How many Canadian troops are in Iraq-israel-istan?

[Atomoa]

Q : How many Canadian troops are in Iraq and when will they be coming home?

A : Vote for the CPC. The CPC support's Israel and the NDP do not.

http://globalnews.ca/video/1578828/unre ... nt-in-iraq

[rookie314]

Last confirmed number by the government is 69 in Iraq and none in Isreal. So besides your CPC rant, whats your point?

[Atomoa]

Last confirmed number by the government is 69 in Iraq and none in Isreal. So besides your CPC rant, whats your point?

Global news, Globe and Mail and most Canadian news organizations covered this non-answer story.

Are you asking what was their point? I believe that's stated pretty clearly.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

i believe there are two members of the rcmp stationed in 'palestine', not precisely in line with the topic, but still interesting. i would think it would be even more interesting to hear from those members, and their feelings from a law enforcement perspective, on what goes on over there.

[maryjane48]

Last confirmed number by the government is 69 in Iraq and none in Isreal. So besides your CPC rant, whats your point?

lol point is the neo nasty cons cant give a straight answer

[Atomoa]

Last confirmed number by the government is 69 in Iraq and none in Isreal. So besides your CPC rant, whats your point?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen ... -1.2783846

Well, they said a few times it was 69.

Employment Minister Jason Kenney told the House that same day that "69 brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are providing tactical advice to the Kurdish militias​."

On Sept. 26, James Bezan, parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, told MPs there were "69 members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are providing tactical advice in Iraq," although in a separate answer he'd said "up to 69" special forces were being deployed.

Nicholson himself told the House on Sept. 25 that Canada had "committed" 69 soldiers and that "69 members of the Canadian Armed Forces have the full permission and co-operation of the Iraq government​."

But today...

Canada has only 26 soldiers in Iraq serving as military advisers, rather than the 69 troops the government had said it was sending, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons on Wednesday.

[Atomoa]

If Canada is going to War - Wall Street is the first to know about it. What does that tell you about "war" and who the leader of this country answers to?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014 ... _says.html

US didn't ask for troops. Someone feels inadequate.

The best part - no discussion in Parliament about it. Mr Harper just threw Canada into a non-NATO, non-UN war action because he felt like it. Now Canada is on the ISIS hitlist. Hooray.

[maryjane48]

exactly when the federal reserve wants something harper says how much and how fast

[wanderingman]

exactly when the federal reserve wants something harper says how much and how fast

good thing people that post such things have no legal validity and therefore have no bearing on our lives and there directions

[maryjane48]

good thing people that post such things have no legal validity and therefore have no bearing on our lives and there directions

really?


Global military spending was down in 2012 for the first time since 1998. And for the second year in a row, arms sales from private industry to governments were down as well last year.

MORE
NBC News Freelancer in Africa Diagnosed with Ebola NBC News
Take Cover: 40 Million in the Path of Violent Storms NBC News
NBC's Dr. Nancy: 'We Present Zero to Minimal Risk' NBC News
Louisiana Teachers Shelley Dufresne, Rachel Respess Charged In Student Sex Abuse Case Huffington Post
If This Video Doesn't Convince You To Put Down Your Phone, Nothing Will Huffington Post
Despite the decline in military spending, the business of war remains a good one. The 100 largest arms producers and military services contractors recorded $395 billion in arms sales in 2012. Lockheed Martin, the largest arms seller, alone accounted for $36 billion in such sales during 2012. Based on figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 24/7 Wall St. examined the 10 companies profiting most from war.

POPULAR AMONG SUBSCRIBERS
General Motors CEO Mary Barra Time Magazine Cover
Mary Barra’s Bumpy Ride at the Wheel of GM
Subscribe
The Race to Stop Ebola in Africa
Ebola Arrives in America
The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan is among the biggest reasons for the drop in military spending, according to SIPRI. Spending on these campaigns fell from $159 billion to $115 billion between 2011 and 2012.

MORE: 10 States Where Income Inequality Has Soared

Austerity also contributed to cuts in military spending. Budget control measures were responsible for a $15 billion reduction in U.S. military expenditures in 2012. Belt-tightening in Europe also had an impact on arms sales. In 20 of the 37 countries in Western and Central Europe, military spending declined by more than 10% between 2008 and 2012.

In an interview with 24/7 Wall St., Dr. Samuel Perlo-Freeman, director of the SIPRI Programme on Military Expenditure and Arms Production, said that while government military spending is waning in the United States and Western Europe, many developing countries are increasing their expenditures. Arms sellers in several countries, most notably Russia, are benefiting from their nation’s military budget expansion, Perlo-Freeman noted. While U.S. military expenses declined in 2012, Russia’s increased by an estimated 16% that year.

Companies reacted differently to the sales downturn. L-3 Communications spun off part of its business in 2012 to limit exposure to declining government military spending. Other government contractors wrote off significant losses in response to decreased military spending, including General Dynamics, which took a $2 billion goodwill charge related to declining opportunities in the defense sector.

