War Against ISIL

[On Guard for Thee]

There are no "Liberals" involved here. The only question will be what Justin Trudeau decides. Nobody else gets a vote. They will vote however he tells them to vote, just as the Tories will vote the way Harper tells them to and the NDP will vote as Mulcair wishes.

We have a parliament of three people. The rest are nobodies.

Well not always apparently. The motion put forwrd by Mulcair to try to strengthen the speakers ability to thwart the kind of silliness Calandra displayed the other day in QP got a yea vote from 3 CPC members. Of course with his majority and his displeasure at answering anything, Harper was able to defeat it.

[On Guard for Thee]

I've asked you since you've responded...... What further information do the Liberals require to make an "informed decision"?

Maybe think about questions such as: how many, how long, what equipment, which countries, exit strategy, for a start. Ya know the kinds of things people who go to war sometimes like to know.

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe think about questions such as: how many, how long, what equipment, which countries, exit strategy, for a start. Ya know the kinds of things people who go to war sometimes like to know.

Yes I know, what conditions on these factors would result in the Liberals supporting/opposing such action?

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes I know, what conditions on these factors would result in the Liberals supporting/opposing such action?

I guess that will be up to the Liberals to decide. Speaking of bots though, what will Harper do with his 3 that actually voted to give the speaker more power to make him actually answer a question in question period? Surely he won't allow that kind of dissentian in the ranks.

[Derek 2.0]

I guess that will be up to the Liberals to decide.

And that is the question posed to you........what factors will lead to the Liberals supporting or opposing such action. You outlined a handful of mission specific factors, but failed to detail how said factors weigh on the Liberals.......So, what do you feel the Liberals will do, and how will they reach said selection?

Speaking of bots though, what will Harper do with his 3 that actually voted to give the speaker more power to make him actually answer a question in question period? Surely he won't allow that kind of dissentian in the ranks.

What does that have to do with the price of tea or war against ISIS?

[On Guard for Thee]

And that is the question posed to you........what factors will lead to the Liberals supporting or opposing such action. You outlined a handful of mission specific factors, but failed to detail how said factors weigh on the Liberals.......So, what do you feel the Liberals will do, and how will they reach said selection?

What does that have to do with the price of tea or war against ISIS?

Oh, I thought you had turned the thread into comments about how governments vote on things.

[Derek 2.0]

Oh, I thought you had turned the thread into comments about how governments vote on things.

Yes, Canada's political response domestically will relate to how we respond to ISIS..........

[Big Guy]

So, do the Liberals support genocide & terror or fighting a war in Iraq?

Under what circumstances would the Liberals support/oppose airstrikes against ISIS? The Liberals, with this vote, will grant a political stick to be bashed with by either the NDP or the Tories…..Trudeau will alienate some of his supporters with whatever paths he chooses, the Liberals decision will based on the amount of support they will lose from either antiwar leftists in (namely Quebec) or Foreign interventionists from the more moderate, centrist wing found within the ROC…….

So, do the Liberals support genocide & terror or fighting a war in Iraq?

I think that politically the Liberals may have two options (actually 3 if you count voting with the Conservatives).

The Liberals may vote against the motion or submit an amendment that Canada goes in only under the blessings of the NATO or the UN or both. At the moment this is a USA (and friends) war. That may provide political cover.

or

After the appropriate discussions the Liberals may table a number of amendments which propose a number of "triggers" that would be required before a Canadian military mission was allowed and then stepped up incrementally. If ISIS is shown to be in control of _____ then Canada is prepared to ________.

I find it interesting how the NDP has subtly changed the description of this war on ISIS to "Harper's War". If it ends in anything short of a victory, they intend to make Harper wear it. I wonder if it will work?

I find your last statement particularly interesting, "So, do the Liberals support genocide & terror or fighting a war in Iraq?"

Is your point then that there are only two positions; Join the fight in Iraq or you support genocide and terror?

Sounds a lot like the kind of rhetoric that got us mired into that fiasco in Afghanistan. Are we now going to get "Muslim Mulcair" and "Terrorist Trudeau" and "fight them there now or fight them here later" and ...

I thought we got past all that misguided cheerleading.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Big Guy

[Derek 2.0]

I think that politically the Liberals may have two options (actually 3 if you count voting with the Conservatives).

The Liberals may vote against the motion or submit an amendment that Canada goes in only under the blessings of the NATO or the UN or both. At the moment this is a USA (and friends) war. That may provide political cover.

