Canadian Prime Minister Opts Against Intervention in Syria - Polidicks

[quote] Canada won't be participating in any military intervention in Syria [B]but supports the countries who are now considering launching an attack against the country[/B], the prime minister said Thursday. "In the face of what appears to be escalation ... without acting in the use of chemical weapons is an extremely dangerous risk," he told reporters. Harper's comments come a day after Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird told reporters Canada's role would likely be limited to a supporting one and that the government would also lend political support to any military strikes. That political support is important, given the UN Security Council's inability to reach consensus. Russia and China's continued support for Bashar Al Assad puts in doubt a UN-sanctioned attack. Baird said Wednesday that while an attack using drones and cruise missiles was being considered, Canada has neither. He also said any attack would be swift and highly targeted. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said Wednesday that before the government decides on any action to be taken in Syria, all MPs need to be recalled to the House of Commons to debate the specifics of what Canada's role should be.[/quote] [url=http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/29/theres-no-plan-for-canada-to-join-military-mission-in-syria-stephen-harper]**SOURCE**[/url] USA, you're on your own.

I really hope we do do anything, and I'm glad the UK and Canada aren't doing anything. This whole thing is just one massive cluster fuck.

[QUOTE=pentium;42013812] USA, you're on your own.[/QUOTE] Did France change its mind as well ?

Good. Everyone needs to screw off and let them deal with it. It's not our issue so there's no need for us to get involved.

It's none of our issues. The issue is for Syria and Syria alone to figure out.

Oh for once, Harper does something right.

I fully support some sort of intervention in Syria, I don't care if its just air strikes on important targets, something has to be done about whats happening there. However, I support this intervention [b]if and only if[/b] the UN team discovers legitimate information about the Syrian military and chemical weapons it is proved to have used.

Haper doing something smart? These truly are the end times.

The United States handling of Iraq has singlehandedly soured every future Middle-East intervention. 10 years of nearly pointless fighting, of course Canada isn't going to jump on it again.

[QUOTE=PopSkimo;42014622]Good. Everyone needs to screw off and let them deal with it. It's not our issue so there's no need for us to get involved.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect[/url]

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;42015436][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect[/url][/QUOTE]This is probably going to make me sound like an asshole but I couldn't care less about some responsibility to protect. Certain countries like getting involved everywhere and quite honestly, it needs to stop.

Good he as some sense. It it all seems that everyone has an ulterior motive with Syria. People should send Medical supplies and field aid triages along the border and such. Turkey for one would welcome it, they are totally swamped with refugees.

So does everyone here think letting the regime use chemical weapons against their own people without international intervention is okay or what. Because chemical weapons are technically classified as weapons of mass destruction, and you know, it's kind of horrifying.

How about the civilians? Is there any helping there?

i wouldnt have an issue with military intervention in syria if it werent for the fact that it would guarantee a western takeover of the state. if america & co. could just help a country and fuck off when they're no longer needed instead of adopting it as part of their unofficial empire by running their state after the deed is done everything would be fine

[QUOTE=Kopimi;42017737]i wouldnt have an issue with military intervention in syria if it werent for the fact that it would guarantee a western takeover of the state. if america & co. could just help a country and fuck off when they're no longer needed instead of adopting it as part of their unofficial empire by running their state after the deed is done everything would be fine[/QUOTE] If they could just bomb their chemical weapon stockpiles that could help a lot too.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;42017747]If they could just bomb their chemical weapon stockpiles that could help a lot too.[/QUOTE] The last thing you want is chemical containment canisters rupturing.

Phew, now Canada won't be involved in this mess.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;42017737]i wouldnt have an issue with military intervention in syria if it werent for the fact that it would guarantee a western takeover of the state. if america & co. could just help a country and fuck off when they're no longer needed instead of adopting it as part of their unofficial empire by running their state after the deed is done everything would be fine[/QUOTE] except in the case of Syria it wouldn't even be fine if they did what you wanted. Assuming you mean displacing Assad. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Cakebatyr;42017897]The last thing you want is chemical containment canisters rupturing.[/QUOTE] depends what, but a large fuel air bomb or other munitions will just cook and neutralize the chems. Some chems aren't magic in a bottle they often need to be mixed and whatnot in a process before they function properly.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;42015436][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect[/url][/QUOTE] It struck me during a debate in the danish parliment about Syria, that "RTP" is nothing more than moral hazard, but on a global scale. For we are to protect "the civilian population" but in doing so we might topple the power balance to either side. So effectively, that means we would need to fire missiles at open spaces and say "we mean business if you do it again". Moral hazard has led to banks that are too big to fail, where losers become winners and winners become losers.

[QUOTE=Aman;42017925] depends what, but a large fuel air bomb or other munitions will just cook and neutralize the chems. Some chems aren't magic in a bottle they often need to be mixed and whatnot in a process before they function properly.[/QUOTE] We have special ordnance that can neutralize chemical weapons apparently, the hard part is finding them

I'm glad Canada won't be involved but I still say we should send medical supplies to the neighboring countries to treat the refuges who have fled.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;42015436][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect[/url][/QUOTE] It's difficult to detect when you have [b]no fucking clue[/b] who the belligerents are, who is in the right, who is in the wrong, and who we should be fighting for. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] Not to mention the fact that if we somehow [b]miraculously[/b] voted through a binding UNSC Resolution to put boots on the ground (read: UN Peacekeepers), they'd probably get shot up, gassed and BOMBED by both sides, considering we have radical Islamists on one side, and a desperate military attempting to prop up a crumbling regime on the other side too trigger-happy to NOT shoot at anything but guys on their own side. It's too. fucking. complicated.

[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;42018302]I'm glad Canada won't be involved but I still say we should send medical supplies to the neighboring countries to treat the refuges who have fled.[/QUOTE] If it spills over I hope we won't have to bring back "Citizens" who live in the countries that have never actually been here or speak any of the official languages.

[QUOTE=bigmansham;42013956]Did France change its mind as well ?[/QUOTE] They surrendered 2 years ago.