Canada Has It's Own Share Of Leadership Problems

[oladub]

Right, sure, and what does that have to do w/the price of tea in China? You chose to single this out as if it were somehow a contributing sin. Given you view on immigration and 'others' I have little doubt here that you view people you deem unlike yourself as less worthy of rights and freedoms, I hadn't realized you devalue their very lives as well.

Entirely off topic and in no way related whatsoever.

Now you're a mindreader? My topic in post 11 had to do with "Prime Minister Trudeau saying that ""I think if there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be right now home with their families" and a Canadian CEO who said that "Canadians needlessly lost their lives in the crossfire." There was no crossfire. Iranians mistanely shot the plane down. Period. Trudeau's anti-American statement had two "ifs". I pointed out there are an infinite number of "ifs" and listed the first several that came into my head including the weather. You then tried to switch the subject to racism and xenophobia even though Iranians are Caucasians. You should at least have defined your definition of race to prevent seeming silly.

No action was taken by an Iranian immigrant to Canada against Canada or Iranians or anyone else.

No one said there was. My topic was that Trudeau and a Canadian CEO had tried to blame Trump for Iran having shot down 176 passengers. Trump was no more responsible for doing that then for having 56 people trampled in Tehran.

Had this incident taken place in Britain would you be suggesting that it was Canada's fault for accepting British immigrants? Ya, I didn't think so.

That's a poor analogy. The United States in not involved in a military conflict in Britain. Also, General Soleimeni was not an "immigrant". He was an Iranian combatant with a long history of killing Americans in Iraq helping Hezbollah do so.

I don't recall any declaration of war against Iran by either the United States or Iraq [[in contemporary times).

As such there was no legal justification for killing this person at the time and place they were.

That does not make that person any less a terrorist; but the fact they were a terrorist does not confer the right of assassination to the United States, particularly when said terrorism is not in the United States.

If your nose gets bloody from butting into someone else's business, suck it up buttercup.

Congress failed to declare war in Iraq instead giving its' power to declare war to W. Bush. However, out troops found themselves in a war against Saddam, then ISIS, and now they are caught up in a 1,700 year old conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. One of our barracks was destroyed, the barracks having been evacuated minutes earlier. The missile was fired from Iran as was the missile that struck the airliner. I want the troops home ASAP. They don't belong there. However, as long as they are stuck there in a war, they have a right to defend themselves and the Commander in Chief has an obligation toward that end. Removing Soleimani was self defense. Too bad you are on the other side with Trudeau and your CEO.

It seems like you are more the 'buttercup" butting into American business. Keeping American troops alive is the President's business.

[Canadian Visitor]

That's a poor analogy. The United States in not involved in a military conflict in Britain.

The United States is not in a legal military conflict with Iran!

So its a perfect example. At no point has the U.S. President declared such a war.

Therefore there was no legal basis, even under American law, for the assassination. Period.

[quote
Also, General Soleimeni was not an "immigrant". He was an Iranian combatant with a long history of killing Americans in Iraq helping Hezbollah do so. [quote]

General Soleimeni has never personally killed a single American. His proxies doubtless have; but US soliders and proxies have killed far more people around the world; is that justification in your mind for any third-party country to assassinate U.S. Generals? I don't support that. I don't imagine you do. No double standards allowed!

Congress failed to declare war in Iraq instead giving its' power to declare war to W. Bush. However, out troops found themselves in a war against Saddam, then ISIS, and now they are caught up in a 1,700 year old conflict between Sunnis and Shiites.

The U.S. military did not just 'find itself' anywhere. Its there on purpose, where it has no business.

One of our barracks was destroyed, the barracks having been evacuated minutes earlier.

Good try, Iran phoned ahead and explicitly stated its targets and attack times 2 full hours ahead. That's why there were no American deaths.

The missile was fired from Iran as was the missile that struck the airliner. I want the troops home ASAP. They don't belong there. However, as long as they are stuck there in a war...

