Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trudeau Tells Obama He's Pulling Canada Out of Bombing Campaign Against ISIS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post


    The yardstick is the American military. List units comparable in size, make-up and combat records.

    Then by all means....conduct all further actions yourselves, because America neither appreciates nor respects the efforts/sacrifices of other nations who offer their help and resources. Every time another nation dares to engage in a policy which is to their national interests, their loyalties are automatically questioned as if an act of extreme betrayal had just been committed. A lot of countries have grown wary of sending their troops into places to defend what they perceive as extensions of American foreign policy as opposed to a genuine benefit for themselves as well, or for all, especially when American official and public sentiment can be so vile and vitriolic in their reaction. France learned this the hard way....maybe other nations are beginning to realize the same.

    If, as per US claims, everyone else can only make "symbolic" gestures, then by all means take your yardstick and swish away....alone. You don't need anyone else.
    Last edited by asterix; 23 Oct 15, 06:37.
    You'll live, only the best get killed.

    -General Charles de Gaulle

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      (...) said, "you gotta know when to hold 'em, and you gotta know when to fold them."

      Know when to walk away - and when to run. This - it seems is the time to walk away
      High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
      Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        Fighting evil is hardly something the Left likes to do. Usually, they are championing it instead...
        Ah! How dare we......I see as usual anybody who dares to think or act in a so called 'anti American" stance is label'd " a "leftist"...you wouldn't know a "leftist" if one ran up and bit you in your arse.....:

        Oh! go and start another war some place....

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Bow View Post
          Ah! How dare we......I see as usual anybody who dares to think or act in a so called 'anti American" stance is label'd " a "leftist"...you wouldn't know a "leftist" if one ran up and bit you in your arse.....:

          Oh! go and start another war some place....
          You have a point, its the old square-rectangle thing. Not every anti-American is a leftist but every leftist is anti-American.
          "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
            You have a point, its the old square-rectangle thing. Not every anti-American is a leftist but every leftist is anti-American.
            Not quite.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
              You have a point, its the old square-rectangle thing. Not every anti-American is a leftist but every leftist is anti-American.
              Trudeau accused Conservative Harper of poor handling of relations with the United States during a campaign debate. He made the improvement in Canada US and Mexican relations a key part of his platform, to the point of promising to establish a cabinet committee in charge of North American relations. Not all leftist's are anti-American.

              Trudeau speaking June 23rd, before the election:

              For our American cousins, the relationship is consequential. For us, it has often been definitional. Prime Ministers and governments are commonly and rightly judged by how they foster that relationship for the greater common good. From John A. Macdonald’s deft management of fishing rights to Mike Pearson’s negotiation of the Auto-Pact, from free trade to abstention from the Iraq War – management of Canada-US relations is among the largest markers by which history remembers our leaders.

              This is how it should be.

              The Canada-US relationship has changed over the years. We Canadians are more confident about ourselves than we have ever been. People from my generation, in particular, see no contradiction between a strong national identity and an economic interdependence that brings greater prosperity to all of us. But the Canada-US relationship is no less definitional for us today than it was 100 years ago.

              A former Prime Minister – and not the one you think – once said to me that the PM has three big responsibilities:

              Grow the economy;
              Unify the country; and
              Successfully manage our relationship with the United States.
              Last edited by Sparlingo; 23 Oct 15, 11:56.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                Trudeau accused Conservative Harper of poor handling of relations with the United States during a campaign debate. He made the improvement in Canada US and Mexican relations a key part of his platform, to the point of promising to establish a cabinet committee in charge of North American relations. Not all leftist's are anti-American.
                That's a good point. I was speaking more from a domestic standpoint. That leftist values are incompatible with the US Constitution and therefor America values. It's entirely possible for the US to be good friends with other nations even when our systems are very different.
                "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                  That's a good point. I was speaking more from a domestic standpoint. That leftist values are incompatible with the US Constitution and therefor America values. It's entirely possible for the US to be good friends with other nations even when our systems are very different.
                  Ah, okay. That's a different argument than all leftists (even just domestic ones) being "anti-American".

                  I think one has to point out that leftists, as crazy as they may be, are a diverse group, and the vast majority are law abiding citizens who see changing the system from within as the solution rather than just destroying America or something else so extreme.

                  As an example, even the most rabid of anti-gun nuts isn't anti-American because they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment or believe in a different interpretation compared to their conservative counterparts.

