Do you approve of Canada ending its bombing mission against ISIS?

[flar]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It is not possible to believe that Nato's issue with Assad has to do with his intolerable regime.

To believe that, you would have to believe that "humanitarian intervention" is a real doctrine. It isn't. The West let the Suharto regime run roughshod over East Timor near-immediately prior to creating a "new Hitler" (when you see that phrase, run) out of Milosevic when they wanted to dismantle Yugoslavia, for example.

Madeleine Albright runs a hedge fund full of former Yugoslav state utilities. Tony Blair comes down to the Balkans sometimes to check his investments.

The West essentially never invades a country and topples a regime because the despot (or not, as the case may be) is a bad guy. Doesn't happen. Don't buy in.

(This doesn't mean, of course, that the guys who the West topples are never bad guys. Usually they are. But that's not what matters.)

This is so undeniably obvious to some people and so utterly incomprehensible to others. Ideology is a helluva drug.

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I do not approve of Canada ending its bombing mission. Trudeau ending this mission is no shock though. The Liberal party are fundamentally uncomfortable with any combat mission and that's what this is about.

They won't accept that there are real dangers out there in the world that need a firm response and stubbornly cling to this early 1970s idealist utopian view of the world where Canada is a peace keeping nation that never fires a gun.

If they won't bomb ISIS, who would they bomb? No one, I guess. Which begs the question of why we have a military at all. Would they bomb a country that occupied one of our northern islands in Nunavut? I doubt it. He's sending an extremely dangerous message to other players who would gladly take advantage of our current unwillingness to match aggression with aggression.

Thank god the US wouldn't stand for a Russian incursion into northern Canada because Trudeau would surely stand on the sidelines requesting dialogue with Putin as he grabbed what he could. Trudeau needs to grow up and get out of his bubble. I voted Liberal but this is not acceptable.

I completely agree with you on what you stated here; I just want to add one thing though: If WW III had started during the '70s, Canada would have started shooting alongside the U.S./NATO. (Despite Pierre's disdain for military spending here and abroad.)

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I do not approve of Canada ending its bombing mission. Trudeau ending this mission is no shock though. The Liberal party are fundamentally uncomfortable with any combat mission and that's what this is about.

They won't accept that there are real dangers out there in the world that need a firm response and stubbornly cling to this early 1970s idealist utopian view of the world where Canada is a peace keeping nation that never fires a gun.

If they won't bomb ISIS, who would they bomb? No one, I guess. Which begs the question of why we have a military at all. Would they bomb a country that occupied one of our northern islands in Nunavut? I doubt it. He's sending an extremely dangerous message to other players who would gladly take advantage of our current unwillingness to match aggression with aggression.

Thank god the US wouldn't stand for a Russian incursion into northern Canada because Trudeau would surely stand on the sidelines requesting dialogue with Putin as he grabbed what he could. Trudeau needs to grow up and get out of his bubble. I voted Liberal but this is not acceptable.

Your argument holds no water. Regardless of the government, bombing Daesh is ineffective. If it was, they would be gone by now. The new mission that Canada is supposed to embark on is the most effective manner to fight Daesh. Training and empowering local forces is most important. All that bombs do is create animosity towards the bomber.

Lets look at other occasions where we dropped bombs to prevent us having to actually fight.

WW2: It failed on both sides as neither Germany nor Britain lost their will to fight and the ensuing ground operaitons is what won the war for the allies. And the argument that it destroyed the German ability to produce armaments is false, as the Germans were making tanks up until Berlin was captured.

Operation Barrel Roll (Vietnam): It failed because there was no way to locate the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Obviously Vietnam failed, but Op Barrel Roll could have been more effective with the use of more ground forces to locate and destroy the infrastructure along the trail.

The first gulf war: It failed because there were still 9 Iraqi divisions capable and willing to fight; and they did fight. What won this war? Effective ground force movements.

KFOR (Kosovo): It failed because we were unable to incapacitate the FRY and KLA vehicles. What defeated the forces that were ethnically cleansing? Effective ground force movement and intervention.

I challenge you to name one conflict where conventional bombing (non-nuclear) was more effective than use of ground forces.

[flipv]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Your argument holds no water. Regardless of the government, bombing Daesh is ineffective. If it was, they would be gone by now. The new mission that Canada is supposed to embark on is the most effective manner to fight Daesh. Training and empowering local forces is most important. All that bombs do is create animosity towards the bomber.

Lets look at other occasions where we dropped bombs to prevent us having to actually fight.