For the last time, there is NO war. Only illegal military action.

they have a right to defend themselves and the Commander in Chief has an obligation toward that end. Removing Soleimani was self defense.

No it wasn't. HE was no immediate threat. By that logic Iran can attack Trump or any US general based in Washington. Plenty of folks in DC have tried to cause Iran trouble over the years and indeed succeeded quite a bit.

I don't support that leap of logic. Not for Iran, not for the U.S. American soldiers are welcome to fire on anyone firing a gun at them or a missile, not at someone having a chat.

Too bad you are on the other side with Trudeau and your CEO.

You mean I'm on the side of virtually every country on earth, the majority of the world's people, and the law.

It seems like you are more the 'buttercup" butting into American business. Keeping American troops alive is the President's business.

The U.S. took action which put Canadian lives in harms way. as Iran must bare responsibility for its role, so must those in the United States that set the wheels in motion.

If Mr. Trump actually cares about U.S. soliders let him pull them all back, from everywhere outside the United States.

They'll be safe at home; provided, of course, you stop training Saudi Terrorists at US military bases!

[Richard]

[QUOTE=Canadian Visitor;585363]The United States is not in a legal military conflict with Iran!

So its a perfect example. At no point has the U.S. President declared such a war.

Therefore there was no legal basis, even under American law, for the assassination. Period.

[quote
Also, General Soleimeni was not an "immigrant". He was an Iranian combatant with a long history of killing Americans in Iraq helping Hezbollah do so.

General Soleimeni has never personally killed a single American. His proxies doubtless have; but US soliders and proxies have killed far more people around the world; is that justification in your mind for any third-party country to assassinate U.S. Generals? I don't support that. I don't imagine you do. No double standards allowed!



The U.S. military did not just 'find itself' anywhere. Its there on purpose, where it has no business.



Good try, Iran phoned ahead and explicitly stated its targets and attack times 2 full hours ahead. That's why there were no American deaths.



For the last time, there is NO war. Only illegal military action.



No it wasn't. HE was no immediate threat. By that logic Iran can attack Trump or any US general based in Washington. Plenty of folks in DC have tried to cause Iran trouble over the years and indeed succeeded quite a bit.

I don't support that leap of logic. Not for Iran, not for the U.S. American soldiers are welcome to fire on anyone firing a gun at them or a missile, not at someone having a chat.



You mean I'm on the side of virtually every country on earth, the majority of the world's people, and the law.



The U.S. took action which put Canadian lives in harms way. as Iran must bare responsibility for its role, so must those in the United States that set the wheels in motion.

If Mr. Trump actually cares about U.S. soliders let him pull them all back, from everywhere outside the United States.

They'll be safe at home; provided, of course, you stop training Saudi Terrorists at US military bases!

What part are you confused on,we have been at “war” against terrorism for the last 20 years,you know after 9-11 when everybody said they would not forget?

Iran is know as a terrorist state,not that difficult to understand that if you are a terrorist doing terrorist actions against the United States sooner or later you can bet you will be introduced to a high speed flying device that goes boom.

The plane was filled with X-pat Iranians returning home from visiting relatives for the holidays.

They are considered traitors to the regime.

Why do you think the pro democracy Iranians are protesting against the dictatorship,because Iranians were targeted.

The airport where the plane took off was miles away from actions and was in not in harms way,which is why the plane took off.

That plane was specifically targeted because of it passengers and had nothing to do with current actions other then the opportunity presented itself.

So quit trying to blame the US because Canada wants to follow Pelosi and work on hope and prayers.

That plane was not the only one that took off.

Not one,But two missiles launched,that does not happen by mistake.

You make a lot of claims about the legality of it all but yet still have offered no proof,why?

Iran warned Iraq who in turn warned us,why did they do that?

Because the only reason they launched was to save face,they knew full well that had an American been killed then the palace would have been dust and the regime change would be done by now.

The CIA has had travel restrictions for Americans going to Iran,how come Canada did not while knowing full well tensions were there.

