Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
login

Canada "ready to go to war against syria" press reports...

Recommended Posts

You know bush cheney last time I checked the US has enough wmds to wipe out all life on earth several times over. Yeah sure helps us Canadians sleep well at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know bush cheney last time I checked the US has enough wmds to wipe out all life on earth several times over. Yeah sure helps us Canadians sleep well at night.

The last time YOU checked?

laugh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know bush cheney last time I checked the US has enough wmds to wipe out all life on earth several times over. Yeah sure helps us Canadians sleep well at night.

No....not possible to do that...but we're willing to try! Just remember where most of that uranium came from.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know bush cheney last time I checked the US has enough wmds to wipe out all life on earth several times over. Yeah sure helps us Canadians sleep well at night.

I sleep just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Perhaps Derek supplied the rebel alliance with Russian weapons. Derek! Explain yourself...

smile.png

I have no idea what you're talking about.....I swear

oliver-north-getty-545x360.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on providing logistical support to Mali

January 14, 2013

Ottawa, Ontario

"The Government of Canada is deeply concerned by recent events in Mali. The establishment of a terrorist region in the middle of Africa is of grave concern to the broader international community, including Canada and our close allies.

"I want to express our condolences to the families of the French pilot and other innocent victims who have lost their lives.

"In December, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 2085, which called upon member states to provide coordinated assistance to the Malian Defence and Security Forces in order to reduce the threat posed by terrorist organizations.

"Last week I pledged that Canada would work diplomatically with our allies on how best to address the situation in Mali. While the Government of Canada is not, and will not be, considering a direct Canadian military mission in Mali, Canada is prepared, consistent with the UN Security Council Resolution, to provide limited and clearly defined logistical support to assist the forces that are intervening in Mali.

"Today our Government received a specific request from the French Government for heavy-lift aircraft to assist in the transport of equipment into the Malian capital of Bamako, a location that is not part of any active combat zone."

"The Government of Canada will support our allies in this request and will be providing one RCAF C-17 transport aircraft in a non-combat role to support operations for a period of one week. The RCAF aircraft will not operate in any combat zone.

"At no time will Canadian Armed Forces members be participating in direct action against insurgent forces in Mali.

"In addition to our logistical support, Canada will continue to provide humanitarian aid and development assistance to this region to help alleviate the worsening humanitarian conditions in the region.

"Canada's foreign policy is rooted in respect for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We will support our allies as they seek to re-establish security and democracy for the people of Mali in a manner consistent with international law."

Thought this might interest you

/ David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David from your article.

"Canada's foreign policy is rooted in respect for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We will support our allies as they seek to re-establish security and democracy for the people of Mali in a manner consistent with international law."

I am gonna go out on a limb and call total bull with this rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Member Watching you watching me,

That's not one of my articles, that is an e-mail I just received from the Prime Ministers office.

lmfao

/ David

Edited by Political Smash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

front page news eh? The majority of you make me wonder why this site even exists. Is it for people with nothing better and know nothing better to do? I truly believe the most of you like nothing better than seeing yourselves in print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

front page news eh? The majority of you make me wonder why this site even exists. Is it for people with nothing better and know nothing better to do? I truly believe the most of you like nothing better than seeing yourselves in print.

I could just open a notepad file...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think NATO as in the organization is backing anyone one in this conflict, Turkey may be supporting a horse in the race, but they are doing this by themselfs. Turkey may be a NATO partner but i highly doubt they are recieving their orders from NATO HQ's. Turkey is acting in there best interests.....not NATO's...besides Syria has always been under Ivan's wing, a direct involvement by NATO could cause a larger confrontation involving Russia...and although miother Russia has been claimed to be dead...they are very capable of giving NATO a bloody nose, making the middle eastern conflicts to todate look like childs play....

Turkey as a nation certainly has the ability to supply Russian designed wpns to anyone. But in the qty's it would take to back the entire rebel force i doubt that as well, i mean why would they need to supply in mass, there is already enough readily available on the battlefield now. Of course this all could be proven by tracking serial numbers and point of orgins, who made it , who purchased it....not very hard to do...can also trace the AMMO, no point in having just wpns....both can be tracked if one had the resources....i'm sure the media has access to those resources along with most countries.

Aside from the mass desertions, Captured Military bases, abandoned equipment, there should be enough wpns from the battle field to make everyone happy....Turkey would only have to provide a few thousand or so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think NATO as in the organization is backing anyone one in this conflict, Turkey may be supporting a horse in the race, but they are doing this by themselfs. Turkey may be a NATO partner but i highly doubt they are recieving their orders from NATO HQ's. Turkey is acting in there best interests.....not NATO's...besides Syria has always been under Ivan's wing, a direct involvement by NATO could cause a larger confrontation involving Russia...and although miother Russia has been claimed to be dead...they are very capable of giving NATO a bloody nose, making the middle eastern conflicts to todate look like childs play....

