Humanitarian aid is correct. – small dead animals

Via Drudge, we learn that Syria, is Libya, is Eygpt. Like, “surprise”, or something.
Good call, PM Harper. We really don’t need to be spending more lives supporting radical Islamists who are going to be worse than the disease.

10 Replies to “Humanitarian aid is correct.”

Spengler sends . . .
“Syria and Egypt are dying. They were dying before the Syrian civil war broke out and before the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Cairo. Syria has an insoluble civil war and Egypt has an insoluble crisis because they are dying. They are dying because . . . ”
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/06/18/syria-and-egypt-cant-be-fixed/

True, but didn’t I just hear that Canada is giving $300 million to the PLO over 5 years.
Evidently the government is smarting after being accused by the PLO of being uneven-handed in its waste of Canada taxpayer dollars in pursuit of the fictional peace process.

“Let Allah work it out.”
I agree.

Both sides in Syria should be supported just enough so that neither wins and the conflict continues to send jihadis to their just reward. Or bomb both sides.

But, but, but, it can’t be! CBC said it was “the forces of light and freedom!

More correctly, Islam is Islam is Islam.
Of course, Shia is not Sunni, and the Foulness has now aligned the US firmly on the side of the Sunni. This is similar to stating loudly and publicly that one is firmly
Protestant, and that all Catholics are enemies. Even today that would raise many
hackles.
One matter where the Foulness shows his real stupidity is in this matter of foreign
entanglements. When the Bolsheviks took over Russia they realised that their enemy
was the Russian people. They therefore immediately got out of WWI, at great loss,
through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and gave Finland her independence. Eventually, in
1941, the world (more precisely, the Wehrmacht) did come calling, but the Bolsheviks
had 20 years in which to wreak their destruction.

It’s easy, just do the opposite to Obama and you will be doing the right thing.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every uprising Obama supports leads to a government that hates Israel more than the last.

No good can come for the West by arming any group in Syria. This civil war is ground zero of the Sunni/Shiite war for predominance in the Arab/Islamic world. Yes, Russia is arming Assad, who is a thuggish ally in their political orbit. Obama proposes to arm “some” groups in the hope they will be moderate. No moderates have any chance of prevailing in Syria and arming any AQ/Sunni groups will result in civilian deaths and the US will get blamed for that. It’s a no win policy for Obama and a serious miscalculation on his part. If it’s wag the dog or connected to Lybian arms transfers it still will ultimately injure his popularity and credibility.
Much to the chagrin of Mulcair, who is angry Haper made him angry, our PM statesman has acquitted himself well this week, though Nanos thinks Canadian are thinking about maybe being sort of unhappy with his performance. Canada has taken a politically pragmatic, some may say principled, stance and while not criticizing the US directly, has clearly ruled out, saving further escalation by Assad, supplying anybody with anything but humanitarian aid.
Syria is a cesspool of religious, tribal and political rivalries currently directly involving Russia, China, Syria and Iran (and yes, to a lesser degree Israel); let’s leave them to it and the US should do the same, intervening only when they can actually improve the situation, which may never occur, as Fred’s thread writer opines:
“Even if the Sunnis could eject the Assad family from Damascus and establish a new government – which I doubt – the best case scenario would be another Egypt: a Muslim Brotherhood government presiding over a collapsed economy and sliding inevitably towards state failure. It is too late even for this kind of arrangement. Equalizing the military position of the two sides will merely increase the body count. The only humane thing to do is to partition the country on the Yugoslav model, but that does not appear to be on the agenda of any government.”