MORE: 10 Retailers With the Worst Customer Service

Faced with possible tough times, some companies have engaged in corrupt practices. Last year, the CEO of Italian aerospace and defense firm Finmeccanica was charged by Italian prosecutors with fraud and corruption related to the company’s sale of helicopters to the Indian government. However, according to Perlo-Freeman, this is nothing new. “The arms industry has always been associated with corruption both in international arms transfers and sometimes in domestic procurement.”

Arms sales have remained concentrated among the same small number of companies for more than a decade. The top 10 companies have largely remained in place because industry consolidation in the 1990s made them dominant players, even through fluctuations in government military spending. “These companies tend to have their core competencies in getting money out of governments,” Perlo-Freeman said.

To identify the 10 companies profiting most from war, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 companies with the most arms sales based on SIPRI’s list of the top 100 arms sellers in 2012. Arms sales, including advisory, planes, vehicles and weapons, were defined by sales to military customers, as well as contracts to government militaries. We also considered the company’s 2012 total sales and profits, and the total number of employees at the company, as well as nation-level military spending, all provided by SIPRI.

These are the companies profiting the most from war:

5. General Dynamics
> Arm sales 2012: $20.9 billion
> Total sales 2012: $31.5 billion
> 2012 profit: -$332 million
> 2012 employment: 92,200

Like many of its defense-sector competitors, Virginia-based General Dynamics Corp. (NYSE: GD) felt the sting of the decreased U.S. military spending. The company, which specializes in aircraft, land and expeditionary combat vehicles, and shipbuilding, lost $332 million in 2012, and its arms sales totaled $20.9 billion, down from $23.3 billion the year before. The loss was due, in large part, to a $2 billion goodwill charge related to declining business opportunities in the defense sector. In its most recent year, the company reported a 16.4% drop in sales in its combat systems group, for which the U.S. Army is major customer.

MORE: America’s Most and Least Literate Cities

4. Raytheon
> Arm sales 2012: $22.5 billion
> Total sales 2012: $24.4 billion
> 2012 profit: $1.9 billion
> 2012 employment: 67,800



http://time.com/24735/here-are-the-5-co ... the-world/



The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.”

According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Libya – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar”, Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/ ... nking.html

[Atomoa]

Right click for full image

[canada bound]

Truth is we are all targets.

[Atomoa]

You really think Canada is not on their hit list already before this?

But the dye has been cast and unfortunately we are all targets now.

Canada didn't join in the Iraq war, which spawned ISIS. Not joining the Iraq invasion was a very smart move.

Stephen Harper was ashamed we didn't join, if anyone remembers.

ISIS exists because of failed foreign policy in the middle east. We were neutral like Switzerland until Canada decided, or rather Stephen Harper's campaign team decided, to stand with Israel no matter what and to play war in the middle east. We already lost a seat in the UN to that sort of nonsense, now we seem to be throwing rocks at a sitting Bull and taunting it for ego purposes and votes.

On Sunday, an Islamic State spokesperson released a 42-minute propaganda audio recording, during which followers are urged to kill Canadians, Americans, and any other citizens of countries taking part in a U.S-led coalition to fight the group

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/islamic-st ... z3FItI0gaQ

Canada was not on the radar for them until we got behind the "fight".

I do not agree with or support ISIS, however they are a problem that Canada did not create. This is not a UN mission to attack them. This is a US-led attack.

Will sending some F-18's to bomb a few shacks in the desert (mostly a PR mission to address the beheading videos by the US) stop ISIS? Not even close. It will probably just make them more battle hardened and war-ready if anything.

We are spending money and risking Canadian lives and ISIS has said themselves that now, because of our involvement, we are targets - what will the return on the investment be on this expense? Are we now going to win the war on terrorism? Is this a down-payment towards that? Will the coming ISIS attack on Canadian soil also be chalked up as a "cost"?

Does anyone realize how much money the US spent on "counter terrorism" since 9/11? How many Canadian tax dollars will be spent after some ISIS freak blows himself up on a Toronto subway? Can Canada afford to make itself a terrorist target, when all we are is a big giant soft peach waiting to be plucked off the tree by a serious terrorist attempt to screw with all our lives?

The US created ISIS and personally I do not want Canada involved, unless it's with diplomacy under UN jurisdiction to start to deal with the whole issue as a whole. The Syrian issue and of course the mess in Iraq. Bombs on ISIS targets is like using band-aids to try and save their decapitation victims.

One terrorist attack would ruin this country financially and ruin all our little Tim Horton winter-scene lives for the immediate future - how is picking fights you can't win and drawing a giant red target on all our backs looking out for Canadians saftey and for the economy?

1. I wouldn't have gone around propping up sketchy governments and killing people in the middle east to secure energy resources and I never have or will agree with such practices. My life will not be put at risk on behalf of these practices, unless it's to stop them from occurring in the first place.

2. The "terrorists" grew in that medium and have picked fights with those who wronged them. "My Canada" didn't pick those fights and "My Canada" doesn't get involved in such fights, unless it's to diffuse the fights by using our brains and our words.

Just my opinion. If people want to go fight - then go fight. But when they pick fights that bring angry people back to everyone's doorstep - then my opinion on whether people should be walking round the world picking fights becomes relevant.

[Atomoa]

We're probably going to kill some civilians on this mission.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-fight ... -1.2788407

[canada bound]

Civilians always pay the price for bad diplomacy!