Canada To Launch Airstrikes Against ISIL

[Topaz]

The Kurds are saying the airstrikes are not working and "boots on the ground" is needed, so which countries are going back to Iraq???

[On Guard for Thee]

I say we send them lot's of boots. The best kind of combat boots available, in whatever sizes they need. Along with that, heavy artillery, rocket launchers, AR's, and other things that go bump in the night. The best of medical supplies. If they need a spy in the sky, launch a drone. IOW whatever they need to outgun the stuff the US left behind and I expect the Kurds et al will be happy to deal with the IS whackos.

[Guest]

What we need is an army of volunteers like the International Brigades who went to the Spanish Civil War. There must be lots of budding Hemingways out there.

[Derek 2.0]

What we need is an army of volunteers like the International Brigades who went to the Spanish Civil War. There must be lots of budding Hemingways out there.

Hmm........do you watch the Factor? If so, many holes can be punched through such a plan, but some aspects might lend credible to shore up the Iraqi and Kurdish forces….if funded by Iraq and their Arab allies.

[Guest]

I've never seen the Factor, no. I don't know what it is.

[Derek 2.0]

I've never seen the Factor, no. I don't know what it is.

Cable News show on Fox, in which the host proposed creating a merc army to combat terror on a global scale.

[Guest]

Dammit, now it looks like I watch Fox news. I don't.

[Argus]

You both bring and give weight to widely differing precepts and notions in the decision to go to war i.e. you say 'sure' we created the monster vs Argus saying the monster was created 1400 years ago. If the background information guiding your side's thinking is that out of sync how out of whack is everything else being brought to bear on this decision?

Bcsapper said we created the mess, not Derek. You're going to complain because we don't coordinate how we respond to you guys? You think we're the Conservative Party and have all our answers checked and compared so they're identical?

[Argus]

The Kurds are saying the airstrikes are not working and "boots on the ground" is needed, so which countries are going back to Iraq???

I think western nations have been pretty clear that while we're willing to help by supplying air power and materiel the locals, including the likes of Egypt and Turkey, have more than enough numbers to handle the ground side themselves.

[ReeferMadness]

But, if we do nothing, then they'll just fade away, bitterly resigned to our peace loving nature, and never bother anyone again.

Yes, that's our great weakness. We're just too peace loving. When we drop bombs that kill and orphan children it's just our way of projecting a gruff exterior so the whole world doesn't take advantage of our peace loving nature. When our governments support brutal dictators, that's just how we compensate for being too peace loving. And the colonialism and all the interference from world powers? Well, that's just peace-loving writ large.

Whatever issues the people of that region have will ultimately only be resolved by them.

[The_Squid]

Assad will let Canada know if he needs airstrikes. So now we work for (or even with is bad enough) the despotic regime in Syria?

When did ISIS attack Canada?

This isn't the way to clean up America's mess that they created and it's not Canada's responsibility to do so. 6 months of bombs just won't do it.

Edited October 6, 2014 by The_Squid

[WestCoastRunner]

Whatever happened to Canada's peacekeeping missions. Is Harper a traitor to our deeply ingrained culture?

[Smallc]

Peacekeeping was not the norm throughout Canada's history.

[eyeball]

Bcsapper said we created the mess, not Derek. You're going to complain because we don't coordinate how we respond to you guys? You think we're the Conservative Party and have all our answers checked and compared so they're identical?

BCsapper's question started with 'if we created the mess...

I'm criticizing your precepts and notions, they're a mess.

[Bonam]

No that is not my position at all. See Entrance Strategy.

Every individual is responsible for the consequences of their actions all the time. I will not however attack or punish a people or society that has no democratic process for the actions of certain individuals within it, individuals in democratic societies OTOH are responsible for the actions of their governments.

Interesting point. In threads on other topics, you frequently bemoan how the government does not in fact adequately represent the will of the people, how it serves the interests of only a select few. If that is the case, as you claim, then are individuals in democratic societies responsible for the actions of their government?