Russia is irrelevant if it comes to NATO intervention in Syria, they might do business with them and probably will use strong language but they will not go to war over Syria.

Turkey as a nation certainly has the ability to supply Russian designed wpns to anyone. But in the qty's it would take to back the entire rebel force i doubt that as well, i mean why would they need to supply in mass, there is already enough readily available on the battlefield now. Of course this all could be proven by tracking serial numbers and point of orgins, who made it , who purchased it....not very hard to do...can also trace the AMMO, no point in having just wpns....both can be tracked if one had the resources....i'm sure the media has access to those resources along with most countries.

Aside from the mass desertions, Captured Military bases, abandoned equipment, there should be enough wpns from the battle field to make everyone happy....Turkey would only have to provide a few thousand or so....

All that was needed was the light and the powder keg would go up in smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia is irrelevant if it comes to NATO intervention in Syria, they might do business with them and probably will use strong language but they will not go to war over Syria.

All that was needed was the light and the powder keg would go up in smoke.

Thats what they said in Bosnia, when we first deplyed and were all racing for the Airport, Russia won that race, And there was a armed stand off that lasted days. British, Americans, french, and even us. Our mandate was to peacekeep, however once we landed in country our orders were to get to the airport, by any means available and to use any force nessicary, beat the Russians there.

Funney thing about the whole issue looking back on it, everyones vehs were painted white with UN markings on them including the Russians...Serbs Croats, and Muslims all stopped fighting during those few days and watched the stand off Russia verses the rest of NATO.....Tense moments for sure, Russia did not care then nor do i think they care now, they will always look after they're interests...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what they said in Bosnia, when we first deplyed and were all racing for the Airport, Russia won that race, And there was a armed stand off that lasted days. British, Americans, french, and even us. Our mandate was to peacekeep, however once we landed in country our orders were to get to the airport, by any means available and to use any force nessicary, beat the Russians there.

Funney thing about the whole issue looking back on it, everyones vehs were painted white with UN markings on them including the Russians...Serbs Croats, and Muslims all stopped fighting during those few days and watched the stand off Russia verses the rest of NATO.....Tense moments for sure, Russia did not care then nor do i think they care now, they will always look after they're interests...

There is no danger of internment camps from within Syria, Muslims are far too direct to keep their enemies prisoners, note Assad is a religious moderate which is why he is keeping prisoners. He has actively released his prisoners for foreign hostages taken by the people fighting him. Edited by shortlived

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is that both the government forces and the so-called FSA are conducting some horrible atrocities that are capable of making strong men swoon in disgust and horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what they said in Bosnia, when we first deplyed and were all racing for the Airport, Russia won that race, And there was a armed stand off that lasted days. British, Americans, french, and even us. Our mandate was to peacekeep, however once we landed in country our orders were to get to the airport, by any means available and to use any force nessicary, beat the Russians there.

Funney thing about the whole issue looking back on it, everyones vehs were painted white with UN markings on them including the Russians...Serbs Croats, and Muslims all stopped fighting during those few days and watched the stand off Russia verses the rest of NATO.....Tense moments for sure, Russia did not care then nor do i think they care now, they will always look after they're interests...

You are comparing events in the Balkans to Syria and those two are not similar at all. Russia has ethnic, religious and cultural ties to the Balkans but more important they consider the balkans as their sphere of influence while Syria is just a country to do business with and Russia knows very well as it is that Assad's days are numbered and will not do anything other than protest loudly in the UNSC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the matter of this...the Russian version of this place. Russian built...paid for...needed.

