CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5321
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:28 am
 


Shouldnt have gotten involved in the first place.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2218
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:11 am
 


Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
Shouldnt have gotten involved in the first place.


One could just as easily say we shouldn't have gotten involved in Afghanistan

Not our fight


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5321
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:35 am
 


I agree with you there, I used to support our involvement in Afghanistan; hind sight is 20/20.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2218
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:40 am
 


My point is that if we are going to 'go in' e go in with our eye wide open and with an idea of the beginning , middle and end state that we want. We made that mistake in Afghanistan by becoming all weepy eyed with the Americans and trusting that theyhad a plan for a successful end state in Afghanistan.


10 years later and well over a hundred Canadians dead, i don't think that when it comes to international actions the US has the first clue about things.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:50 am
 


For the forgetful on Afghanistan. We are members of NATO and have signed on to the Treaty. Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked by the US and all NATO members were obliged to respond.

We did.

If we don’t want to honour our treaty pledges, we should have quit NATO in 2001.
This has been debated ad naseum on this forum but the Treaty obligations remain.


On Libya, no such treaty requirements exist.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2218
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:08 am
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
For the forgetful on Afghanistan. We are members of NATO and have signed on to the Treaty. Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked by the US and all NATO members were obliged to respond.

We did.

If we don’t want to honour our treaty pledges, we should have quit NATO in 2001.
This has been debated ad naseum on this forum but the Treaty obligations remain.


On Libya, no such treaty requirements exist.


Actually what you're referring to is article 5 of the NATO treaty, and it was affirmed on April 5. Which is not to say that we were obligated to do so, i suspect much of it had to do with the sympathy that was generated by the AQ attack to invade Afghanistan. But again we were under the impression that the US knew what it was doing, since it was in fact them that wanted to invade in the first place.

Of course two years later the US went gallivanting off into Iraq to look for non-existent ties between Husssein and AQ and the non-existent WMD's and left the Afghan problem in the hands of NATO by dedicating the troops that should have been in Afghanistan to Iraq leaving NATO to more or less hold the bag.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 New York Rangers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11240
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:52 am
 


I agree with HyperionTheEvil. We have a legitimate Axe to grind with OBL and as someone who lost some friends in 9-11 I would like to see that Axe firmly planted in his skull.

The invasion of Iraq was founded on basically a lie by W and the misfits he had working for him.

Saddam was a thug that we are better off having rotting in the ground, but the alternative is a group of people who can't agree on the time of day let alone how to run a country (actually they can agree on one other thing .. they hate our guts).

Libya represents the same thing. The Colonel has given up blowing up airliners and was quite content to brutalize his own people similar to Saddam (Except for the misadventure of the Kuwait invasion of course).

Obama, without bothering to consult Congress, decides to conduct an intensive live fire exercise in Libya ( he once said any President who would do such a thing should be impeached. I didn't realize that only applied to Republican Presidents).

NATO is now joining the party. The rebels who can't even agree on anything are being squished by The Colonel. Now we are hearing of sending in advisors to help the rebels.

It isn't going to be that easy. Eventually ground troops, tanks and all that good stuff are going to be needed and when The Colonel is sent to his 72 Virgins and we leave other kook is going to take his place and do the same thing.

The only thing that is going to be accomplished is not only will the Libyans hate our guts they will hate NATO's guts.

Unless you want a repeat of Iraq I would think long and hard about how much we want to see The Colonel on the other side of the event horizon and how much blood we are willing to spill to see it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:01 am
 


It doesn't really matter what either of you say (and it's an Article 6 invocation –Attack on North America, check the fine print). We had a treaty obligation to the US under NATO.

We can argue about it until the cows come home, who was wrong, who was right. At the end of the day Canada and the other NATO nations honoured their treaty commitments. Endex.

Whether it was right or wrong is another debate. Whether we should withdraw from NATO is another debate.

On Libya, NATO countries maybe there but there is no treaty obligation for us or any other NATO nation to be there.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:06 am
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
It doesn't really matter what either of you say (and it's an Article 6 invocation –Attack on North America, check the fine print). We had a treaty obligation to the US under NATO.

We can argue about it until the cows come home, who was wrong, who was right. At the end of the day Canada and the other NATO nations honoured their treaty commitments. Endex.

Whether it was right or wrong is another debate. Whether we should withdraw from NATO is another debate.

On Libya, NATO countries maybe there but there is no treaty obligation for us or any other NATO nation to be there.


You don't seem to be able to distinguish between going to Astan and staying in Astan to nation build. The guys you are arguing with have said they supported the initial invasion of Astan (treaty obligation) to bet OBL. Doubt that means we have to stay there for decades, especially when the ally you are supporting fucks of for adventures in another place for political reasons. Maybe Europe had it right with their "we're behind you all the way" policy.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:14 am
 


I am merely pointing out the differences between the two missions andy.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:22 am
 


$1:
"It's not a conventional war," Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, chairman of NATO's military committee, said Tuesday. He would not say just how much of the regime's firepower has been eliminated or put out of action by NATO's operations so far.


What a dumbass comment. When was the last time we had a "conventional" war? Did he expect everyone to line up and both sides of a big field and the bagpipers and flag-bearers to lead in the troops?

Anyways, in about two years, when we're completely mired in Libya's tribal warfare Canada can play Stan Laurel to NATO's Oliver Hardy and say "Well, this is another fine mess you've gotten me into."

Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:25 am
 


I'd be well wary of this mission.

#1 reason. The French are leading it with the Italians also calling the shots....DISENGAGE!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:31 am
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I'd be well wary of this mission.

#1 reason. The French are leading it with the Italians also calling the shots....DISENGAGE!



The real question is:

Which will happen first, surrender or changing sides ? :)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:32 am
 


Funny and true!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:37 am
 


That one made me laugh.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.