Solastalgia

But we can give humanitarian aid in neighboring regions such as in Israel, Jordan, Iran, Turkey, etc. and support the Kurds. Such a role would be much preferable to airstrikes.

What do you guys think of, instead of airstrikes, humanitarian aid and perhaps support for the Kurds in terms of special forces, logistics, supplies, etc? I am largely non-interventionist but since the west actually caused this blowback in the first place, maybe we should try to help the Kurds at least. I'm not sure really, but I know that airstrikes are probably the worst thing that we can do, bar full on ground offensive.

Breathtaking.

I don't understand how "okay, if x doesn't work, what do we do?" or "when do we stop doing x?" are comprehensive plans or military secrets, especially if there are just as reasonable alternatives to air strikes to begin with. I cannot put that much faith into the government to give them a carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to do without giving their plan to Canada. It is absolutely not controversial to give some semblance of a game plan.

Planning does only go so far, i.e. if you go on a camping trip, you don't usually plan for a satellite to fall from the sky, because that would be a very remote possibility, although possible. However, you would prepare for rain. Some plans are more obvious than others. And again, it does not give me much faith in the gov't position if they fail to plan for something that ought to be an obvious conclusion. Either the strikes work or don't work, and the gov't has failed so far to tell us what the fuck they'd do if they don't!

Why have we not heard of these contingencies, either from American, European or Canadian leaders? Don't you think that would be an important thing to at least note?

This is not a video game - its part of what governments ought to do when deciding to do things like this. It's not a simple matter of "oh hey, we'll figure it out as we go". It is ridiculous that you'd support something without anticipating what to do after, especially if it is a scenario that looks increasingly likely.

The fact that you think this is a tough question does not give me much faith into those allied with the PM on this mission. Shouldn't we think through all of these scenarios before we go off to do strikes like these?

No, hun, a vote for the NDP is a vote for the NDP. =]

I am so effing sick of all of this ISIS talk. When will we finally be out of this quagmire that we created in the first place? If we should do anything we should put boots on the ground to help the Kurds. Airstrikes will not do anything beyond piss people off in that region, give ISIL a sense of legitimacy and rally people to join. In my opinion, we should just get the hell out and let everything settle themselves. The more intervention, the worse things will get.

Thank you! I have been involved in forums before, but hopefully I'll stick around here, it seems cozy!

(First post, w00t) Altogether, I think it would be an improvement, and a very likely result after the 2015 election. I remain skeptical of Trudeau's capability as a potential Prime Minister, but that's what the campaign will be about. As it stands, I will park my vote with Mulcair, as he has consistently impressed me with his performance in the House. What I think Canada really needs is electoral reform to get rid of these idiotic majority governments.