How Trudeau is winning my vote

[waldo]

The Americans and Arabs are, already, conducting air strikes in Syria...........As to Assad, for domestic reasons, I doubt he could ever offer a public request, but from his POV, I fail to see how this would be counter to his own interests.

so... you got nuthin! Again, no UN cover, no NATO cover, no (pumped up) response ala the so-called "Bush Doctrine", no self-serving U.S. Congressional law passed, etc.. At least Bush had enough bodies pushing him toward recognizing the need for UN sanction of the (unlawful) Iraq invasion... Obama's not even going through the motions with Syria bombing!

.

Care to offer the reasoning behind the Trudeau Liberals refusal for support of limited military action

http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/blog/justin-trudeau-speech-iraq/

.

[Derek 2.0]

http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/blog/justin-trudeau-speech-iraq/

.

It appears........the Liberals offer nothing.......How does one provide aide safely in a war zone? Again, why do the Trudeau Liberals oppose, as indicated by polls, the majority of Canadians desire to see military action against ISIS?

[cybercoma]

What would you define as limited and targeted?

What I would like to see is a clearly defined timeline, so we don't get into the bullshit mess of having absolutely no end date in sight and someone can be held accountable to that goal.

Edit: I'm even open to them extending the timeline, as long as there's a clear explanation of why the target wasn't met and how much longer they will need. Also, I would expect after a couple extensions if yet another one is needed, that the Minister of Defence would step down for being a clueless twit.

Edited October 3, 2014 by cybercoma

[Derek 2.0]

What I would like to see is a clearly defined timeline, so we don't get into the bullshit mess of having absolutely no end date in sight and someone can be held accountable to that goal.

The Government has indicated 6 months.......I assume that accounts for "limited" to some.......Now what do you view as targeted?

[eyeball]

Care to offer the reasoning behind the Trudeau Liberals refusal for support of limited military actiondespite polling showing over 60% of Canadians favour military action to some extent? Does Quebec/the NDP factor into his stance?

I'm guess like Conservatives they must believe most Canadians are just too stupid to know what they want.

[cybercoma]

The Government has indicated 6 months.......I assume that accounts for "limited" to some.......Now what do you view as targeted?

6 months is not limited. 4-6 weeks, I would see as limited. If the scope of the problem is that bad that they need to be out there for 6 months, then this is a bigger problem than is our responsibility. The United States started the war. The United States left the vacuum. The United States can clean up their own garbage. If they need our support for 6 months, it's much bigger than we need to be getting involved in.

[cybercoma]

Give us a call when you fix your mistakes and we'll provide humanitarian aid when you get the place secured.

[dre]

Why? Our contribution, teamed with Australia, Denmark, the Dutch and Belgium, will allow an equal number of Americans resources to be used in Syria. Likewise, such action will limit ISIS from operating in larger formations, well reducing their ability to move between villages/towns/cities……thusly, Iraqi and Kurdish resources will be focused, with the aide of coalition training, on combating ISIS forces amongst populated areas.

Our involvment will probably make things worse and ratchet up sectarian tensions between Shia and Sunnis in the region. We have basically decided to force 20 million Sunnis to accept being ruled by the Iranian proxy that governs Iraq, and the Assad regime.

Iran and Assad will definately appreciate it though!

thusly, Iraqi and Kurdish resources will be focused, with the aide of coalition training, on combating ISIS forces amongst populated areas

This is really just a pipe dream. The west spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and the better part of a decade trying to quell an urban insurgency against these exact same people, and they eventually gave up trying and just paid them money to not fight.

Edited October 3, 2014 by dre

[On Guard for Thee]

It will be interesting to see if anything of any import comes from this debate on Monday. Of course it will in all likelihood be a faux event because Harper can't get past his arrogance to actually make a case and of course he has a majority so he doesn't have to. Hopefully the opposition parties will try and take it seriously enough to at least attempt to get some clarification, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

[Derek 2.0]

Edit: I'm even open to them extending the timeline, as long as there's a clear explanation of why the target wasn't met and how much longer they will need. Also, I would expect after a couple extensions if yet another one is needed, that the Minister of Defence would step down for being a clueless twit.

That seems reasonable, but with the acceptance that circumstances on the ground could change, why would you lay blame on the MND? For instance, air strikes could run their course, but further humanitarian aid could be required, coupled with security provided for Canadian aid workers.

[Derek 2.0]

6 months is not limited. 4-6 weeks, I would see as limited. If the scope of the problem is that bad that they need to be out there for 6 months, then this is a bigger problem than is our responsibility. The United States started the war. The United States left the vacuum. The United States can clean up their own garbage. If they need our support for 6 months, it's much bigger than we need to be getting involved in.

That's clearly subjective........

[Derek 2.0]

Our involvment will probably make things worse and ratchet up sectarian tensions between Shia and Sunnis in the region. We have basically decided to force 20 million Sunnis to accept being ruled by the Iranian proxy that governs Iraq, and the Assad regime.

Even though Sunni and Shia Muslims in the region are attacking ISIS in Iraq and Syria?

[dre]

It appears........the Liberals offer nothing.......How does one provide aide safely in a war zone? Again, why do the Trudeau Liberals oppose, as indicated by polls, the majority of Canadians desire to see military action against ISIS?

Because getting involved is an objectively stupid thing to do no matter how many half-wits support it.

[Derek 2.0]

Because getting involved is an objectively stupid thing to do no matter how many half-wits support it.

Is further instability in a region of economic importance a preferable option?

[cybercoma]

That seems reasonable, but with the acceptance that circumstances on the ground could change, why would you lay blame on the MND? For instance, air strikes could run their course, but further humanitarian aid could be required, coupled with security provided for Canadian aid workers.

