Jump to content

Coyne Savages Trudeau


Recommended Posts

Ouch! I wonder if Trudeau changes his tune by Monday, this kind of commentary cannot go unanswered...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/03/andrew-coyne-if-liberals-wont-support-limited-action-against-isis-what-kind-of-mission-would-they-support/

"We know why the NDP is opposed. It has consistently opposed any Canadian participation in any military action since the Second World War. Tom Mulcair’s speech to the Commons was a feast of red herrings, irrelevant historical anecdotes and pointed mentions of “the U.S.,” but what it boiled down to was: we say this is war and we say the hell with it.

But the Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, has taken a rather different position — or rather positions. When the idea of an international military campaign against ISIS was first proposed last month, he spoke in favour of Canadian participation; now he is against it, having spent the intervening weeks saying he was undecided. Fair enough. Positions evolve. Only he still is not opposed to military intervention in principle: only to Canada taking part in it. And he has not begun to explain why.

There are any number of reasons one might question the wisdom of military intervention, at least as currently envisaged. Perhaps you doubt the efficacy of air strikes — though they are intended mostly to buy time until ground forces can be assembled from within the region, and though they have already succeeded in keeping ISIS from taking, for example, the Mosul dam. Maybe you worry it will simply encourage more jihadis to enlist — though nothing has proven more potent recruiting material for ISIS and other such groups than the promise of victory.

Likewise there are valid questions to be asked about the risks of indirectly propping up the vicious Assad regime in Syria, the costs in civilian lives, the dangers of being sucked into still deeper interventions, and so on. Maybe all of the governments from all of the countries that have agreed to take part in the mission, and all of the political parties, of every ideological hue, that have supported it, have it wrong. Maybe they and all of their military advisors have failed to take into account objections that seem so obvious to posters on Twitter. Maybe there is some other way of stopping ISIS’s advance that no one has yet proposed.

But that is not the position the Liberal leader is taking. Go ahead and put your own forces at risk, is his message to our allies. We’ll be over here making coffee"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, we have been down this road before. So lets get to it;

Thomas Muslim Mulcair and his predecessor Taliban Jack Layton have now been joined by that coward Justin Terrorist Trudeau in insulting our troops. Either stand behind your troops or stand in front of them! We are in a fight for the survival of democracy, the West and especially Canada. If we don't fight them there then we will soon be fighting them here! You are either with us or you are against us!

These animals (scumbags and murderers) rape and beat women. They sell them into slavery. They despise us and will soon be in our back yards if we do not stop them there. We owe it to the little girls to be able to go to school.

Those cowards will collapse and run as soon as they confronted by our brave coalition forces. Besides – God is on our side! We can help them meet Allah sooner than later. The faster we can get them to join those 76 promised vestal virgins waiting for them on the other side, the better. This will be a very well organized surgical military action where no innocents will be hurt and we will be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqis and Syrians. This is the right thing to do. It is a necessary and noble mission to free oppressed people in the region. God bless Canada.

There. I got us off to a good start.

Good grief!!

“If Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything in recent history, it is the unpredictability of war and that these things are easier to get into than to get out of, and, frankly, the facile way in which too many people talk about, 'Well, let's just go attack them.' - Robert M. Gates”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Stand behind the troops", most do, but the problem is WHEN to send to the troops in harms way. I'm not sure if any good is going to come by bombing the country side, killing many of its citizens in the process and then when and if its all over trillions of dollars are going to be needed to rebuild. NATO has already been in Iraq, did it do any good, not really, we have a new enemy and I'm sure there will be another one waiting in line. IS NATO going to spend the next 50+ years fighting in this area. IF Hussein was left in place, we wouldn't this mess, GW didn't do the world any favours when he invaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Coyne (from the OP)

here are any number of reasons one might question the wisdom of military intervention, at least as currently envisaged. Perhaps you doubt

efficacy of air strikes — though they are intended mostly to buy time until ground forces can be assembled from within the region, and though they have already succeeded in keeping ISIS from taking, for example, the Mosul dam. Maybe you worry it will simply encourage more jihadis to enlist — though nothing has proven more potent recruiting material for ISIS and other such groups than the promise of victory.

Likewise there are valid questions to be asked about the risks of indirectly propping up the vicious Assad regime in Syria, the costs in civilian lives, the dangers of being sucked into still deeper interventions, and so on. Maybe all of the governments from all of the countries that have agreed to take part in the mission, and all of the political parties, of every ideological hue, that have supported it, have it wrong. Maybe they and all of their military advisors have failed to take into account objections that seem so obvious to posters on Twitter. Maybe there is some other way of stopping ISIS’s advance that no one has yet proposed.

That is hilarious. Coyne berates Trudeau for not supporting Canada's military role by affirming the inability of Canada to actually achieve anything militarily.