WW2: It failed on both sides as neither Germany nor Britain lost their will to fight and the ensuing ground operaitons is what won the war for the allies. And the argument that it destroyed the German ability to produce armaments is false, as the Germans were making tanks up until Berlin was captured.

Operation Barrel Roll (Vietnam): It failed because there was no way to locate the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Obviously Vietnam failed, but Op Barrel Roll could have been more effective with the use of more ground forces to locate and destroy the infrastructure along the trail.

The first gulf war: It failed because there were still 9 Iraqi divisions capable and willing to fight; and they did fight. What won this war? Effective ground force movements.

KFOR (Kosovo): It failed because we were unable to incapacitate the FRY and KLA vehicles. What defeated the forces that were ethnically cleansing? Effective ground force movement and intervention.

I challenge you to name one conflict where conventional bombing (non-nuclear) was more effective than use of ground forces.

Not quite correct - what defeated the FRY was targeting civilian targets for bombing, and getting the population to uprise against Milosevic as a consequence. You know, the usual war crimes of striking passenger trains, hospitals, apartment buildings, an embassy, power plants, factories etc...

The west can be quite kind when it's cleaning house. And we dare talk about Russia with any sort of moral superiority. Embarrassing. Shameful.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by flipv

Not quite correct - what defeated the FRY was targeting civilian targets for bombing, and getting the population to uprise against Milosevic as a consequence. You know, the usual war crimes of striking passenger trains, hospitals, apartment buildings, an embassy, power plants, factories etc...

The west can be quite kind when it's cleaning house. And we dare talk about Russia with any sort of moral superiority. Embarrassing. Shameful.

The 'terror' of FRY was a side-effect that NATO didnt think would lead to their defeat.

Russia sometimes does have the moral high ground. But in which case are you speaking about? The support of Al-Assad?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Your argument holds no water. Regardless of the government, bombing Daesh is ineffective. If it was, they would be gone by now. The new mission that Canada is supposed to embark on is the most effective manner to fight Daesh. Training and empowering local forces is most important. All that bombs do is create animosity towards the bomber.

Wars are not won by bombing alone (save for that one nuclear counterexample) but to say that bombing is ineffective due to the fact that it alone cannot win wars is equally absurd.

Bombing is a key tool in anti-ISIS forces, which is why Canada, US, France, Jordan, Russia, etc. etc. have used it.

If bombing was so ineffective as you say, perhaps Canada should stop providing refuelling and surveillance support for said bombing campaigns of our allies.

"All that bombs do is create animosity towards the bomber"

It's statements like this that make me think the internet is populated by individuals with the critical thinking and analytical skills of toddlers. The world is not black and white, and parading around "blowback" as a reason to never do anything militarily is just as absurd as ignoring the fact that "blowback" exists.

"Blowback" was also a legitimate reason for not getting involved in WW2. You need to think and understand a bit deeper if you are going to be presenting an argument one way or the other for our involvement in these conflicts.

[Nashe]

Was it working? I admit, I do not know or how I would know.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

Was it working? I admit, I do not know or how I would know.

Combined with support on the ground, yes. ISIS has steadily lost territory the last few months, including the oil fields they were attempting to operate. As reported yesterday, ISIS is facing financial issues.

Originally Posted by AP

One of the other ex-residents, now living in Gaziantep, Turkey, said the road to Mosul was cut off late last year, and prices have risen swiftly — gas is up 25 percent, meat up nearly 70 percent, and sugar prices have doubled.

In Iraq, where Islamic State has slowly been losing ground over the past year, the Iraqi government in September cut off salaries to government workers within territory controlled by the extremists, after months of wavering about the humanitarian costs paid by those trapped in the region. Iraqi officials estimate that Islamic State taxed the salaries at rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent, and analysts and the government now estimate a loss of $10 million minimum each month. Between the loss of that money — and the U.S.-led bombing of cash warehouses — American officials are optimistic that the effect could diminish Islamic State's wealth.
...
In the Iraqi city of Fallujah, fighters who once made $400 a month aren't being paid at all and their food rations have been cut to two meals a day, according to a resident. The account of the resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of death at the hands of extremists, was supported by that of another family trapped in Fallujah

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Wars are not won by bombing alone (save for that one nuclear counterexample) but to say that bombing is ineffective due to the fact that it alone cannot win wars is equally absurd.

Bombing is a key tool in anti-ISIS forces, which is why Canada, US, France, Jordan, Russia, etc. etc. have used it.

