Canada’s bombing mission over by Feb. 22
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The bomb was not Canada's solution was it??. It didn't end the war for Germany, just the country that coattailed the perceived winner at the time. Remember it took quite awhile before those so called "neutral nationsl" realized, that the war was about more than just making money.
Thank goodness that bearlogic is exactly that......the logic of a lesser species.
You do realize it was the treatment by the allies, during the war and afterwards, towards putting those nations back together that made the difference?? Or do you continue to think kicking a population when down was the reason?? Do not forget, that over the centuries there were many nations that lost control of the controlling aggressive forces in their midst bringing their countries to extinction.
If popularity is the main requirement for a good head of state....then Trump should make a Jim Dandy president huh?
well.....according to to Flossy and |Birdie.....:lol:
well.....according to to Flossy and |Birdie.....:lol:
It's OK, I can understand why you'd want to move the goal posts after you proved yourself wrong.
Derp.
First a weapons' expert then a military expert......will wonders never cease........;-)
Iran training them would be a better choice. Saudi forces (and the like) are the ones that need to learn how to behave.
1.6 billion in aid to help crush UN member state in an undeclared war. Are our snow removal and bridge fixing commitments fully met in our own country? Who are we actually fighting and how far into the next Lybian bloodbath is Canada?
Why do the stake holders like us have to guess who we're training?
When this Syria thing got started wern't we supporting getting rid of Assad? Weren't we supporting the moderate rebels? Why are we spending 1.6 billion to help fight against our allies?
Well Assad is the the source of the real problem and ISIS is a minor symptom of that problem.
The west cannot resolve the issue through traditional combat missions and to be fair, putting the focus on ISIL is like putting a thin layer of cheese cloth over running water. You're just addressing a symptom of the larger problem (and very poorly at that).
It's likely the solution is a combination of indirect measures such as increased sanctions on the flow of arms and resources to Syria. At the same time we need to look at better diplomacy instead of believing additional bombs and guns will overthrow a despotic regime.
Where I would agree with direct combat would be in sending in mini groups of special operatives that can attempt to rescue hostages or take out small groups in relatively low risk zones.
Last edited:
By promising that Parliament will be consulted next week before his government reshapes its mission against the Islamic State, Justin Trudeau has entrenched a precedent established by Stephen Harper. Though parliamentary purists may object, this is welcome news.
Those purists will point out that, under our constitution, the government of the day is responsible for the nation’s foreign and military policy, and that Parliament’s role is to withdraw its confidence if it opposes that policy.
In practice, governments have sometimes sought the will of the House in matters of war and peace, and sometimes not.
William Lyon Mackenzie King convened Parliament in September, 1939, and requested permission to declare war on Germany. (Canada has not formally declared war on anyone since the Second World War.) The St. Laurent government chose to join the police action against North Korea, though Parliament later affirmed its support for that action. The Mulroney government sought and obtained approval to send forces to help expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The Chrétien government consulted the House when joining the mission in Somalia, but decided on his own to join the mission in Kosovo. And from 2001 to 2006, under both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, Parliament was never asked to endorse Canada’s expanding commitment in Afghanistan.
As a newly minted prime minister, Stephen Harper sought and obtained parliamentary support before committing his government to the Afghanistan mission in 2006. Parliament periodically re-affirmed its support for that mission, and Mr. Harper also sought and obtained support for the mission in Libya and for the current mission in Iraq and Syria. A precedent appeared to emerge: When committing air, sea or land forces to a conflict zone, the government first seeks Parliament’s consent. Where mere logistical support is involved (such as offering France heavy-lift aircraft for their mission in Mali) no such consent is required.
Mr. Trudeau could have returned to the former practice of consulting Parliament on an ad-hoc basis. Instead, he appears to be following Mr. Harper’s lead. Given the nature of the commitment involved, and for the sake of national unity, that seems the right thing to do.
Trudeau entrenches Harper’s precedent on military missions
Those purists will point out that, under our constitution, the government of the day is responsible for the nation’s foreign and military policy, and that Parliament’s role is to withdraw its confidence if it opposes that policy.
In practice, governments have sometimes sought the will of the House in matters of war and peace, and sometimes not.
William Lyon Mackenzie King convened Parliament in September, 1939, and requested permission to declare war on Germany. (Canada has not formally declared war on anyone since the Second World War.) The St. Laurent government chose to join the police action against North Korea, though Parliament later affirmed its support for that action. The Mulroney government sought and obtained approval to send forces to help expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The Chrétien government consulted the House when joining the mission in Somalia, but decided on his own to join the mission in Kosovo. And from 2001 to 2006, under both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, Parliament was never asked to endorse Canada’s expanding commitment in Afghanistan.
As a newly minted prime minister, Stephen Harper sought and obtained parliamentary support before committing his government to the Afghanistan mission in 2006. Parliament periodically re-affirmed its support for that mission, and Mr. Harper also sought and obtained support for the mission in Libya and for the current mission in Iraq and Syria. A precedent appeared to emerge: When committing air, sea or land forces to a conflict zone, the government first seeks Parliament’s consent. Where mere logistical support is involved (such as offering France heavy-lift aircraft for their mission in Mali) no such consent is required.
Mr. Trudeau could have returned to the former practice of consulting Parliament on an ad-hoc basis. Instead, he appears to be following Mr. Harper’s lead. Given the nature of the commitment involved, and for the sake of national unity, that seems the right thing to do.
Trudeau entrenches Harper’s precedent on military missions
Which only shows how little you know or understand about the problem.
Removing ISIL from the game, leaves Syria to sort out her own issues.
How about we let Syria be Syria. I'm not a fan of messing around in other countries internal strife. Unless it breaches its borders.
You should take up playing Airsoft soldier.
So Canada has good relations with both Turkey and Saudi Arabia who are reported to fund ISIS and both nations have good relationships with the USA and Canada so we're training people to crush the people our allies fund and trained? It's a difficult mission for the ordinary Canadian to understand.
You won't remove ISIS, because they are really just an excuse for anyone who wants to commit terrorist acts, but that said, this is a 10-20 year endeavour of civilizing another state.
Putting the focus on ISIS just inflames unwarranted paranoia, which is what terrorists want.
This is an issue where you won't win on absolutes like eradicating terrorism. That's just flashy sensationalism for the jingoism coming from conbots.
At least 75% of the violence in Syria comes from Assad and this is going to be a long, gradual transformation of Syrian government.
Putting the focus on ISIS just inflames unwarranted paranoia, which is what terrorists want.
This is an issue where you won't win on absolutes like eradicating terrorism. That's just flashy sensationalism for the jingoism coming from conbots.
At least 75% of the violence in Syria comes from Assad and this is going to be a long, gradual transformation of Syrian government.
No one brought up terrorism, except you.
It's your weak fall back argument, because you have little to no real understanding of the issue, or how to address stronger arguments forwarded that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Again, that's Syria's internal civil war, and completely their business. ISIL, is not only operating in Syria, no matter how much you wish it was so your silly arguments would have some sort of basis.