Grow a set,instead of looking for others to blame,they picked a weak target because they knew full well Canada would do nothing.

You guys have bigger problems then the US involvement in the Middle East.

Canada has been there right alongside the entire time,you can try and justify like you did but they are there assisting the western world,so they are just as much as a target as an American.


What if I said,the United States hacked the launch system in order to shoot down the plane,which in turn started the unrest that was needed to implement regime change from within.

See you do not know,it is only what you think you know and are led to believe.

[oladub]

The United States is not in a legal military conflict with Iran!

So its a perfect example. At no point has the U.S. President declared such a war.

Therefore there was no legal basis, even under American law, for the assassination. Period.

Presidents can't constitutionally declare war. Only Congress can. You are correct about that. That goes for Korea, Vietnam, Bombing Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Syria among other un-declared conflicts. However, to the American soldiers being shot at and mined, they are wars. We agree, I think, that they should come home from Iraq ASAP. We disagree on the safety of U.S. troops as long as they are stuck there. You would rather limit the Commander in Chief's ability to defend American troops.

[[quote)Also, General Soleimeni was not an "immigrant". He was an Iranian combatant with a long history of killing Americans in Iraq helping Hezbollah do so. [[quote)

General Soleimeni has never personally killed a single American. His proxies doubtless have; but US soliders and proxies have killed far more people around the world; is that justification in your mind for any third-party country to assassinate U.S. Generals? I don't support that. I don't imagine you do. No double standards allowed!

That's almost like saying that Goering "never personally killed a single American". If General Soleimeni was sent to Iraq to kill Americans, he was put in jeopardy by his own government that same way American PFCs were put in jeopardy by our government. General Soleimeni doesn't get a free pass to help kill Americans except from you guys.

The U.S. military did not just 'find itself' anywhere. Its there on purpose, where it has no business.

Agreed, but unlike you and Trudeau. I'm not going to tie our soldiers hands while they are being shot at.

[QUOTE=Canadian Visitor;585363]Good try, Iran phoned ahead and explicitly stated its targets and attack times 2 full hours ahead. That's why there were no American deaths.

Iran may have "phoned" Iraq 2 hours before attacking U.S. airbases but according to one interviewed soldier, he was evacuated from a bombed barracks a few minutes before it was destroyed. Trump notably held his return fire.

For the last time, there is NO war. Only illegal military action.

Tell that to American soldiers that are being targeted with roadside bombs and Iranian missiles. You continue to confuse declared wars with proxy warfare when convenient.

HE was no immediate threat. By that logic Iran can attack Trump or any US general based in Washington. Plenty of folks in DC have tried to cause Iran trouble over the years and indeed succeeded quite a bit.

I don't support that leap of logic. Not for Iran, not for the U.S. American soldiers are welcome to fire on anyone firing a gun at them or a missile, not at someone having a chat.

Yes, Iran and its proxies can strike American generals in Iraq just as it targets other u.S. military personnel. Iran, meanwhile, is targeting American military personnel through Hezbollah. American soldiers were not allowed to strike back at missile launch sites in Iran.

You mean I'm on the side of virtually every country on earth*, the majority of the world's people, and the law.

And I am siding with the plight of U.S. Troops even if you side with Islamists, Communists, Russians, Europeans who prefer that the U.S. protect its oil supply, and Trudeau believing that anyone but Iran was responsible for shooting two rockets into a Ukrainian plane. I am unaware of any U.S. law that does not allow the Commander in Chief to take out hostile military personnel in combat zones who are involved with killing Americans. Maybe Democrats will pass something to that end.

The U.S. took action which put Canadian lives in harms way. as Iran must bare responsibility for its role, so must those in the United States that set the wheels in motion.

I already covered that. Trudeau's quote was based on two ifs and excluded the possibility of other ifs.

Iran set wheels in motion by killing an American contractor and by attacking our Embassy. Enough was enough. You can hope that Americans will elect someone more likely to send Iran more plane load of money [[1.)[[2.)instead.