Voting against is certainly valid (and what I think we will see), but seeking NATO support is irrelevant, as it’s not a world governing body (unless of course you wear a tin-foil hat) and most of the key players (US, UK, and France) are currently supporting such action……….Now reliance upon the UN is plausible, and would be something I would expect of the NDP, but is surely not going to be taken up, as the US knows already how China/Russia would vote, and of course, the UN Secretary General has already voiced tepid support for such action……..as such, the requirement for a UN mandate is hollow, as it will never happen.

After the appropriate discussions the Liberals may table a number of amendments which propose a number of "triggers" that would be required before a Canadian military mission was allowed and then stepped up incrementally. If ISIS is shown to be in control of _____ then Canada is prepared to ________.

Could you elaborate further on this?

I find it interesting how the NDP has subtly changed the description of this war on ISIS to "Harper's War". If it ends in anything short of a victory, they intend to make Harper wear it. I wonder if it will work?

I find your last statement particularly interesting, "So, do the Liberals support genocide & terror or fighting a war in Iraq?"

Is your point then that there are only two positions; Join the fight in Iraq or you support genocide and terror?

Sounds a lot like the kind of rhetoric that got us mired into that fiasco in Afghanistan. Are we now going to get "Muslim Mulcair" and "Terrorist Trudeau" and "fight them there now or fight them here later" and ...

I thought we go past all that misguided cheerleading.

Of course your above points can all be labelled as simplistic political, partisan theatre………I would be worried if none of the three sides (CPC/LPC/NDP) made use of it……

Edited October 2, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Argus]

Which way do you feel the Trudeau-bots will vote?

Trudeau has already stated he is opposed. So that's that as far as the Liberals are concerned.

[Derek 2.0]

Trudeau has already stated he is opposed. So that's that as far as the Liberals are concerned.

He has stated the Liberals will vote against? Was that recently and do you have a source?

[Big Guy]

Voting against is certainly valid (and what I think we will see), but seeking NATO support is irrelevant, as it’s not a world governing body (unless of course you wear a tin-foil hat) and most of the key players (US, UK, and France) are currently supporting such action……….Now reliance upon the UN is plausible, and would be something I would expect of the NDP, but is surely not going to be taken up, as the US knows already how China/Russia would vote, and of course, the UN Secretary General has already voiced tepid support for such action……..as such, the requirement for a UN mandate is hollow, as it will never happen.

Could you elaborate further on this?

Of course your above points can all be labelled as simplistic political, partisan theatre………I would be worried if none of the three sides (CPC/LPC/NDP) made use of it……

I believe that the original question was what options the Liberals have in voting. That is a question based on an understanding of politics of what strategic positions are available to the Liberals. I stated what I feel their options are. I do not support any of these options.

I suggest that there is a difference in suggesting political strategy and supporting or recommending it.

I assume that you understand the difference. I remember James Carville, the political genius behind the Bill Clinton war room who paved the way to Bills Democratic presidency. This left wing leaning administration owed their success to the strategy and tactics of the Carville/Stephanopoulos election strategy.

Carville then worked on a number of foreign campaigns, including those of Tony Blair – then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - during the 2001 general election. He also worked for Ehad Barak of Israel's labour party. A job organized by Bill Clinton because he had grown frustrated with Bibi Netanyahu's intransigence in the peace process. Carville also worked with the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Derek 2.0]

I believe that the original question was what options the Liberals have in voting. That is a question based on an understanding of politics of what strategic positions are available to the Liberals. I stated what I feel their options are. I do not support any of these options.

I suggest that there is a difference in suggesting political strategy and supporting or recommending it.

I assume that you understand the difference.

I certainly understand the difference……….obviously asking questions and judging the merits of each response is a part of civil discourse…

I remember James Carville, the political genius behind the Bill Clinton war room who paved the way to Bills Democratic presidency.

Funny you mentioned him.....he was on the O'Reilly Factor (he's now a Fox News Contributor) last night….O’Reilly and him are both friends (he’s on a weekly segment on the show), Bill asked Carville if he’ll work on the presumptive Hillary bid in 2016….His response is that aside from local functions in Louisiana, he’s tired and considered semi-retired……funny enough, his wife has a similar role with the GOP….

[Big Guy]

Funny you mentioned him.....he was on the O'Reilly Factor (he's now a Fox News Contributor) last night….O’Reilly and him are both friends (he’s on a weekly segment on the show), Bill asked Carville if he’ll work on the presumptive Hillary bid in 2016….His response is that aside from local functions in Louisiana, he’s tired and considered semi-retired……funny enough, his wife has a similar role with the GOP….