If bombing was so ineffective as you say, perhaps Canada should stop providing refuelling and surveillance support for said bombing campaigns of our allies.

"All that bombs do is create animosity towards the bomber"

It's statements like this that make me think the internet is populated by individuals with the critical thinking and analytical skills of toddlers. The world is not black and white, and parading around "blowback" as a reason to never do anything militarily is just as absurd as ignoring the fact that "blowback" exists.

"Blowback" was also a legitimate reason for not getting involved in WW2. You need to think and understand a bit deeper if you are going to be presenting an argument one way or the other for our involvement in these conflicts.

The refueller, sure it is somewhat useless without having planes to refuel. The surveillance aircraft on the other hand is more than just to direct bombs. It gives a better perspective to ground commanders as to where the next offensive might be, or what weaponry is being used in defensive positions. Providing bombing targets is less than half of their current mission I would say.

And I am the antithesis of a pacifist, infact I would love for the CAF to be committed to a larger war including ground air and, if necessary, naval elements to incur swift and decisive victory against Daesh. However, I also like to think I am realistic.

The west is really really good at war, we can beat our enemies no problem. If we wanted to eliminate Daesh we could have done so already. The problem then lies in what do we do AFTER. The plan of the current government is allowing our allies to commit to winning the war while we are trying to direct our efforts to the post-war existence.

Bombing is only useful in the first part of war, when a ground force is used to 'mop up' the remaining enemies. The aversion to casualties of the western population is too great to allow us to use ground forces as such so bombing is moot unless we can get the Iraqi army (in cooperation with the Kurdish forces) to mount effective assaults on Daesh. To think that we can win by bombing is incorrect.

I do not think that blowback is a reason to stay out of a conflict. But being able to control it is necessary. You cannot control it without winning the war. To win the war you need effective combined arms offensives. To win after the war you need massive humanitarian aide and the ability to train indeigenous forces to ensure that an insurgency does not start again.

This is not even a matter of critical thinking, it is literally looking at historical events. History is cyclical. Operation Iraqi Freedom quickly deposed Saddam and won the initial battle. America lost the war because their forces were stuck in stage one of the conflict for a decade. Their efforts on the humanitarian side were too little too late. So instead of repeating what has happened, it seems that our Defence Minister wants to move into stage 2 efforts much quicker than previous.

Needless to say, nobody will know how this will pan out until the conflict is complete. So rhetoric is rhetoric, you could be right, i could be right, it will likely take another decade and a different insurgency for us to figure out whether Minister Sajjan's plan is the right path or not.

[flipv]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

The 'terror' of FRY was a side-effect that NATO didnt think would lead to their defeat.

Russia sometimes does have the moral high ground. But in which case are you speaking about? The support of Al-Assad?

Among others... The pontificating of Kerry/Clinton is sickening. It's like shooting someone in the head while talking to someone else that it should never be done.

But by all means, the 'terror' of FRY is why the successor state Serbia, has one of the largest refugee populations in Europe (excluding Syrians). Must be nice when the west blesses your ethnic cleansing.

[Migs]

Lots of people in this thread who forget what sacrifices were made by those who made our country the free nation it is today. If the people who do this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-butchery.html

...are not worthy of our fight then may as well mothball our entire military. Trudeau is a coward in every sense of the word.

[MolsonExport]

^What a total fucking straw man.



You don't know shit from shinola.

Stop endlessly embarrassing yourself.

[manny_santos]

I'm in favour of ending the mission and that was one of the reasons I voted Liberal and wanted anyone but the Islamaphobic Party of Canada. I want to see the end of ISIS as much as most other Canadians, but I truly believe bombing that region makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and that the motivation for bombings in that region is rooted in Islamaphobia. I say that based on knowing people who wanted a war there who are truly Islamaphobic and have told me they want that part of the world eliminated.

We avoided Iraq, and it was the right decision.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It is not possible to believe that Nato's issue with Assad has to do with his intolerable regime.

To believe that, you would have to believe that "humanitarian intervention" is a real doctrine. It isn't. The West let the Suharto regime run roughshod over East Timor near-immediately prior to creating a "new Hitler" (when you see that phrase, run) out of Milosevic when they wanted to dismantle Yugoslavia, for example.

Madeleine Albright runs a hedge fund full of former Yugoslav state utilities. Tony Blair comes down to the Balkans sometimes to check his investments.

The West essentially never invades a country and topples a regime because the despot (or not, as the case may be) is a bad guy. Doesn't happen. Don't buy in.