Someone needs to be responsible for a clear assessment of the situation on the ground and coming up with a workable timeline. In order to keep the executive from feeding parliament bullshit and just asking for infinite extensions, someone needs to be held accountable for the assessment and planning of the "initiative." That falls on the elected representative, the MND. He gets to fall on his sword for their inability to plan appropriately and it also holds the executive accountable for giving clear answers to the legislature. I'm not saying merely the extensions themselves are enough to warrant him stepping down, but if it's clear that they haven't appropriately evaluated the situation and planned accordingly and are just feeding lines to parliament, then he needs to resign.

In any case, 6 months is a war not a specific action, where the US requires assistance. We don't need to get involved in a war that will undoubtedly be prolonged. The Conservatives would love it if we did because then they can use it as part of their campaign strategy: "Now's not the time to change governments. Only Stephen Harper can see us through this conflict. Blah blah blah." Getting involved in another country's mess is going to cost Harper. People didn't want to get involved in Iraq in 2003 and they sure as hell don't want to get involved in cleaning up the mess that was left behind from them. Especially since Harper hasn't provided the troops with the additional equipment and support that he has been promising. Now he's going to send them into an ill-defined combat mission with aged equipment and little thought to humanitarian aid for those affected in the region. It's not going to fly and that's not even to mention crapping all over vets. No problem sending those men and women to war, but doesn't want to pay the cost of supporting them when they return. It's a futile exercise in optics. He wants to look like a hawk, but doesn't want to pay the price to play in the big leagues.

[cybercoma]

That's clearly subjective........

It sure is, but then again this all is, isn't it? You and Harper's party are going to gussy this up and claim it's not a war, but I believe getting involved for that long is certainly not a specific targeted intervention. It's an on-going conflict. It's a war. Canada doesn't need to be getting involved in other nations' wars which we weren't involved in from the start.

[cybercoma]

Is further instability in a region of economic importance a preferable option?

The point is that Canada wasn't involved in creating that instability in the first place. So why are we footing the bill to fix someone else's mistakes?

[waldo]

- the Liberals under Martin whipped the Cabinet to vote for and allowed the rest of caucus to vote their conscience without consequence

-the Tories were allowed to vote their consicence

The government has Collective Responsibility. They're normally required by constitutional convention to vote together as a block, regardless of their personal opinions or wishes of their constituents. There are a few rare circumstances where there has been free votes from the cabinet, but as a rule cabinet ministers are required to resign if they do not agree with government policy.

huh! "Whipped the cabinet"??? ... citation request.

of course, "whipping the cabinet" doesn't happen in any Westminister interpretation I've read... where Cabinet members must publicly support all government policy/position decisions made in Cabinet... or resign.

.

[cybercoma]

huh! "Whipped the cabinet"??? ... citation request.

of course, "whipping the cabinet" doesn't happen in any Westminister interpretation I've read... where Cabinet members must publicly support all government policy/position decisions made in Cabinet... or resign.

.

Cabinet Ministers in Canada have been free to vote their conscience on certain topics. One such instance was marriage equality.

[Derek 2.0]

In any case, 6 months is a war not a specific action, where the US requires assistance. We don't need to get involved in a war that will undoubtedly be prolonged. The Conservatives would love it if we did because then they can use it as part of their campaign strategy: "Now's not the time to change governments. Only Stephen Harper can see us through this conflict. Blah blah blah." Getting involved in another country's mess is going to cost Harper. People didn't want to get involved in Iraq in 2003 and they sure as hell don't want to get involved in cleaning up the mess that was left behind from them. Especially since Harper hasn't provided the troops with the additional equipment and support that he has been promising. Now he's going to send them into an ill-defined combat mission with aged equipment and little thought to humanitarian aid for those affected in the region. It's not going to fly and that's not even to mention crapping all over vets. No problem sending those men and women to war, but doesn't want to pay the cost of supporting them when they return. It's a futile exercise in optics. He wants to look like a hawk, but doesn't want to pay the price to play in the big leagues.

Two points, there already is an aid mission........second, polls indicate that you're wrong on the intentions of the majority of Canadians.

Almost* two-thirds (or 64 per cent) of Canadians said they’re strongly or somewhat in support of Canada sending jets, likely CF-18s, to launch strikes on ISIS targets in Iraq, according to an exclusive Global News/Ipsos Reid poll.

[cybercoma]

Sending jets to launch strikes on ISIS is one thing. Going to war for 6 months is something else entirely.

[dre]

Is further instability in a region of economic importance a preferable option?

This current instability is a direct result of the last epic bungling. This bungling will cause even more. This is somebody elses civil war, and we are basically taking the side of Iran and Assad. And whats more once again we have no actual plan on how win, and no idea what the real result would be if we did.

Iraq and Syria need to be partitioned... they dont need foreigners to come in, trash the place, and try to force Shias and Sunnis to live together. It didnt work last time, and it wont work this time.

[Derek 2.0]

It sure is, but then again this all is, isn't it? You and Harper's party are going to gussy this up and claim it's not a war, but I believe getting involved for that long is certainly not a specific targeted intervention. It's an on-going conflict. It's a war. Canada doesn't need to be getting involved in other nations' wars which we weren't involved in from the start.

I don't think the Government has hidden the fact that Canada will undertake a combat mission.....

[Derek 2.0]

Sending jets to launch strikes on ISIS is one thing. Going to war for 6 months is something else entirely.

At what point does sending jets go from "one thing" to "a war"? I fail to see the difference.

[Derek 2.0]

This current instability is a direct result of the last epic bungling. This bungling will cause even more. This is somebody elses civil war, and we are basically taking the side of Iran and Assad. And whats more once again we have no actual plan on how win, and no idea what the real result would be if we did.

And the other Sunni Arab Government in the region.....