Coyne Savages Trudeau

[Peter F]

Edit: in response to Keepitsimple post 73

I acknowledge that it is your right to imagine Godzilla rising inexplicably from the sea.

My point is this: Coyne is a partisan hack. He derides Trudeau's sensible belief that Canada should be humanitarian aid and support to those fleeing the

brutal crackpots of ISIS controlled territory. Coyne is wrong and Trudeau is right in that Humanitarian aid plays to this country's strength while military aid plays to our weakness and plays to that weakness at great cost.

It won't be cheap supporting six F-18's plus all the ancillary stuff those six F-18's require and for what? Insignificant results for (for canada) serious cost.

And remember, the point of this whole intervention - not just by Canada but by this whole coalition - is not to destroy ISIS but only to limit its expansion.

Your fears will not be soothed by the coalitions goal. Canadian terrorists won't be stopped by F-18's in Dubai but by Customs and Border services and the RCMP/local police.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Peter F

[Derek 2.0]

Who knows - but over the succeeding years, more and more "Canadians" will join their murderous sect - and return here to sow havoc. Stop them now - or pay the price.

There's no question about the threat of ISIS growing:

The Pakistani Taliban declared allegiance to Islamic State on Saturday and ordered militants across the region to help the Middle Eastern jihadist group in its campaign to set up a global Islamic caliphate.

Hardline Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines said Friday they have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, the extremist jihadists who now control large swathes of Iraq and Syria.

This is a growing threat, a threat that should be addressed now as opposed to later.

[Keepitsimple]

Edit: in response to Keepitsimple post 73

I acknowledge that it is your right to imagine Godzilla rising inexplicably from the sea.

My point is this: Coyne is a partisan hack. He derides Trudeau's sensible belief that Canada should be humanitarian aid and support to those fleeing the

brutal crackpots of ISIS controlled territory. Coyne is wrong and Trudeau is right in that Humanitarian aid plays to this country's strength while military aid plays to our weakness and plays to that weakness at great cost.

It won't be cheap supporting six F-18's plus all the ancillary stuff those six F-18's require and for what? Insignificant results for (for canada) serious cost.

And remember, the point of this whole intervention - not just by Canada but by this whole coalition - is not to destroy ISIS but only to limit its expansion.

Your fears will not be soothed by the coalitions goal. Canadian terrorists won't be stopped by F-18's in Dubai but by Customs and Border services and the RCMP/local police.

For this issue - I don't care what Trudeau thinks - I care what Canada is doing.....and we're doing all three things. Like many of the smaller contributors like Norway, Belgium, Netherlands - we're making a modest air contribution - because regardless of the size of the US....adding together these small contributions will provide a cumulative, meaningful addition. But since the start, we've been doing our humanitarian work - mostly with giving millions to NGOs on the ground - and we've got plans to expand humanitarian assistance.....and we're developing legislation to keep the bad guys out and to prosecute wrong-headed "Canadian" terrorists. We have to do all of that - just like our other allies are trying to do.

[Derek 2.0]

Edit: in response to Keepitsimple post 73

I acknowledge that it is your right to imagine Godzilla rising inexplicably from the sea.

My point is this: Coyne is a partisan hack. He derides Trudeau's sensible belief that Canada should be humanitarian aid and support to those fleeing the

brutal crackpots of ISIS controlled territory. Coyne is wrong and Trudeau is right in that Humanitarian aid plays to this country's strength while military aid plays to our weakness and plays to that weakness at great cost.

It won't be cheap supporting six F-18's plus all the ancillary stuff those six F-18's require and for what? Insignificant results for (for canada) serious cost.

Why do you feel its a zero sum game? We already are providing humanitarian aid in areas that its safe to do so, with the objective of military aid being to ensure security through the rest of the country.....you know, so people won't have to flee to refugee camps and require aid.

Ironic that Trudeau proposed more Humanitarian aid, without security that military action will bring, the same day a British aid worker lost his head....

[Rue]

I will defer to the comments of Argus on Derek. I will say this though, I think Trudeau would rather like the idea of being savaged by Coyne.

[Derek 2.0]

I will say this though, I think Trudeau would rather like the idea of being savaged by Coyne.

What do you hope to achieve with such an inane and (off-topic) offensive statement?

[eyeball]

This is a growing threat, a threat that should be addressed now as opposed to later.

Yes, and when we tried to address how this threat would develop 10 years ago...ah what's the use...never mind.

[Peter F]

The objective of military aid being to ensure security through the rest of the country. Which country? Iraq? Within the borders of? What about ISIS beyond those borders? Syria too maybe? Golan heights?

How much impact do you suppose six F-18's are going to have in ensuring security for Humanitarian aid workers throughout ISIS territory (or is it only Iraqi territory)? Considering that the Saudi's are launching strikes, the US is launching strikes, the French are launching strikes and the British are launching strikes, How important are Canada's six F-18's (along with the support personal and equipment) to the establishment of security for humanitarian workers?

Our military commitment, while certainly getting some Canadians to pump purple piss to their patriotic hearts, is and will be insignificant.

Bangs for Bucks. Trudeaus right and Coyne is wrong.

[cybercoma]

It was a stupid promise anyway. The executive is there to act on matters of war, not to doodle around waiting for a parliamentary vote.

I tend to agree, but only if there's an immediate threat to Canada. You can't be bringing things before Parliament for a long debate and discussion when there's an immediate threat to this country.

There isn't here.

This is a mission in a foreign country, cleaning up the mess of another foreign country. ISIL needs to be dealt with, but how much support we provide is up for debate. I generally don't like the idea of police the world. I think the issue in the Congo is far more serious than ISIL, but we don't have everyone intervening there because they don't have the infrastructure and social resources for it to be a profitable venture. That's the real shame in all of this. We pick and choose where to intervene based on what's going to make us the most wealth.