(This doesn't mean, of course, that the guys who the West topples are never bad guys. Usually they are. But that's not what matters.)

What's your point, it's be insane to get involved in a situation where there is little potential for investing to help rebuild a nation.

Your idealizing a situation to a point where your developing unrealistic expectation.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

That entire region is a goddamn mess. Anyone who gets involved get screwed somehow. Why should we care, or get involved in this part of the world? Think about it, what do we owe Syria, or Iraq? We owe them nothing.

If the americans were smart they would have left that part of the world blow itself up long ago.

That's a huge vast simplification of how global politics work.

The US power politics for better or worst directly keep another soviet union from rising and taking over much of the world.

It's a bit of naivety not to get how important intervention is.


Is america a highly coordinated and functional unit, hell no, but I think one really has to understand the politics of the world, and how much america is responsible for keeping people in check.


It may be turning the light on with a gun, but the lights need to be on.

[kool maudit]

My point is that the decapitations of the Iraqi and Libyan states, and the attempted decapitation of the Syrian state, are fragments of a monstrous and cynical NATO policy of regional destabilization for imperial ends.

My point is that qualifying Hussein, Gaddhafi or Assad's regime as brutal (and therefore deserving of invasion) is a non-starter both in terms of what has followed the fall of the first two (destruction, fragmentation and misery on a scale that didn't exist prior to NATO's arrival) and because history clearly shows us that the West does not topple brutal regimes for their brutality, but rather for their inconvenience.

My point is that "fighting ISIS" has come to be shorthand for a blinkered, dishonest conflict in which Western governments arm a series of increasingly improbable "moderate opposition groups" up to and including Al Qaeda itself with the ultimate effect of prolonging and intensifying the decay of state structures in a region where this exact phenomenon has caused over a solid decade of pure misery.

My point is that Canada and Denmark are part of an alliance that is currently behaving immorally, dishonestly, and in a way that makes the world worse.

The moral course of action is to help rebuild extant Syrian state structures (along with Russia, the only major power that was invited to that country by its leader) prior to the holding of internationally monitored elections.

This was proposed by Moscow in 2013 but the US was fucking around with Arab Spring fever dreams, or rather pretending to while hoping nobody would notice the truth.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

My point is that the decapitations of the Iraqi and Libyan states, and the attempted decapitation of the Syrian state, are fragments of a monstrous and cynical NATO policy of regional destabilization for imperial ends.
.

About to go but all I can say is, that Libya is a completely different situation. It was a ticking timebomb under gadaffi, and I don't think you understand the country if you understood it as anything else.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

My point is that Canada and Denmark are part of an alliance that is currently behaving immorally, dishonestly, and in a way that makes the world worse.

What do you think the alternative is?

Letting Iran, Russia, and China control the world?

I'm not using hyperbole when I say that either, as that's exactly what were up against.

If you think our corrupt democracy is bad, with a relatively high degree of scrutiny placed on our leaders I don't think you fully appreciate global politics.

I'm not saying the west is magic by any means, but you really have to appreciate how certain strategic pressures make the world a much better place.

We take for granted that in the world we live in their is relatively small financial gains awarded to those who propagate war, and this is not by magic.

[1overcosc]

One thing we need to think about: If ISIS is defeated, either Assad or the SNC wins and we have an end to the civil war.. how do we rebuild Syria?

One thing that would be very effective, although Syrians would probably hate the idea, would be normalization of relations between Syria and Israel, followed by some sort of trade pact between the two countries. Israel is a developed country with an economy comparable to Europe or North America--aka, a high value, high cost economy. By contrast Syria is a much less developed country, with lower costs. If goods were allowed to flow across the Syria-Israel border, Syria could create an entire manufacturing sector devoted to export of consumer goods to Israel. Israeli companies could lead the process in the beginning. Then, with that boost there, Syria could expand its export markets to Europe and North America.

[flipv]

Originally Posted by Stryker

What do you think the alternative is?

Letting Iran, Russia, and China control the world?

I'm not using hyperbole when I say that either, as that's exactly what were up against.

If you think our corrupt democracy is bad, with a relatively high degree of scrutiny placed on our leaders I don't think you fully appreciate global politics.

I'm not saying the west is magic by any means, but you really have to appreciate how certain strategic pressures make the world a much better place.

We take for granted that in the world we live in their is relatively small financial gains awarded to those who propagate war, and this is not by magic.

I think what we're trying to say is 'mind your business'. I don't see Russia trying to instigate things on our borders, but I see a lot of that being done on theirs. Ditto for Iran, or China.