I agree. I find their relationship as a good example that you can maintain not only a civil relationship but also be in love with someone who is your political opposite. I have seen political panels when Mary Matalin and James Carville are sitting next to each other and still giving passionate support for different causes. You can see the mutual respect, marriage bond and a complete difference in political philosophy all working together.

A good example for all of us.

[Big Guy]

For those who still believe in the “noble” and “necessity” of getting involved in civil wars;

The US has partially lifted a long-time ban on lethal weapon sales to Vietnam to help it improve maritime security, a move that comes nearly 40 years after the end of the Vietnam War.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/10/us-partly-lifts-arms-embargo-vietnam-2014103233416624.html

That war which cost about 3 million people their lives (of which about 70,000 were American troops), the war which was vital to stopping the spread of communism around the globe through the “domino effect” and that war which ended with the last American helicopter hovering over a building in the American embassy in Saigon with South Vietnamese hanging outside from the landing gear was supposed to teach us something.

I wonder how the surviving friends and relatives of those 3 million people feel about the USA?

I wonder if the friends and relatives of those 70,000 American dead Americans feel that it was a “noble” and “necessary” thing to do?

Did we learn anything?

[Army Guy]

Big guy it seems you have already pigioned holed all those people that support getting involved with ISIS. I know there has been comments about the nobility even the necessity of getting involved, all to no avail on those that just see it as a big mistake, a big waste of time , lives and funding.....

And yet there seems to be alot more at stake here than just saying, nope not our problem....let them sort it out on their own....

It seems that Iraq can not do that, infact they have asked for inter national help....what you and others are saying is we should deny them any assistance, close the blinds let them figure it out...

I've asked many times what about inter national law, the conventions , how many of these has ISIS broken, disregarded, and dared the west to intervene, even sending out big ball warnings saying your next we will not stop until we control the planet.....my question is why is nobody doing anything about all of this, the UN has condemned them saying that they have committed war crimes, crimes again'st humanity along with rape and murder....is there any diplomatic talks that can presure this guys into stopping.....and peaceful solutions that can be brought to bear to stop ISIS....

Because i have not heard of any that are being brought forward......So if we are not going to uphold these laws what is the piont in signing onto to them.....or is it all a big show....I thought it was these very laws that have been woven into our morals and values.....or is all that just talk as well.....I mean without these very morals and values we claim to hold so dearly, the very ones that hold us back from returning back to the stone ages.....

We don't solve problems with just walking over to our neibors house and kicking the shit out of them, taking what we want, and leaving.....that is exactly what is happening right now with ISIS...

What of the humanitarian issues here, do we close the blinds to that as well......do we even bother asking how this all effects the stabilty in the region.....do we care who else gets dragged into this problem.....what of turkey, a member of NATO, ? what do we tell them when they come asking for help.....

Instead we are worried sick about how many more bad guys will we create, how will they feel after wards , my answer to that is who cares, they should have thought about that before they picked up wpns and started killing anyone that was not the same religion, color, race, etc etc.....They decided to take this course of action......in my opinion the whole world should be disgusted, and with one voice and one action the world should take direct action....crush these cock roaches once and for all....

[Derek 2.0]

Trudeau has already stated he is opposed. So that's that as far as the Liberals are concerned.

His reaction has me somewhat surprised, I didn't think they would support the Government in the end, but thought they'd rely upon a UN sanctioned cop-out......Trudeau has managed to steer the Liberals further to the left.

[Black Dog]

Big guy it seems you have already pigioned holed all those people that support getting involved with ISIS. I know there has been comments about the nobility even the necessity of getting involved, all to no avail on those that just see it as a big mistake, a big waste of time , lives and funding.....

And yet there seems to be alot more at stake here than just saying, nope not our problem....let them sort it out on their own....

It seems that Iraq can not do that, infact they have asked for inter national help....what you and others are saying is we should deny them any assistance, close the blinds let them figure it out...

I've asked many times what about inter national law, the conventions , how many of these has ISIS broken, disregarded, and dared the west to intervene, even sending out big ball warnings saying your next we will not stop until we control the planet.....my question is why is nobody doing anything about all of this, the UN has condemned them saying that they have committed war crimes, crimes again'st humanity along with rape and murder....is there any diplomatic talks that can presure this guys into stopping.....and peaceful solutions that can be brought to bear to stop ISIS....

Because i have not heard of any that are being brought forward......So if we are not going to uphold these laws what is the piont in signing onto to them.....or is it all a big show....I thought it was these very laws that have been woven into our morals and values.....or is all that just talk as well.....I mean without these very morals and values we claim to hold so dearly, the very ones that hold us back from returning back to the stone ages.....

