Mulcair would end Canada's fight with ISIS
- Thread starter elmo
- Start date
Are you really arguing that you can bomb a country into democracy?
As for Iran, here's how they see it in Israel.
And in New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/opinion/sunday/are-iran-and-israel-trading-places.html?_r=0
Get your head out of the sand and stop pushing more more George Bush type disasters.
It worked with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan but then the Germans and Japanese are intelligent people.
There are boots on the ground as special forces 'advisers'. Remember a while back when one was killed by some Kurdish fighter?
Syria and ISIS are no win situations. Even if the world goes in and destroys ISIS (and Assad for good measure), the radicals and their funders will continue to fight their battle.
This is exactly what I am talking.
We are just saying this because we want to feel good about ourselves as Canadians, good nature, well intention.
Canadian values do not work in that part of the world. Even mofos like Doug Ford, who get eaten alive over there, literally.
This article about Americans, Turkey, ISIS, and Kurds, and that is how things work over there.
http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/turkey-duped-the-us-and-isis-reaps-rewards/
Boots on the ground means a real, true blue, counter insurgency operations.
That is irony here for Canadians, and I-raq, ISIS.
The only person will success running a counter insurgency operation in recent years, was none other than Vlad the Hammer with his Chechen wars.
Imagine Harper asking Vlad for advice running a counter insurgency operations.
He can avoid Putin, and Harper can go ask Obama for counter insurgency advice, but, like, what's the point in that?
That's PM Harper, in Canada he is good. Outside of Canada, his ass gets owned.
:hippie:
Which would mean leaving Saddam, and Qadaffi to be dealt with by their oppressed people, not coalitions of the willing. Then there's the mess we've made by leaving Assad to the Syrians, and Egypt to the Egyptians. So now all over the Middle East anyone dissatisfied with their undemocratic governments knows the West can't/won't help. I agree the US didn't make the problems, they — and their coalitions — are just the contemporary Western knowitalls. 'Cause from the Ottomans through Sykes-Picot, Mossadegh, and the Shah down to al Sisi, we just leave things worse than we found them.
No wonder the rebels look to ISIS. Making us hand-in-glove with Putin, propping up Assad against them.
Maybe we democracy-loving Westerners might started practising a little of what we preach, instead of being so eager to sellout for a reliably steady flow of cheap oil and another clown 'on our side' in the geopolitical circus, no matter how nasty and repellant.
Blaming the locals is easy and sensible, especially since we have zero control over them anyway. But it completely ducks what we do control: What do we do?
U.S. Invades, stabilizes, leaves = fucked up
U.S. "Leads from behind" = fucked up
U.S. "Draws line in sand", does nothing = fucked up
Can you spot the trend.....
U.S. "Leads from behind" = fucked up
U.S. "Draws line in sand", does nothing = fucked up
Can you spot the trend.....
You can't really just leave dictatorships to go about invading others and sponsoring terrorism. In Libya we supported the locals, gave them a better shot. What they did with that shot was up to them. In Iraq the invasion went well but the US botched the aftermath by trying to exclude the Baathists when that wasn't necessary to achieve the real military goals there.
We cant really leave it up to the locals to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and then using them for terrorism.
The ultimate point though is that ALL this is a consequence of shitty local government. So long as the region is full of dictators the region will be trouble.
Is this more of your racist colonial views?
Can't trust the primitive 'locals' to run their own countries?
I'm amazed anyone still pushes that kind of crap after the Bush presidents failures.
Afghanistan is a bombed disaster, Iraq is a failed state fostering anti-US IS, Libya is a disaster.
And the 'democracies' you push are hardly much better, Egypt is reverting to military dictatorship but you love them.
The Middle East is a bizzare self defeating hell hole that has been colonial raped and at the same time is self raping. The infinite problems wrapped up in religious strife are complex. A now nuclear Iran has introduced an other level of destructive complexity. As Harper successfully l pandered to get domestic votes at one end of the Middle East Policy spectrum so now is an attempt being by Mulcair at the other end.
Yeah, look at the shining example of Iran. The locals got rid of the shah and now they are brilliantly running their own country. Egypt is another example. They got rid of Mubarek and elected the terrorist Morsi until the army got rid of him.
Who did Assad invade again? And Quadaffi? How as his 'meddling' in countries far away any worse than what the Bushes did to countries far away. Except they did theirs with far greater resources. And damage. Like you, I say all that is beside the point, so I do not know why you want to make it one and argue it.
Shitty oppressive local governments that we prop up for our own selfish interests are indeed the problem, and we only make it worse by waiting until our selfish interests are endangered before we do something. Or anything.
What we have to get through our thick skulls is that we are not yet any sort of model for perfect humans, nor is our way of life, society and government. When we speak and demonstrate a message of fair treatment and respect for others, we'll be invited into the house as guests and our opinions will be heeded. Drone strikes piloted from Denver, and bombing the house from 30,000 feet and going home will never accomplish that.
Until we get that real message, 'they' will be plotting their attacks over Cokes. Just like us.
It isn't a matter of trusting them, they simply haven't been able to get the job done. The dictatorships are still there. We can't leave it up to them because they have so far failed, and terrorists with nuclear weapons are a GLOBAL THREAT. Every nation had a legitimate security grounds to invade Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
Invading is child's play compared to deciding what should happen next.
The only decision that is as clear and easy as the decision to go in is that simply packing up and going home will not work for you.
The only nuclear weapons around there are with a country that has a history of attacking its neighbours, Israel.
Also one of three states in the world that refuses to sign the NPT.
Meanwhile, you back Saudi Arabia.
Lebanon.
Actually his dad did in 1976 but Jr. continued Syria's military occupation until 2005.
And in Syria, it the Russians propping them up. It was the Syrian people who got fed up and rose up to start this conflict. Seems to be no fault of the west in either case. In fact if the West was willing to step in they could have supported the somewhat moderate resistance before they got sidelined by the radicals.