On the other hand, let's consider what you mean by the word "responsible" in this context. If the government of a democratic country carries out a criminal action, does that responsibility mean that each citizen holds individual criminal culpability for said action, in which case collective punishment against them is justified? Is that the implication? That seems to be the case, since you use it in contrast with your statement that individuals in non-democratic societies cannot be punished.

So basically your argument comes down to the fact that Westerners should be killed for actions their governments take, while non-Westerners cannot be. That is, you propose self-extermination.

No thanks.

[GostHacked]

A decade and a half of war on terror and the result is ISIS. Bomb these countries to try to get at ISIS and the result will be what exactly?

Afghanistan can be used as an example of the failed war on terror.

But, if we do nothing, then they'll just fade away, bitterly resigned to our peace loving nature, and never bother anyone again.

Something WAS done, and this is the result.

Good...that will lead to more terrorists to bomb.

You mean the ones the CIA helped to create in the first place?

Edited October 6, 2014 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

I think western nations have been pretty clear that while we're willing to help by supplying air power and materiel the locals, including the likes of Egypt and Turkey, have more than enough numbers to handle the ground side themselves.

We've also been supplying the rebels in the region. Some of those rebels were Al-Queda (Syria). The Arab Spring was a coordinated uprising using local strife between factions in Islam to fight each other. This strife was perpetuated by western interests.

Libya is an example of that. Brit special ops forces were in Libya early on to meet and greet the rebels that wanted to take down Gaddafi. IF the Brits were there to make peace happen, they would not have brought guns, ammo and explosives and would have not armed the 'rebels.'

The failure at Benghazi is proof of the above and how it failed. The US wagged the dog so hard the cracks started to show. Tie that into the weapons running through Benghazi to the rebels in Syria and you have a large network of western backed supply lines to rebels in certain countries that the west wanted to eventually take down.

We do NOT need to go back to Iraq to solve a problem that certain intelligence agencies created in the first place. If we need to bring anyone to task, it is our leaders and the heads of these intelligence agencies. They are feeding us nothing but bull in order to start another greater war. Some banksters are going to make a very big profit along with the military contractors who may want to test their new weapons in real combat.

All of this really stinks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mps-to-debate-isis-combat-role-with-polls-suggesting-broad-support-1.2788540

The polls also suggest a majority consider the fighters known as ISIS to be a direct or serious threat to Canada's interests.

What exactly are our 'national interests' in the region? Can they really define that? Have they ever before? Kind of pitiful that the whole article talks about the polls and not the so called interests.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/airstrikes-against-isis-needed-to-fight-direct-threat-to-canada-nicholson-1.2040209

What IS the direct threat exactly? Can they define that either? Nothing but smoke up all our asses.

Muclair is asking some real pointed questions, and what are the answers??

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said he believes the Conservative government will "of course" be back in six months to seek an extension for the mission.

"If the Americans couldn't get the job done in a decade, we're not going to get it done in six months," he told CTV's Question Period.

Kind of like if the Soviets could not quell Afghanistan, and the US could not do the job (in fact I think more terrorism was created because of it) in a decade, what makes anyone think this outcome will be any different?

For all those talking about bringing democracy to the region, Afghanistan WAS democratic some decades ago before the extremists moved in. Why did we not help then?

So for those supporting the striked against ISIS. I have two questions....

1 - What are the national interests in the region?

2 - What are the direct threats to this nation from ISIS?

Although I expect the usual tripe and political rhetoric from certain posters, I thought I would propose those two questions anyways.

[Keepitsimple]

I had mentioned previously that the NDP might be wise to support the motion and isolate the Liberals - reluctantly so to "support the country and our brave men and women". His major complaints have been about the lack of communication and clarity - but he's danced around an unequivocal rejection of the motion. He now has a bit more cover to support it - and protect his Quebec base:

Quebec Liberal Premier Philippe Couillard, whose son is in the military, gave his support to the mission before knowing the specific details, saying Canada “cannot escape its obligations.”

