Canada To Launch Airstrikes Against ISIL

[The_Squid]

Will have to decide when that times comes. Does not matter what we do, it has to be done and I bet their is a lot of liberals out there that are embarrassed by the young trudeau. But hopefully it will be arab ground troops. Trudeau has nothing to offer, but excuses.

Really? You think Harper should just wing it?

Now that is some poor war planning...

"should we send troops if this fails"?

"Let's decide later after it's too late"

[PIK]

In the House Marc Garneau is delivering the Liberal statement on the Iraq mission instead of the party leader. Why did the Liberals not pick Garneau in the first place? Now they are stuck with this juvenile drama teacher going into the next election. How entirely predictable this mess was.You know you are in big trouble when you have to hide your leader, from speaking.

Edited October 6, 2014 by PIK

[PIK]

Really? You think Harper should just wing it?

Now that is some poor war planning...

"should we send troops if this fails"?

"Let's decide later after it's too late"

How dumb are you? These things can't be planned that well, it is war, not a war game. This is tricky stuff and thank god we have harper in charge. This will be JT 's downfall.

[On Guard for Thee]

Really? You think Harper should just wing it?

Now that is some poor war planning...

"should we send troops if this fails"?

"Let's decide later after it's too late"

Add to that "does not matter what we do, it has to be done". That sounds a bit more Harperish to me, especially if you add, "as long as we can get a few votes"

[PIK]

You do know that Pierre Trudeau is dead, right? That he has no say in Canadian affairs any longer? Could you could find a more irrelevant issue other than what a dead PM once wore on his head while riding a motorcycle 50+ years ago?

With a german helmet going thru a jewish neighbourhood, but the apple does not fall far from the tree.

[Smallc]

If ISIS is still around after the airstrikes should Canada send ground troops?

It depends on the situation.

[Smallc]

If ISIS is still around after the airstrikes should Canada send ground troops?

Keep in mind that I'm a proponent of the 2% of GDP target, and sending troops and humanitarian assistance to far more places than we are.

[The_Squid]

With a german helmet going thru a jewish neighbourhood, but the apple does not fall far from the tree.

50 years ago, and you think that's relevant because his son is going to be exactly like his father? How is it relevant?

[The_Squid]

It depends on the situation.

Can you give a scenario where you would agree with sending in Canadian ground troops? If they were going to create their own state? Take over Iraq? Take over Syria? Take over Iraq and Syria? If they built a navy and attacked Canada?

[Bonam]

Derek 2.0 (same as the old one)? PIK? Simple? Smallc? Bonam?

Should Canada send ground troops if the air campaign doesn't eliminate ISIS?

I have been clear from the very beginning that i do not support any ground troops in there. I also do not support arming rebel groups, those same groups always turn against us a few years later anyway. I also am kind of apathetic about airstrikes, and believe our only involvement should to be to help threatened populations escape genocide. Edited October 6, 2014 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Can you give a scenario where you would agree with sending in Canadian ground troops? If they were going to create their own state? Take over Iraq? Take over Syria? Take over Iraq and Syria? If they built a navy and attacked Canada?

To take out the threat to the human population where we can. It's not only about countries but our responsibility as humans.

[The_Squid]

These things can't be planned that well, it is war, not a war game. This is tricky stuff and thank god we have harper in charge. This will be JT 's downfall.

I deleted the personal insult out of your quote.

You don't think that there should be a war plan depending upon how the airstrike campaign goes?

If "X" happens, then Canada will do "Y"... It's pretty simple actually. And should be articulated by the Harper gov't. so we know what Canada is getting into.

[The_Squid]

To take out the threat to the human population where we can. It's not only about countries but our responsibility as humans.

So what is the scenario where Canada sends ground troops?

[Keepitsimple]

deny it exists? I could care less... you appear to miss the/my point. Since you've joined the collective slime and 2.0 refuses to answer, what intent/tie/reference do you presume to make in regards the Liberal/JT statement on refusing to support Harper's combat mission?

I'll let the original poster handle your "question", if they think it's merits it......but there is some relevance in bringing your hero - the senior TRudeau into the picture. After all - it's said that a lot of JT's "experience" is from sitting on the knee of his father. Too many people know too little of Pierre - and they should have a read of the book "Yoiung Trudeau". Here's a book review from the Toronto Public Library - certainly no bastion of Conservatism:

Summary

This book shines a light of devastating clarity on French-Canadian society in the 1930s and 1940s, when young elites were raised to be pro-fascist, and democratic and liberal were terms of criticism. The model leaders to be admired were good Catholic dictators like Mussolini, Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain, and especially Pétain, collaborator with the Nazis in Vichy France. There were even demonstrations against Jews who were demonstrating against what the Nazis were doing in Germany.

