

Regardless of one’s views on the justifiability of Canada’s lengthy military actions, it’s not the slightest bit surprising or difficult to understand why people who identify with those on the other end of Canadian bombs and bullets would decide to attack the military responsible for that violence.

That is the danger of intervention in other people’s wars thousands of miles away. Those at the other end of foreign bombs – and their surviving family members or anyone who sympathizes with them – have great incentive to seek revenge. This feeling should not be that difficult to understand.

Seeking to understand the motivation of a criminal does not mean that the crime is justified, however. We can still condemn and be appalled by the attacks while realizing that we need to understand the causation and motivation. This is common sense in other criminal matters, but it seems to not apply to attacks such as we saw in Canada last week. Few dare to point out the obvious: Canada’s aggressive foreign policy is creating enemies abroad that are making the country more vulnerable to attack rather than safer.

Predictably, the Canadian government is using the attacks to restrict civil liberties and expand the surveillance state. Like the US PATRIOT Act, Canadian legislation that had been previously proposed to give the government more authority to spy on and aggressively interrogate its citizens has been given a shot in the arm by last week’s attacks.

Unfortunately Canada has unlearned the lesson of 1968: staying out of other people’s wars makes a country more safe; following the endless war policy of its southern neighbor opens Canada up to the ugly side of blowback.

[Nitro5]

so we never waged war in WWI or WWII or even Korea? How can we claim a 'peaceful past' when we were very much apart of those wars. Last time I checked Germany wasn't a direct threat to Canada in either war.

[95EagleAWD]

Canada is a peaceful nation?

Since when? How easily people forget about WW1, WW2, Korea, the Cold War, standing nuclear watch in Europe, our "peacekeeping" in Bosnia, our air missions in the Gulf in 1991, our missions over Kosovo, Afghanistan...

Fact of the matter is that Canada has fought more wars than we've watched. In Libya, our six CF-18s dropped 10% of all NATO ordnance. Not bad for a "joke" of a contribution.

[broken_legs]

If you ask any stupid under 25 Canadian what it means to be canadian they'll say:
- we have good beer!
- we invented hockey!
- were nice people, and everyone loves us!
- were not like those evil americans!
- were "peace keepers"


Anyways, i agree thats 100% the point, that Canada is NOT a peaceful nation.

We drop bombs on people we dont know, we dont understand, and we never met and act surprised when theres blowback.

The difference between Korea and vietnam, korea was a UN sanctiined war.

The difference between afghanistan and Iraq, afghanistan was a UN sanctiined war.

The difference between Libya, Iraq v3.0, and rwanda/Bosnia. UN or at the very minimum, NATO sanctioned.

[googe]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
In Libya, our six CF-18s dropped 10% of all NATO ordnance. Not bad for a "joke" of a contribution.

Wow, that makes Canada look even more pathetic. But I'm sure the US gave Canada a nice pat on the head and told them how adorable they were, helping the fight!

[broken_legs]

So looks like we are going to war with another country... That makes 4 countries Canada (The Peacekeepers) have directly invaded/bombed in the last 4 years.


Here's Harper with Peter Mansbridge 3-1/2 months ago:

What were very very clear on is that we dont want anything thats interpreted as a war on the government of Syria. We were invited by the government of Iraq, were doing that, thats why were there.
....

...But we have no desire to enter in a war with any government in that country (Syria)...

Fast Forward to 9:35
bZDvlCipyNM




March 24:


... The government is also seeking the support of this house for its decision to explicitly expand the air combat mission to include Syria

...

The government has now decided we will not seek the express consent of the Syrian government, instead we will work closely with our American and other allies
bXyyuO2tcBI


^^ So we are bombing a sovereign nation without declaring war.

Do ya think this might piss off some folks? Theres already a bunch of other warring nations bombing that country. What exactly is Canada going to add to this??? Is it possible all this action does is waste Canadian tax payers money and piss off a lot of Syrians?

Does anyone remember 9-11? People were outraged at the request to go to war in Iraq. Where is the outrage?? Why are we attacking Syria?

:nut:

[Thales of Miletus]

Canada should not be involved. It is not our problem, our war, or any of our business.

Let the muslim world have their war.

[ZenOps]

I'm going to abstain from this one.

But I will say that the US has "filled up the tank". The Strategic petroleum reserve is basically topped up to the maximum. The US usually only does this if they intend to enter a prolonged conflict.

[P_D]

Bomb the piss out of them. Honestly if you are going to harbour terrorists prepare to get sent back to the stone age