We don't solve problems with just walking over to our neibors house and kicking the shit out of them, taking what we want, and leaving.....that is exactly what is happening right now with ISIS...

What of the humanitarian issues here, do we close the blinds to that as well......do we even bother asking how this all effects the stabilty in the region.....do we care who else gets dragged into this problem.....what of turkey, a member of NATO, ? what do we tell them when they come asking for help.....

This would have a lot more weight if we weren't idle observers of equally terrible crimes elsewhere in the world. Why is this particular conflict the one that we need to step into? Sorry, you can't claim outrage on this when there's far worse things happening in places that don't make the front page.

Instead we are worried sick about how many more bad guys will we create, how will they feel after wards , my answer to that is who cares, they should have thought about that before they picked up wpns and started killing anyone that was not the same religion, color, race, etc etc.....They decided to take this course of action......in my opinion the whole world should be disgusted, and with one voice and one action the world should take direct action....crush these cock roaches once and for all....

Empty bluster doesn't win wars.

[dre]

His reaction has me somewhat surprised, I didn't think they would support the Government in the end, but thought they'd rely upon a UN sanctioned cop-out......Trudeau has managed to steer the Liberals further to the left.

I disagree with that assertion. Having a non interventionalist foreign policy is actually more of a conservative or libertarian ideal than it is left/liberal. At the very least its represented at both ends of the political spectrum.

Theres nothing conservative about spending billions of dollars blowing stuff up in foreign countries, then borrowing billions more to rebuild it again.

[dre]

I've asked many times what about inter national law, the conventions , how many of these has ISIS broken, disregarded, and dared the west to intervene, even sending out big ball warnings saying your next we will not stop until we control the planet.....my question is why is nobody doing anything about all of this, the UN has condemned them saying that they have committed war crimes, crimes again'st humanity along with rape and murder....is there any diplomatic talks that can presure this guys into stopping.....and peaceful solutions that can be brought to bear to stop ISIS....

No but theres no violent solutions that will stop ISIL either. ISIL is the manifestation of 3 desire of more than 20 million sunnis in Iraq to be free of Shia rule. You arent going to fix that with military action you will make it worse.

[Derek 2.0]

Somewhat surprised, if true, of the level of Canadian support for action against ISIS:

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.

I suppose the Trudeau Liberals opposition to airstrikes was determined by the stance of the NDP, and the political calculus within Quebec, which I assume would have very little support for military action in Iraq. With this, Trudeau has clearly steered the Liberals to the left, fearful of losing support in Quebec to the NDP, well hedging his proposed inaction won’t hurt him in the rest of moderate Canada, up to and including “hawkish Liberals” that have favored prior military intervention.

I will assume this, coupled with his root causes meme, will be highlighted in Conservative ads in English Canada on how Trudeau, if leader, would contend with threats to Canada………a far cry from recent Liberal leaders like Ignatieff, Dion, Martin and Chrétien.

[Derek 2.0]

I disagree with that assertion. Having a non interventionalist foreign policy is actually more of a conservative or libertarian ideal than it is left/liberal. At the very least its represented at both ends of the political spectrum.

Theres nothing conservative about spending billions of dollars blowing stuff up in foreign countries, then borrowing billions more to rebuild it again.

I doubt fiscal restraint can be found within the Trudeau Liberals vocabulary.........

[Big Guy]

Just watched retired Canadian Major-General Lewis Wharton MacKenzie on CTV. He was not enthusiastic about Canada joining this fight. His opinion was that those air bombing will just force ISIS into the urban centres. He also thought that using $half million bombs to take out 2 guys in a Toyota was not a very efficient policy. He did say that Iranian jets have already attacked rebels in Syria and that it is going to be interesting if/when coalition jets and Iranian jets find themselves in the same air apace bombing the same targets.

Now with the rejection of this involvement by both the NDP and Liberals, this is officially "Harper's War". If it proves successful (depending how success will be defined) than Harper gets a boost. If it does not and this thing is lingering through the next election then ...

[Topaz]

It's a real mess on the border of Turkey/Syria's border. Citizens are caught trying to get out of the area in N. Iraq, where there is heavy fighting, as the Islamic State militants shot down a helicopter killing all on board. Turkey PM is asking the US-lead coalition to hit the militants tanks and not the their bases for now, because the city of Kobanis may fall to the militants if the tanks aren't stopped. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/heavy-fighting-between-kurdish-fighters-islamic-state-group-103028008.html

[Smallc]

The story you linked to doesn't say what you do in your post.