The only reason we are engaging militarily, in our paltry fashion, is that Harper thinks it will somehow raise our standing in foreign affairs (read that as standing with America) as if our paltry - minimal - engagement will actually result in our standing rising!

The Saudi's and other like minded states in the region are quite capable of, as Coyne says "are intended mostly to buy time until ground forces can be assembled from within the region, and though they have already succeeded in keeping ISIS from taking, for example, the Mosul dam."

There is no 'need' for Canada to get involved in this. The local powers and Great Powers that be are quite capable of dealing with it.

We are getting involved purely for domestic political reasons. Elections are coming and its good to look tough and pretend to act tough for the votes of folks who actually think we are indeed tough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...We are getting involved purely for domestic political reasons. Elections are coming and its good to look tough and pretend to act tough for the votes of folks who actually think we are indeed tough

No...it will be proof and vindication of "peacekeeping", "soft power", and "honest brokering" to "get a seat at the table".

Did I miss any Canadian foreign policy cliches ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...it will be proof and vindication of "peacekeeping", "soft power", and "honest brokering" to "get a seat at the table".

Did I miss any Canadian foreign policy cliches ?

Our Canadian foreign policy cliches kept us out of Iraq the first time. Your country caused this mess so you clean it up, we will provide aid for the thousands of displaced civilians your country has made. Your cause is not worthy of our guns. We have already settled over 18,200 refugees as a direct cause of Americas failed Iraq invasion. So we will continue to do our part which is helping the world's people displaced from your countries poor excuses for military intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our Canadian foreign policy cliches kept us out of Iraq the first time. Your country caused this mess so you clean it up, we will provide aid for the thousands of displaced civilians your country has made. Your cause is not worthy of our guns. We have already settled over 18,200 refugees as a direct cause of Americas failed Iraq invasion. So we will continue to do our part which is helping the world's people displaced from your countries poor excuses for military intervention.

Bravo, but the Americans have settled far more refugees...war or no war.

Welcome back to the "Bomb Iraq" club, just like Canada did in 1991.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no 'need' for Canada to get involved in this. The local powers and Great Powers that be are quite capable of dealing with it.

We are getting involved purely for domestic political reasons. Elections are coming and its good to look tough and pretend to act tough for the votes of folks who actually think we are indeed tough

Yes, because it's always good press to send troops into a war zone. :rolleyes:

Harper is acknowledging we have an international responsibility. We can't always dodge them, you know. And yes, our allies do put pressure on us, and yes, it is necessary to help out now and then. And what the hell, it's even in a good cause with minimal risk.

Trudeau is simply playing a crass political game for votes. He doesn't care about anything else, but then, drama teachers aren't expected to care about anything complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to care about the uncomplicated sentiment many Canadians have that ISIS is simply another effect of the same root causes that people like Harper refuse to acknowledge, when they're not celebrating it. The issue of root causes in the WOT is a deeply entrenched and polarizing schism in our society and if anything I'd say it's Harper who is exploiting it. I for one would love to see the reason for this divide become an election issue.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to care about the uncomplicated sentiment many Canadians have that ISIS is simply another effect of the same root causes that people like Harper refuse to acknowledge, when they're not celebrating it. The issue of root causes in the WOT is a deeply entrenched and polarizing schism in our society and if anything I'd say it's Harper who is exploiting it. I for one would love to see the reason for this divide become an election issue.

You'll pardon me if I don't have a lot of confidence in drama teachers to decipher the 'root causes' of international conflicts.

As far as I'm aware the Muslim world, through history, has always attacked the Christian world, and all the territory of 'non-believers' at every opportunity. The only time it failed to do so was when it lacked the ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is there to decipher? Anyone with even half a brain can figure it out. It's only the morally and ethically challenged who can't or don't or more likely won't.

You'll pardon me for not having a lot of confidence in what you're aware of or why it should be a basis for our foreign policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it warrants its own thread, none the less, I think, bias aside, this begs a good question of Trudeau.....I wonder if Trudeau would allow a free vote for the Liberals in the House.

Harper is allowing a vote I would wager less because he promised he would on such issues and more because he know's he can't lose. Otherwise he's have no qualms about welching on his promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper is allowing a vote I would wager less because he promised he would on such issues and more because he know's he can't lose. Otherwise he's have no qualms about welching on his promise.

Explain the vote prior to the similar operation in Libya...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper seemed to accomplish a whole lot of 'doodling" before he decided to have a vote.

What "doodling"?

Why did the Liberals vote in favour of the Afghan extension? Why did the Liberals and NDP vote in favour of the air strikes in Libya? Now why do they oppose action in Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No kidding. It's hard to act when you have people like Trudeau muddying the waters with talk of humanitarian aid. I guess he wants to send in Canadians so they can get their heads cut off, like everyone else.

But of course, we have been providing aid for several months.......I don't think Trudeau knows what he wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...