Trudeau, far from being the rebel that other biographers have claimed, embraced this ideology. At his elite school, Brébeuf, he was a model student, the editor of the school magazine, and admired by the staff and his fellow students. But the fascist ideas and the people he admired – even when the war was going on, as late as 1944 – included extremists so terrible that at the war’s end they were shot. And then there’s his manifesto and his plan to stage a revolution against les Anglais.

This is astonishing material – and it’s all demonstrably true – based on personal papers of Trudeau that the authors were allowed to access after his death.What they have found has astounded and distressed them, but they both agree that the truth must be published.

Link: http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?R=148716

[Smallc]

That's difficult to predict, and would have to be a coalition effort.

[The_Squid]

I have been clear from the very beginning that i do not support any ground troops in there. I also do not support arming rebel groups, those same groups always turn against us a few years later anyway. I also am kind of apathetic about airstrikes, and believe our only involvement should to be to help threatened populations escape genocide.

Harper should be as clear as you about the actual mission.

I agree... we should be doing a lot more to support the humanitarian crisis. I don't think that some airstrikes from our 6 jets will do the job.

[The_Squid]

That's difficult to predict, and would have to be a coalition effort.

The question wasn't to predict what happens. What has to happen there for you to be in favour of ground troops?

[Smallc]

A coalition decision that the situation on the ground requires an armed humanitarian intervention.

[Keepitsimple]

Derek 2.0 (same as the old one)? PIK? Simple? Smallc? Bonam?

Should Canada send ground troops if the air campaign doesn't eliminate ISIS?

Tough question. The answer is hopefully not - but it can't be ruled out. I sincerely hope that the Iraqi army and Kurds can turn the tide with air support, military equipment and advisors - and thus avoid Western ground troops. As for Syria, I have no idea how that might unfold. So - it depends on the situation......but any introduction of ground troops would continue to require the commitment of all coalition - and more countries. But you can never say never.

[Solastalgia]

Tough question. The answer is hopefully not - but it can't be ruled out. I sincerely hope that the Iraqi army and Kurds can turn the tide with air support, military equipment and advisors - and thus avoid Western ground troops. As for Syria, I have no idea how that might unfold. So - it depends on the situation......but any introduction of ground troops would continue to require the commitment of all coalition - and more countries. But you can never say never.

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?

[Keepitsimple]

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?

You've been playing too many computer games. Wouldn't it be nice if you could actually "script" a war and know exactly how everything would go - and how it would turn out? Every decision in "war" is a tough one.....there are never any guarantees - and people die.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[The_Squid]

You've been playing too many computer games. Wouldn't it be nice if you could actually "script" a war and know exactly how everything would go - and how it would turn out? Every decision in "war" is a tough one.....there are never any guarantees - and people die.

Of course plans can be made depending upon how "plan A" turns out.

You don't just wing it and hope for the best!

[PIK]

I deleted the personal insult out of your quote.

You don't think that there should be a war plan depending upon how the airstrike campaign goes?

If "X" happens, then Canada will do "Y"... It's pretty simple actually. And should be articulated by the Harper gov't. so we know what Canada is getting into.

Of course, but you can not say how long will it take .The questions asked in QP about is pure BS to confuse the issue. lOOSE LIPS SINKS SHIPS, EVER HEAR OF THAT ONE?

[Solastalgia]

You've been playing too many computer games. Wouldn't it be nice if you could actually "script" a war and know exactly how everything would go - and how it would turn out? Every decision in "war" is a tough one.....there are never any guarantees - and people die.

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.

Source: Almost two weeks after the Pentagon extended its aerial campaign from Iraq to neighbouring Syria in an attempt to take on Isis militants in their desert strongholds, Kurdish fighters said the bombing campaign was having little impact in driving them back.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Solastalgia

[Smallc]

Of course plans can be made depending upon how "plan A" turns out.

You don't just wing it and hope for the best!

You can be assured the military has a plan for every contingency they they can imagine. You can never predict the future and in war you never have enough imagination. No one knows how things will go.