dre Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Two points, there already is an aid mission........second, polls indicate that you're wrong on the intentions of the majority of Canadians. The problem is we are going to drop a bunch of bombs... and ISIL will still remain embedded in the predominantly Sunni areas they have taken. The west had complete air superiority over Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, and we could not extinguish this exact same group. At some point we need to stop following up STUPID... with more STUPID. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
waldo Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Cabinet Ministers in Canada have been free to vote their conscience on certain topics. One such instance was marriage equality. yes... which doesn't follow the convention where, typically, resignation is required if a Cabinet minister doesn't support an official government policy/position. However, in this specific example, the claim made was that "Cabinet was whipped" - hence, the citation request. Quote
waldo Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Two points, there already is an aid mission........second, polls indicate that you're wrong on the intentions of the majority of Canadians. you keep flogging that single poll... which you've now revised to a plurality! Nice. but hey, if you're so willing to throw down on a single poll, one with limited questioning depth, here's a poll for you... the majority of Canadians - you said it! Canadians becoming more 'progressive' Canadians are increasingly embracing “progressive” values that stand in sharp contrast to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s brand of conservatism, a new poll has found. Poll highlights 47: Percentage of people who consider themselves “small-l liberal” now, compared to 24 per cent in 2008. The change comes as far fewer people say they have no ideology. Twenty-seven per cent say they are “small-c conservative” now, compared to 28 per cent in 2008. 29: Percentage of people who say police should have more powers to ensure security even if it invades Canadians’ privacy, a drop from 60 per cent in 2008. 57: Percentage of people who say marijuana should be legalized, something that is proposed by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau but firmly opposed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government. Twenty-six per cent support decriminalization so that possession of small amounts of pot carries a fine, something that is being considered by the Conservatives. Only 13 per cent say marijuana should remain illegal. 40: Percentage of people who say international development and aid should be utmost in Canada’s foreign policy, compared to 37 per cent who say it should be diplomacy and 16 per cent who say it should be defence. 64: Percentage of people who think the economy’s “incentive systems” are broken and hard work is no longer paying off. 57: Percentage who think the next generation in 25 years will be “worse off” in terms of quality of life, compared to 26 per cent who think it will be the same and 13 per cent who think it will be better. 56: Percentage who support compulsory voting in Canada. Thirty-one per cent oppose it, and 11 per cent don’t have an opinion. . Quote
Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) of course! Oh wait... you include a covering "if given"!... cause you know Assad didn't... give! Couldn't ask for a more representative play on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Oh wait... can't forget about Iran in Iraq now, right? so... in Syria, no UN cover, no NATO cover,... not even any "Bush Doctrine" cover... or the U.S. Congress passing a covering law! Is that why, FOR NOW, Harper Conservatives are drawing the line with Iraq? Has Syria complained? Are they at the UN thumping their fists on desks? In point of fact, Iraq (and its allies) has every legitimate legal right to bomb the living hell out of Syria because the invasion of their territory came from there and is headquartered and supported there. That is an act of war regardless of whether the government of Syria authorized it or not. Edited October 3, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 They left to early, huge mistake on Obama's part. Even his own former defence sec, rips him on that decision. http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/politics/panetta-blames-obama/index.html The American people wanted out. They've spent years there watching their young people coming home in body bags. How many more were they supposed to lose to please an unstable group of people who could not compromise on how to live together or govern their territory? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 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? It amounts, as I said earlier, to giving aid to people who are about to have their heads cut off or be mass raped and massacred, then daintily toddling off in the secure knowledge that we are much more noble than those grubby people who are going to try to bomb ISIS to protect the people we want to 'help'. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Because getting involved is an objectively stupid thing to do no matter how many half-wits support it. Objective? It is inarguable that it is not in the interests of civilization as a whole for a group like this to prosper. It is also really not up for debate that such a group, whose philosophy is inimical to that of Western civilization in particular, should not be allowed to form any sort of national structure. They've already got, at their disposal, hundreds of millions of dollars. Some say as much as two billion dollars. That's a lot of money fanatics can use to cause trouble, a lot of money they can use to launch terrorist attacks, even to acquire nuclear weapons. A state which makes Iran look like genial moderates can not be allowed to form in this or any other area. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 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? We weren't involved in the tsunami which hit Indonesia. Why were we footing the bill to help fix the misery it caused? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Has Syria complained? Are they at the UN thumping their fists on desks? In point of fact, Iraq (and its allies) has every legitimate legal right to bomb the living hell out of Syria because the invasion of their territory came from there and is headquartered and supported there. That is an act of war regardless of whether the government of Syria authorized it or not. an act of war? Under what official sanction do you assert such a statement? Even Harper today kept a distance from engaging in Syria... why would he do that, why bother... given your "declaration of war"? Quote
Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) an act of war? Under what official sanction do you assert such a statement? Even Harper today kept a distance from engaging in Syria... why would he do that, why bother... given your "declaration of war"? Any military attack launched, aided or supported by one state against another is an act of war. Do you imagine international law does not allow the Iraqis and their allies to not only destroy those who invaded but those who are supporting them and training more soldiers to feed across the border from their bases in Syria? Edited October 3, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Objective? It is inarguable that it is not in the interests of civilization as a whole for a group like this to prosper. civilization? Do "civil" countries act as rogue emissaries... or do they come together as a community of nations to attempt to seek remedy? Quote