If Mr. Trump actually cares about U.S. soliders let him pull them all back, from everywhere outside the United States.

They'll be safe at home; provided, of course, you stop training Saudi Terrorists at US military bases!

I agree with your last two sentences. Europe can pick up where we left off to protect its oil supply if it chooses to do so. My guess though is that should Trump remove our mid-east troops, there will be howls from *"virtually every country on earth" and the Democratic Party as there was when Trump pulled back troops from the Turkish border before Turkey invaded Syria.

[JBMcB]

So its a perfect example. At no point has the U.S. President declared such a war.

Technically true, however there is a blanket use of force authorization covering Iraq. Soleimani was in Iraq at the time [[going to a wedding?!?)

imagine you do. No double standards allowed!



The U.S. military did not just 'find itself' anywhere. Its there on purpose, where it has no business.

The U.S. took action which put Canadian lives in harms way. as Iran must bare responsibility for its role, so must those in the United States that set the wheels in motion.

Now *that's* quite a logical leap. You could argue if Iran hadn't ordered the assault on the American embassy, the US probably wouldn't have hit Soulimani. It's quite a jump to go from there to the US being responsible for Iran shooting down a passenger airplane under control of it's own air traffic control, in a known domestic flight path, near one of it's own airports.

Also, keep in mind that attacking the US embassy, in political terms, is exactly the same as attacking the US itself. You could argue the legalities of the response, but this is inexcusable behavior.

Just take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment. Iran backs a paramilitary group that attacks an embassy. One of it's top generals is killed in Iraq. It fires a bunch of missiles at Iraq in retaliation and ends up killing a few Iraqis and no US personnel. During the funeral of the general, 50 people die in a stampede. Then they shoot down a passenger plane taking off from one of their own airports.

And you think this all makes the US look bad? I'm no fan of US foreign policy, and agree we should pull out of the middle east as much as is possible, but holy cow there is no way Iran is even remotely in the right in this case.

[Canadian Visitor]

Now *that's* quite a logical leap. You could argue if Iran hadn't ordered the assault on the American embassy, the US probably wouldn't have hit Soulimani. It's quite a jump to go from there to the US being responsible for Iran shooting down a passenger airplane under control of it's own air traffic control, in a known domestic flight path, near one of it's own airports.

Also, keep in mind that attacking the US embassy, in political terms, is exactly the same as attacking the US itself. You could argue the legalities of the response, but this is inexcusable behavior.

Just take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment. Iran backs a paramilitary group that attacks an embassy. One of it's top generals is killed in Iraq. It fires a bunch of missiles at Iraq in retaliation and ends up killing a few Iraqis and no US personnel. During the funeral of the general, 50 people die in a stampede. Then they shoot down a passenger plane taking off from one of their own airports.

And you think this all makes the US look bad? I'm no fan of US foreign policy, and agree we should pull out of the middle east as much as is possible, but holy cow there is no way Iran is even remotely in the right in this case.

At no point did I in any way whatsoever suggest 'Iran is in the right'.

Right in that quote you took of mine, I said "as Iran must bare responsibility for its role"

That doesn't sound at all like 'Iran is in the right', because its not.

That Iran is in the wrong, very clearly, does not, however relieve the United States government of its responsibility in committing an illegal act, a murder, which they knew or ought to have known would result in some form of calamity and loss of life.

I don't expect they knew it would be a passenger liner being shot down by Iran.

But this hardly the first such instance, the U.S. having been responsible for the exact same misdeed in the past.

Had the United States government abided by international law, however, that aircraft would be in tact as would the many passengers lives.

That doesn't mean the U.S. is directly responsible, or intentionally so, nor does it let Iran off the hook in any way.

But really, with great respect your country needs to s#$t or get off the pot.

If the U.S. wants to rule the middle east, then all-in, go conquer it and rebuild their schools, their societies and stay for 4 generations. You get the costs and the benefits.

OR get out and stay out. This messing about is harmful to everyone.