“This is a significant threat to our society and Canada and Quebec are part of that landscape,” he said. “Let us not be so naive that we think because Quebecers have been fortunate enough to live in peace for centuries that we’re immune to this risk. The risks also exist for us. These murderous movements are mobile, they are imaginative in the worst sense and they won’t hesitate to attack those they consider enemies, which are democratic societies.”

And as senior party Liberals distance themselves from Trudeau's position, here's something thoughtful from Bob Rae:

“This is not about “peace” versus “war.” This is about something different — the collective capacity of governments and international institutions to deal effectively with perpetrators of violence,” he wrote.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

I had mentioned previously that the NDP might be wise to support the motion and isolate the Liberals - reluctantly so to "support the country and our brave men and women".

Muclair has quite effectively showed that, as he so succintly stated, "this is Harper's war"... the lil' General Harper didn't get his lust for war satisfied in 2003... but this one he'll own. Your willingness to wedge play "country and troops" is quite telling... quite along the Bushism lines of, "you're either with us, or you're against us"!

how's your hindsight Simple?

Canadians Stand With You

Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.

But we will not be with the Canadian government.

Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century -- against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism -- Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand -- and I believe most Canadians will stand with us -- for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.

[Argus]

Yes, that's our great weakness. We're just too peace loving. When we drop bombs that kill and orphan children it's just our way of projecting a gruff exterior so the whole world doesn't take advantage of our peace loving nature. When our governments support brutal dictators, that's just how we compensate for being too peace loving. And the colonialism and all the interference from world powers? Well, that's just peace-loving writ large.

Whatever issues the people of that region have will ultimately only be resolved by them.

If you wanted to make an indignant, self-righteous statement why did you do it in reply to my post without addressing the contents of that post?

[Argus]

Muclair has quite effectively showed that, as he so succintly stated, "this is Harper's war"... the lil' General Harper didn't get his lust for war satisfied in 2003... but this one he'll own. Y

Wow. He's sending 6 planes. Stop panicking.

[waldo]

Wow. He's sending 6 planes. Stop panicking.

stop your hyperventilating! ... and in 6 months Harper will be back for an extension... if not before for "combat mission creep" as it's shown air-strikes don't work in urban confines and the latest "willing coalition" can't find willing 'resident' countries with enough boots! Oh wait... maybe you're expecting indiscriminate bombing (you know... where you just ignore that collateral impact thingee).

[eyeball]

Interesting point. In threads on other topics, you frequently bemoan how the government does not in fact adequately represent the will of the people, how it serves the interests of only a select few. If that is the case, as you claim, then are individuals in democratic societies responsible for the actions of their government?

I guess if they insist on believing they are democratically represented then yes.

On the other hand, let's consider what you mean by the word "responsible" in this context. If the government of a democratic country carries out a criminal action, does that responsibility mean that each citizen holds individual criminal culpability for said action, in which case collective punishment against them is justified? Is that the implication? That seems to be the case, since you use it in contrast with your statement that individuals in non-democratic societies cannot be punished.

If those citizens refuse to bring the officials responsible to justice then yes.

So basically your argument comes down to the fact that Westerners should be killed for actions their governments take, while non-Westerners cannot be. That is, you propose self-extermination.

No, that's not what I said.

No thanks.

You're not welcome.

[Keepitsimple]

Muclair has quite effectively showed that, as he so succintly stated, "this is Harper's war"... the lil' General Harper didn't get his lust for war satisfied in 2003... but this one he'll own. Your willingness to wedge play "country and troops" is quite telling... quite along the Bushism lines of, "you're either with us, or you're against us"!

Tell that to the Danes, the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Belgians, the Australians, the French, the Italians and yes - even Arab states - who view this as a clear and present danger. This is not 2003. As Bob Rae recently wrote:

“This is not about “peace” versus “war.” This is about something different — the collective capacity of governments and international institutions to deal effectively with perpetrators of violence,”

[PIK]

The left have shown to be nothing but selfish cowards on this event. Harper is on the right side of history, while JT and mulcair are heading to the history books as failed leaders.