dre Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 We weren't involved in the tsunami which hit Indonesia. Why were we footing the bill to help fix the misery it caused? Objective? It is inarguable that it is not in the interests of civilization as a whole for a group like this to prosper. It is also really not up for debate that such a group, whose philosophy is inimical to that of Western civilization in particular, should not be allowed to form any sort of national structure. They've already got, at their disposal, hundreds of millions of dollars. Some say as much as two billion dollars. That's a lot of money fanatics can use to cause trouble, a lot of money they can use to launch terrorist attacks, even to acquire nuclear weapons. A state which makes Iran look like genial moderates can not be allowed to form in this or any other area. The problem is anything we do will just make a sunni islamic state in the region more likely. If you think Iraq and Syrias sunnis want independance now... wait until they watch western troops being used as a pawn to help keep them underneath the boots of a rival sect. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 At what point does sending jets go from "one thing" to "a war"? I fail to see the difference.At the point when they go from targeting one thing to being there for 6 months. "Combat mission" is such a stupid euphemism. Just stop using it. Seriously. Quote
overthere Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Cabinet Ministers in Canada have been free to vote their conscience on certain topics. One such instance was marriage equality. If you are speaking of same sex marriage laws passed by the Liberal government, that is simply not true. The Liberal Cabinet was obliged to vote for the legislation. The rest of the Liberal Caucus was allowed to vote freely. The Tories voted freely. The NDP were obliged to vote for it, all of them. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 yes... which doesn't follow the convention where, typically, resignation is required if a Cabinet minister doesn't support an official government policy/position. However, in this specific example, the claim made was that "Cabinet was whipped" - hence, the citation request.This is just someone's misunderstanding of how the legislative and executive branches differ. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 If you are speaking of same sex marriage laws passed by the Liberal government, that is simply not true. The Liberal Cabinet was obliged to vote for the legislation. The rest of the Liberal Caucus was allowed to vote freely. The Tories voted freely. The NDP were obliged to vote for it, all of them. Cabinet is not whipped. They're required to vote as a block, since they are the executive. In the case of same-sex marriage, cabinet was allowed to vote freely, which is rare and actually never happens in other Westminster democracies. Quote
waldo Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Any military attack launched, aided or supported by one state against another is an act of war. Do you imagine international law does not allow the Iraqis and their allies to not only destroy those who invaded but those who are supporting them and training more soldiers to feed across the border from their bases in Syria? the threshold is self-defense... anything beyond requires UN approval. Apparently, to Harper Conservatives holding back on a Syria engagement (for now), the/your threshold hasn't been met. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 We weren't involved in the tsunami which hit Indonesia. Why were we footing the bill to help fix the misery it caused?How is that at all comparable, unless you're one of those nuts who thinks the government controls the weather? Quote
overthere Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 The problem is we are going to drop a bunch of bombs... and ISIL will still remain embedded in the predominantly Sunni areas they have taken. The west had complete air superiority over Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, and we could not extinguish this exact same group. At some point we need to stop following up STUPID... with more STUPID. So logically we should allow ISIL to just carry on , and kill everybody in front of them. After all, its just women and children and not our women and children. Once they're all dead or enslaved everyhting will calm down. Actually, why not save time and money and just carpet bomb all the Kurds and everybody else that stands in the way of ISIL?. It would save everybody time and money. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
waldo Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 This is just someone's misunderstanding of how the legislative and executive branches differ. which he presumes to now double-down on... in spite of being asked to substantiate his claim that "cabinet was whipped". Clearly, the only substantiation he believes necessary is his personal opinion. . Quote
waldo Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 So logically we should allow ISIL to just carry on , and kill everybody in front of them. After all, its just women and children and not our women and children. Once they're all dead or enslaved everyhting will calm down. Actually, why not save time and money and just carpet bomb all the Kurds and everybody else that stands in the way of ISIL?. It would save everybody time and money. have you shown the same degree of concern for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (women and children) killed during the illegal U.S./UK invasion of Iraq? Quote
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 have you shown the same degree of concern for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (women and children) killed during the illegal U.S./UK invasion of Iraq?But that was JUST and NOBLE. Quote
Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 The problem is anything we do will just make a sunni islamic state in the region more likely. If you think Iraq and Syrias sunnis want independance now... wait until they watch western troops being used as a pawn to help keep them underneath the boots of a rival sect. You're assuming this group is universally supported by Sunni Muslims, which is patently not the case. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 the threshold is self-defense... anything beyond requires UN approval. Apparently, to Harper Conservatives holding back on a Syria engagement (for now), the/your threshold hasn't been met. Why the Conservatives are 'holding back' is up to them. They're not particularly communicative on the subject. Your assertion that 'self defense' doesn't involve crossing the border into Syria is simply silly. The group attacking them is headquartered in Syria, and its 'soldiers' are being armed, equipped and trained there, then sent into Iraq. Of course Iraq and its allies have the right to attack them there. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 How is that at all comparable, unless you're one of those nuts who thinks the government controls the weather? Suppose you tell me why we bothered to help the people in Indonesia? It wasn't our problem. Why did we spend the time and money and go there? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.