tartous is a long way from Damascus. although I'm not saying test Russia and more so irans resolve. If Iran can't protect its own generals in Syria how does it expect to wage a war through it? Although I am not suggesting nato and Israel publically invade Syria. France isn't exactly anti Russia lots of the ffl are Russian and eastern block - the other aspect is also that will Britain pull most of the weight it seems that the US doesn't want a war with Iran - I'm not sure if Russia would do anything but it is very insulting to force Russia to put its tail between its legs and pull out of tartous.. althouhg it does appear to have planned for that... I wouldn't bet on anything but I think that it would be a dangerous gambit but if I was the head of the joint chiefs at nato and I was feeling anxious I'd probably just knock dwn the entire establishment but in reality this is just a slow kill... it will stay that way. unless nato opts for initiating open war with iran. It is militarily feasible but economically imprudent. Without large backing Russia really isn't in a position to conventionally confront the rest of Europe and the west. The balancing act would be solid support from the NAM and india and china... very unlikely I think as conventional war in that setting is almost 0 possibility. Frankly Russia either calls the game or is forced to have its interests ruined. Not really good for relations. It would be a move by nato. IN a "negotiated" fallout Russia could still keep some interests like tartous Sunni majority rule is about as democratic as alawitte rule only assad actually even gave the kurds citizenship he was actually very supportive as a minority to aim to draw support from all groups in Syria, 1.5 billion in arms sales to Syria isn't exactly something a government wants to take a hit on either though... frankly Syria is also one of russias best customers a 1.5billion dollar drop in revenue that is something like a 0.1% drop in GDP and a massive security issue, but only a year to the Olympics... I think Russia probably feels adverse to be putting into orbit around the US. but it would seem it is all part of the effort to force Russia west. thus segregating the rising dragon china.

Edited by shortlived

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the matter of this...the Russian version of this place. Russian built...paid for...needed.

Yet Russia will not go to war over this... it is as simple as that. They can wait for the next regime, throw some aid their way and they will be in the same place as they are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are comparing events in the Balkans to Syria and those two are not similar at all. Russia has ethnic, religious and cultural ties to the Balkans but more important they consider the balkans as their sphere of influence while Syria is just a country to do business with

Wrong. Russia very much considers Syria to be part of their sphere of interest. One of Russia's oldest stumbling blocks and one of their main ambitions during the Cold War was to control warm-water ports. The bulk of their fleet has always been based out of the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. The Black Sea Fleet bases are easily isolated via the Bosphorus, and the Baltic Sea Fleets could be contained via the straits of Denmark. This is an ENORMOUS impediment to the projection of Russian power abroad and it's the sole reason why Russia had so many wars with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire years ago. The ambition of controlling ports along the Indian Ocean is also one of the main reasons the Soviets invaded Afghanistan as well.

The loss of the Syrian port in Tartus would be keenly felt by the Russians, and I suspect this is one of the main reasons that NATO hasn't made any moves against Assad.

and Russia knows very well as it is that Assad's days are numbered and will not do anything other than protest loudly in the UNSC.

Putin has publicly declared the port of Tartus critical to Russian naval strategy. Would they go to war with NATO over it? Almost certainly not, but they'd do everything they could to make things difficult for the West outside of Syria, and there are many ways that Russia could damage NATO interests aside from overt armed conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Russia very much considers Syria to be part of their sphere of interest.

Not even close to what they consider eastern Europe thus they will not go to war or risk going to war in order to protect a regime that is already gone...

One of Russia's oldest stumbling blocks and one of their main ambitions during the Cold War was to control warm-water ports. The bulk of their fleet has always been based out of the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. The Black Sea Fleet bases are easily isolated via the Bosphorus, and the Baltic Sea Fleets could be contained via the straits of Denmark. This is an ENORMOUS impediment to the projection of Russian power abroad and it's the sole reason why Russia had so many wars with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire years ago.

They do not have any interest in invading Syria and occupying Syria for the next 50 years simply to have a port in the Mediterranean.

The ambition of controlling ports along the Indian Ocean is also one of the main reasons the Soviets invaded Afghanistan as well.

Seeing as Afghanistan has so many quality ports I can see that made such good sense...

The loss of the Syrian port in Tartus would be keenly felt by the Russians, and I suspect this is one of the main reasons that NATO hasn't made any moves against Assad.

And what is Russia going to do? Fight NATO over a port that they will have no access to once Assad is gone?

Putin has publicly declared the port of Tartus critical to Russian naval strategy.

So? It might be critical but it does not make it likely that Russia will throw itself in to a war exclusively for the port.

Would they go to war with NATO over it? Almost certainly not, but they'd do everything they could to make things difficult for the West outside of Syria, and there are many ways that Russia could damage NATO interests aside from overt armed conflict.

They would do the exact same thing they always do which is shut down any UN intervention, throw around tough language and move on, there are certain offences they will go to war over and this is definitely not one of them.