                  Now, if they want to remove the 2nd Amendment by armed struggle and/or by disregarding the constitution entirely, then you're certainly right they're against what this country stands for.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    I see a lot of "peacekeeper" and "observer" units listed there. What specific combat forces has Canada deployed and when and where did they engage the enemy for any lengthy period of time?
                    [/B]
                    Here's a good start. They were smart enough to stay out of Iraq because they knew it had nothing to do with AQ. They were in for the long haul in Afghanistan, though. By all accounts, they acquitted themselves well.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada...fghanistan_War

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I suppose it depends if you consider America as the ideals of the founders and the Constitution or the government. Sure you can work completely within the system to change it over time but just because you followed the rules doesn't mean what you did is compatible with the values this country is based on. It's entirely possible to be president and be anti-American. All it takes is for your beliefs and actions to be contrary to the ideas of individual liberty and personal responsibility.
                      "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                        I suppose it depends if you consider America as the ideals of the founders and the Constitution or the government. Sure you can work completely within the system to change it over time but just because you followed the rules doesn't mean what you did is compatible with the values this country is based on. It's entirely possible to be president and be anti-American. All it takes is for your beliefs and actions to be contrary to the ideas of individual liberty and personal responsibility.
                        True, but then, I don't want us to be stuck viewing the nation through a 18th century lens for all time.

                        There are certain values I, heh, value above others. I feel like such things are tied to the nation. But this nation can, has, and will change. Values and such are not set in stone.

                        Hence why I think it's more about POV than anything. One could believe someone trying to repeal the 2nd amendment through strictly constitutional means is anti-American for the reasons you state above, despite the fact that they're using the systems and laws put in place by the founders and generations of Americans.

                        Anyway, to get back more on topic, I imagine there's a lot of disagreement with Canada's move based on such perspective issues than anything. For the hawkish American it's Canada running from a necessary fight. For a pragmatic liberal Canadian it's saving money and protecting lives from a fruitless endeavor.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          When you don't get it, ...

                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          I see a lot of "peacekeeper" and "observer" units listed there. What specific combat forces has Canada deployed and when and where did they engage the enemy for any lengthy period of time?

                          And what's with "80 personnel at peak"? That's not even a company of troops.

                          The yardstick is the American military. List units comparable in size, make-up and combat records.
                          ... you REALLY don't get it; Canada's Peacekeeping was/is very important to the US, and was dependent on US support. Canada's Peacekeeping role was originated by then Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lester B. Pearson, as a Suez Crisis resolution, he won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1957. Pearson, a Liberal, went on serve as Prime Minister, he was succeeded by Pierre Elliot Trudeau. This piece was written last March, now carry it forward past this week's Liberal election victory:


                          http://www.thestar.com/news/world/20...cekeeping.html

                          Can Canada's army return to peacekeeping?
                          For the first time since 9/11 and with the world still aflame, the U.S. is urging allies to revive the concept of United Nations peacekeeping. But is it too late for Canada's combat-focused army, once the best in the blue helmet business, to be part of the new program?

                          By: Mitch Potter Foreign Affairs Writer, Published on Sun Mar 29 2015
                          When the most senior military brass from more than 100 countries gather for a historic summit you might expect Canada’s top soldier to join them.
                          Especially when the entire point of the gathering is to modernize and reinvigorate a Canadian idea for the age of threats like the Islamic State militant group, being there moves beyond expectation into the realm of mandatory.

                          Yet examine the images from UN headquarters in New York on Friday, where the planet’s military leaders gathered in unprecedented numbers in a major drive to rewire peacekeeping for the 21st century, and Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Tom Lawson, is not in the picture. He wasn’t there.

                          As everyone knows, the Canadian Forces are not in the blue helmet business anymore. From a peak of 3,300 Canadians deployed to honour Lester B. Pearson’s Nobel Prize-winning concept of UN peacekeeping, only a token 90 serve today — 30 soldiers and 60 police officers.

                          Our army, once a leader in protecting civilians trapped by conflict, now is wired pretty much exclusively for war.

                          But what you probably don’t know is that a UN peacekeeping renaissance is in the works. And the effort is depending on technologically advanced allies like Canada to step up big.

                          UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon laid down the opening marker Friday in his address to the Chiefs of Defence Conference, calling for the “unity and backing” of developed countries to smart-wire, train, equip and staff a bigger, faster, fleeter international army of blue helmets to meet evermore complex challenges.

                          UN peacekeeping has never been busier, despite Canada’s exit from the realm. A record 130,000 international, military, police and civilian staff today serve in 16 operations around the world. These are unprecedented numbers.

                          But those missions are more complex, difficult and dangerous than ever. And the UN chief, with the full backing of the United States, is calling for not only additional “boots on the ground” from developing nations, but also new tools and technology, including surveillance drones, strategic airlift, medical evacuation and modern intelligence capabilities to better protect civilians and blue helmets alike.

                          The world must oppose “this terrorizing campaign by ISIL/Da’esh,” said Ban, using other terms in use for the Islamic State. But military actions, he said, are far from “the only options or only ways” to defeat extremism. Part of the answer is a stronger international partnership aimed at root causes, including a new global consensus to rebuild the “unparalleled legitimacy” of UN peacekeeping.

                          Canada is hardly alone in its drift away from peacekeeping. Europe has also dialed down its contributions, with EU member nations now providing fewer than 7 per cent of the overall UN peacekeeping force from a high of more than 40 per cent. The top 10 contributors today comprise troops from South Asia and Africa.

