NATO response to Paris attacks would not require Canada to act

With all due respect to those soldiers in the Canadian military who have the courage to answer any call when needed; with an ally like Canada who needs enemies? Who can Canada honestly suggest is our ally when we don't want to help anyone under any circumstances unless we are sending blankets and Tim Hortons coffee when tragedy strikes?

I have heard the arguments regarding the creation of ISIS, many blaming the U.S for their actions in Iraq, it's one hell of a stretch if you ask me. The prognosticators should have spoken up much louder in 2002 if this is what they believed would be the end result. I, for the record, didn't believe American resources were best used when they attacked Iraq, but I certainly couldn't imagine this type of global and unrelenting terrorism as a result. If indeed we can scientifically have a "cause and effect" discussion at all.

Furthermore, there wasn't an ISIS before the 9/11 attacks. I find arguments such as this akin to blaming the victim of a criminals action. Is France to blame for the ISIS attacks due to their courage in fighting these animals in Africa? How about Belgium?

Trudeau did campaign on getting out of the M.E, so I won't argue against his position on this. However, we need to do more than give hugs to Europe and other nations who need our help. Taking in refugees is avoidable if we help eradicate the reason for the reguees in the first place; terrorism. For what other application is Canada using its reources? To chase fake White Supremists and clamp down on the "Free-man movement"?

Where was NATO in 1982 when the British Overseas Territory of Falkland Island were invaded? In fact weren't NATO ally still selling arms to Argentina at the time? Still I'd rather see a NATO than an EU Army.

NATO obligations only fall within North America, Europe, and Turkish territories in Asia.

As the Falklands are well south of Europe, they did not fall within NATO sphere.

The cause was that the US disbanded the Iraqi military, putting all those Sunnis into having nothing to lose in joining Al Qaeda in Iraq. (The precursor of ISIS). The cause was that the US supported a Shia based government, which went on to screw all the Sunnis the way the Shia had been screwed by Hussain, which meant that all the Sunni tribes and militias turned from helping the US supress Al Qaeda to having nothing to lose in supporting them. ISIS could not have have taken all that Iraqi territory without the support of the Sunni tribes, in fact only operates now by their suffrage.

As for there not being an Al Qaeda in Iraq before the US invaded, of course not, Hussein would never have stood for it. Seems you are countering your own argument there.

What the prognosticators did predict is that it was insane to try to hold Iraq with so few US troops, when Iraq I used 4 times as many. All those arms caches that were looted because no soldiers were available to guard them.

That's if you don't count that it was insane to invade Iraq as a response to 9/11 in the first place.

And we are certainly seeing the effects now.

The cause was that the US disbanded the Iraqi military, putting all those Sunnis into having nothing to lose in joining Al Qaeda in Iraq. (The precursor of ISIS). The cause was that the US supported a Shia based government, which went on to screw all the Sunnis the way the Shia had been screwed by Hussain, which meant that all the Sunni tribes and militias turned from helping the US supress Al Qaeda to having nothing to lose in supporting them. ISIS could not have have taken all that Iraqi territory without the support of the Sunni tribes, in fact only operates now by their suffrage.

As for there not being an Al Qaeda in Iraq before the US invaded, of course not, Hussein would never have stood for it. Seems you are countering your own argument there.

What the prognosticators did predict is that it was insane to try to hold Iraq with so few US troops, when Iraq I used 4 times as many. All those arms caches that were looted because no soldiers were available to guard them.

That's if you don't count that it was insane to invade Iraq as a response to 9/11 in the first place.

And we are certainly seeing the effects now.

I supported no such argument, the point I am making is that ISIS is just another in a long line of terrorists organizations in the world that have targeted America. If America did not involved themselves in anything, these radicals would attack them, as they did when they attacked the WTC in the 1990's when Clinton was president. As always, these are attacks against soft targets, citizens going about their business, the vast majority not even interested in these global affairs. It is why they are threatening countries all over the world, this isn't just a tit for tat response, this is a global movement, one which requires a global response by all freedom loving nations.

I don't think the objective was to hold Iraq, it was to train, equip, and allow the Iraqi to defend their own country. The fact that they didn't have the stomach for this assignment leads to the questions that the Iraqi people need to ask of these domestic forces.

There will be constant groups hellbent on terror of the West, if there was no intervention at all it I predict it would become , not better; that is what these radicals represent. You can't sit down and drink tea with these guys and break bread, they are not rational or even concerned about your arguments. Reagan dealing with Gorbby was a far easier task even though both countries had the ability to decimate one another. The difference outside of these being states instead of radical terrorists is that both nations had logical, reasonable people who were at the table and talked when needed. These terrorists have no such designs. You can't capitulate to the unreasonable. So we shouldn't.

President Reagan had the US military offer as much assistance to the UK as we could get away with and even the Democrats in Congress supported the UK with joint resolutions.

The US provided significant support to the UK and we even had offered one of our then-new amphibious carriers (Iwo Jima) as a back-up in case the UK carrier was damaged or lost.

Meanwhile, France was busy helping the Argentines fix the various hardware and software problems on their Exocet missiles, an action that directly contributed to the loss of the HMS Sheffield.

If Justine walks away from Canada's obligation as a member of NATO EMBARRASSING! How soon the Left forgets under a Liberal Govenment Canada took part in NATO Military action n the Kosovo War.

The difference is that in Kosovo Canada's Liberal government was fighting the Muslims.

Especially when the French have parked their carrier in the Med and using it,

and the UK will have another vote on action in Syria in the next few days.


And then we walk away from it. With friends like us...

The difference is that in Kosovo Canada's Liberal government was fighting the Muslims.
That was also the time the United States acted without UN authorizarion because well it's the UN.




Especially when the French have parked their carrier in the Med and using it,

and the UK will have another vote on action in Syria in the next few days.


And then we walk away from it. With friends like us...
Canada's allies in NATO have come to the conclusion they're stuck with another Community Organizer.