NATO has not intervened with troops on the ground because Turkey does not want to go in without the US and the US has bigger problems at home without having to sustain Iraq War 2.0... Just as easy for NATO to do everything in their power collectively to make Russia's situation pretty tough so I don't see what Russia has to gain from wasting resources fighting a battle that is already lost when all they have to do is wait a few years and throw some aid in the new regime that replaces Assad which would most likely get them access to any port they want...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't posted on this thread in so long I forget what I wrote and when I posted it....not that it really matters! Insert name here ___________, and the usual band of Neocons call _________ a supporter of terrorism and a threat to Israel, and the U.S. must support local ________ rebels who support democracy, but need our help -- money and guns -- to replace _________'s dictator with democracy. Only after _________'s dictator is overthrown will the people in __________ have a chance to live in a free, democratic society. Doesn't matter if _________is filled in with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Mali, same diagnosis, same prescription....unless it's a friendly dictator that is on good terms with U.S. and British oil companies and the U.S. Military Forces....in that circumstance, regime change would cause instability.

Well, if no one's noticed yet, it's been one year since regime change removed Muammar Qadaffi from power in Libya, and aside from the sacking of the fake American embassy in Bengazi, and the killing of the fake ambassador, there has been nothing said in mainstream media about Libya....so how are they doing now?

Well, a quick search through what will show up in a term search reveals that the Neocon spinmasters have made a full court press to be everywhere and anywhere to try to put the best face on the Libyan Debacle, which has left Libya after Gadaffi as a fractured nation that will never function again without foreign occupation.....which may have been the goal all along anyway....it's the oil that matters, not who happens to live there! One of the great, unmentioned stories of the past year that you will not find outside of alternative media is the blowback from the Libyan Invasion, that led to the killings and forced exile of hundreds of thousands of SubSahara African workers, and seeded the new wars in Mali, which is already spreading over its borders into neighbouring regimes. Anyway, this is from Voltairenet, which Neocons won't like, but it's a more honest source than everything else compromised and influenced by oil interests:

Over seven months, U.S. and NATO air forces carried out 30,000 missions of which 10,000 were offensive air strikes, using more than 40,000 bombs and missiles. Additionally, Special Forces were infiltrated into Libya, among them thousands of easily concealed Qatari commandos. They also financed and armed tribal groups hostile to the Tripoli government and supported Islamic groups what only months earlier were watchlisted as terrorists. The operation in its entirety was directed by Washington, according to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, first under the rubric of Africom and then of NATO, but always under direct U.S. command.

The Libyan state was thus demolished and Gadhafi himself assassinated, while the whole undertaking was being exalted as an “
inspiring revolution
,” as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta described it, that the United States are proud to have played a role in "
by creating a unique alliance against tyranny and for freedom
." The results are now clear to see.

The central state is fragmenting. Cyrenaica, where two-thirds of Libyan oil is located, declared itself a semi-autonomous region with, at its head, Ahmed al-Zubair al Senussi. The choice has symbolic significance. He is the great grandson of King Idris, placed on the throne by Great Britain and the United States. In return, through the 1950’s and 60’s, he granted them military bases and oilfields, concessions that ended when the king was deposed in 1969 and ones which his great grandson will not hesitate to restore.

, a region that also has significant oilfields, also wants to be independent. All that remains to
are the oilfields bordering the coasts of the capital, Tripoli. The big petroleum companies, to whom Gadhafi’s Libya conceded only narrow profit margins, are now obtaining optimal conditions for themselves by playing regional and local chiefs off against each other.

Here's a map of Libya, showing the districts mentioned above. Cyrenaica's capital is Benghazi....that's why there was an embassy or consulate there that was more important than Tripoli....it's all about the oil!

625px-Map_of_traditional_provinces_of_Libye-en.svg.png

Unlike Libya, Syria is not resource rich, but Iraq and Iran are! And Syria is of such great strategic interest because the present Assad Regime is a strong ally of Iran and a link through Iraq to Lebanon and Hezbollah. The U.S. is already tipping the hat that they screwed up the regime change in Iraq of Bush II, so Obama is trying to get it right this time! That's why every once in a while you will hear of terrorist attacks and bombings again in Baghdad and the attacks on refugees and vehicles on the highway that connects Iraq with Syria. The attacks are not coming from the mostly mercenaries hired by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to overthrow Assad, most of it is the revival of that so called "Awakening Councils" -- the Sunnis who supported Saddam Hussein and carried out terrorist attacks until they were bought off and employed to fight Al Qaeda In Iraq etc.

The difference between Syria and Libya, is that Gadaffi didn't have many allies aside from Africa. He was pretty much an outcast among Arab States, and in the deal made with the U.S., he ended the exploratory nuclear program and ties with Russia. But this time, it's not just Iran that's not willing to let Assad fall, it's also Russia that is not going to just sign off to this regime change.

One thing for sure: if Assad falls, one year later Syria will be a fractured wasteland like Libya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...