                          But the White House, which provides $2.5 billion (U.S.) of the UN’s annual $8.5-billion peacekeeping budget, wants its allies back in the peacekeeping game. U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to get involved personally in September, when he will chair a meeting at the UN General Assembly to tally up new blue helmet pledges.

                          The U.S. pivot on peacekeeping marks a turning point, according to Jean-Marie Guehenno, a former UN peacekeeping chief and now president of the International Crisis Group. Since the attacks of 9/11, U.S. policy has focused on NATO and alliances to meet conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.

                          “Now, when the U.S. says, ‘You’re our allies, and one of the best ways to show that friendship is to contribute to the UN,’ that’s quite a signal,” Guehenno told The Associated Press.

                          Should Canada answer the call? Could we, even? Some Canadian analysts argue our current combat-ready, NATO-aligned military orientation makes the notion of a significant, sustained return to peacekeeping almost a non-starter.

                          “It’s not impossible. But to take the Canadian Forces as they currently exist and to recraft them into a force capable to leading a peacekeeping mission in the absence of its allies is a pretty significant reconsideration,” said Philippe Lagassé, associate professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa.

                          “When Canada operates overseas, it does so in heavy dependence of allies, and particularly the United States, for things like transport and logistics. Looking to any approach that doesn’t fit with that vision would involve a major reassessment of Canada’s force structure.”

                          But Walter Dorn, one of the last Canadian defence scholars who still teaches advanced peacekeeping classes, says the issue warrants serious reconsideration, given the level of U.S. interest in a blue helmet revival.
                          “The U.S. effort is genuine. I’ve been to Washington three times in recent months to talk with the (U.S.) Department of Defense on helping bring United Nations peacekeeping technology into the 21st century,” said Dorn, a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College and the Canadian Forces College.

                          “And I think the key here is that the two approaches can coexist. It’s not one or the other and nothing in between. We can excel in combat and excel in peacekeeping. It comes down to questions of training and political will.”
                          In recent years the Canadian Forces have been “wired for war,” said Dorn. “But the skills we once had are not completely gone. Close to 30 per cent of Canadian officer command and staff having served as peacekeepers.”

                          Dorn has spent years arguing for a partial Canadian pivot back to peacekeeping. Among the potential dividends, he notes, are recouped costs. Canada pays every penny of its deployments alongside NATO — price tags like the $14 billion spent on war with Afghanistan. But the world pays for a significant part of UN peacekeeping, with contributor nations reimbursed about 25 per cent of soldiers’ salaries and close to 50 per cent on equipment costs.

                          “It’s the reputation dividend that is harder to quantify, and it’s not a simple equation,” said Dorn.

                          “It’s sheer naivety to think that peacekeeping alone makes all the difference. But at the same time, reputation does matter. And when you are seen as contributing to the cause for peace you are viewed as less of an aggressor,” he said.

                          “You look at Canada’s unique role in the genesis of peacekeeping, our absence of colonial baggage, our multilingual forces. You add to that the big change now, with the UN and the U.S. very serious about getting developed countries to return to peacekeeping.

                          “What it adds up to is a perfect moment to Canadians to reflect on where we are going, as a military and as a nation.”

                          More on thestar.com
                          Last edited by Marmat; 23 Oct 15, 15:34.
                          "I am Groot"
                          - Groot

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by taco View Post
                            Hi Andy,

                            I don't believe Obama has successfully assuaged criticism here in the US, but there is also no consensus for putting troops on the ground in Iraq. The idea was to provide boots on the ground by training the local forces to fight ISIS/IS/ISIL and having the air attacks support those local, mainly Iraqi, troops who would do the ground fighting. That idea has obviously proven to be more difficult than anticipated. As for the Canadian force of six or seven fighters, their withdrawal will not have any effect on air attacks on ISIS/IS/ISIL, since it is such a small force. Of course, we can all criticize the air attacks without effective troops on the ground, but with no public support in Western countries for putting troops on the ground the options are limited.
                            Hi Taco

                            You've answered and identified the problem and the limitations all nations at present are facing-after Iraq/Afghanistan there is no public support or want for putting boots on the ground.

                            Obama is doing the best he can, because even if the whole of the non-nuclear elements of the USAF were arrayed against IS etc in Syria, it still wouldn't be enough. IS would be severely hurt but not defeated, and unless it went on for yrs, IS will just re-group and start again.

                            So far the US has spent around $4Bn or around $10Mil per day and here's a breakdown of that expenditure http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/fea..._-_15Sep15.pdf

                            At present (Oct 20th) the Coalition has chipped in with around 22% of all strikes against IS, though there main aim has been against IS in Iraq, where they've undertaken 31% of strikes, with just 5% against IS targets in Syria.
                            Figures from http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-...herent-Resolve

                            Regards

                            Andy H
                            "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                            "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Canada is still active in the bombing campaign against ISIS, although there apparently has been no change in the decision to withdraw.

                              Recent Canadian attacks
                              To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the captain, and a positive crime in the statesman. - George Santayana

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X