Edited October 5, 2014 by cybercoma

[Derek 2.0]

How much impact do you suppose six F-18's are going to have in ensuring security for Humanitarian aid workers throughout ISIS territory (or is it only Iraqi territory)? Considering that the Saudi's are launching strikes, the US is launching strikes, the French are launching strikes and the British are launching strikes, How important are Canada's six F-18's (along with the support personal and equipment) to the establishment of security for humanitarian workers?

Our military commitment, while certainly getting some Canadians to pump purple piss to their patriotic hearts, is and will be insignificant.

Bangs for Bucks. Trudeaus right and Coyne is wrong.

As already stated, our contribution, combined with the Australians, Dutch, Danes and Belgians, equates to the striking power of a USN aircraft carrier. It use, combined with the ISR aircraft, will degrade ISIS the benefit of operating on the roads and in formations larger than “a couple of guys in a Toyota”.....All this of course enables both the Iraqi army and Kurds the ability to provide security to their villages, towns and cities.

[bush_cheney2004]

I tend to agree, but only if there's an immediate threat to Canada. You can't be bringing things before Parliament for a long debate and discussion when there's an immediate threat to this country.

Yeah...just like Kosovo...and Afghanistan...and Haiti...and Libya....immediate threats all.

The only consistent thing here is domestic politics as usual.

[Derek 2.0]

This is a mission in a foreign country, cleaning up the mess of another foreign country. ISIL needs to be dealt with, but how much support we provide is up for debate. I generally don't like the idea of police the world. I think the issue in the Congo is far more serious than ISIL, but we don't have everyone intervening there because they don't have the infrastructure and social resources for it to be a profitable venture. That's the real shame in all of this. We pick and choose where to intervene based on what's going to make us the most wealth.

Couldn't the same be said of a mission in Congo, in that we're cleaning up the mess of another country (same as Rwanda)? None the less, there is an international effort in place (including Canadians, Americans and British) in the DRC......

[cybercoma]

Couldn't the same be said of a mission in Congo, in that we're cleaning up the mess of another country (same as Rwanda)? None the less, there is an international effort in place (including Canadians, Americans and British) in the DRC......

Yes we can, but we're not there. So I'm not criticizing it. If Canada's in such a financial state that we can't even take care of our own society, we need to cut back on programs, etc., then why is the government spending money on this stuff in other countries? Either the finances aren't as bad as they're saying or they're not being very responsible.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes we can, but we're not there. So I'm not criticizing it. If Canada's in such a financial state that we can't even take care of our own society, we need to cut back on programs, etc., then why is the government spending money on this stuff in other countries? Either the finances aren't as bad as they're saying or they're not being very responsible.

We're not there?

So now, you suggest that we can’t afford to contribute on the World stage……Is not a stable world in Canada’s interest? I’m sure you can see the correlation between stability and a healthy economy, moral aspects aside of course.

[overthere]

why do you beat your wife?

I think Wally has messed up his inappropriate analogy.

The unoriginal cliche he was referencing was actually 'when did you stop beating your wife?'.

I don't think anybody sane expects our six aircraft, on their own, to defeat anybody.

But our allies expect us to do something other than wring our hands and bleat - as per 'see above'.

[waldo]

overwhere, variants on the loaded question fallacy all rely upon presupposition... of course, typically coupled with the direct or implied innuendo... like the presupposition within, "when did you stop beating your wife"... "have you stopped beating your wife"... "why do you beat your wife"... etc.

good to read I still have you fixated on my every post!

[bush_cheney2004]

Rule #7: It's not funny if you have to explain the joke.

[waldo]

Rule #7: It's not funny if you have to explain the joke.

says a lot about you if you interpret the 'loaded question' logical fallacy... particularly one with intended innuendo attached... as a joke. I'd say the jokes on you, hey!

[Bob Macadoo]

says a lot about you if you interpret the 'loaded question' logical fallacy... particularly one with intended innuendo attached... as a joke. I'd say the jokes on you, hey!

Christ please get the rulers out now and avoid the 6 pages of crap-filler we'll have to wade through.

[waldo]

Christ please get the rulers out now and avoid the 6 pages of crap-filler we'll have to wade through.

just as good... no, better... than putting up a 'derailing train' pic, or a, 'danger - distraction ahead' pic

[cybercoma]

So now, you suggest that we can’t afford to contribute on the World stage……Is not a stable world in Canada’s interest? I’m sure you can see the correlation between stability and a healthy economy, moral aspects aside of course.

I said Conservatives say we can't contribute at home, so what's with the hypocrisy of contributing on the world stage? And how is there a brutal genocide going on in Congo if we're there to stop it? Maybe the MND should resign for incompetence if the genocide is still going on and we're there to put an end to it, since the mission is an utter failure then. Edited October 5, 2014 by cybercoma

[Argus]

I put even less credence in people that lack the moral or ethical background that thinking about this requires.

Yes, it always comes down to that with lefties. They presume that their position (whatever it is) is the morally superior one. That at least provides them with some cover for it not being the intelligent one.

I personally don't see how it's morally superior to carry the luggage and hold the coats of the other 17 countries involved in this, but wring our hands and pretend we're too noble to actually pull any triggers ourselves.

[Argus]

Nope, never said anything like that. There are all sorts of ways we could take action against rape, murder and theft that occurs at the hands of dictators and warlords - by identifying, applying sanctions against and arresting anyone funding them for example.

I'm confused (again). Imposing sanctions against Sadaam Hussein made us viscous, brutal killers of innocent children who didn't get their milk and medicine. WE were responsible for all ills which befell the country because of our cruel sanctions. We were heartless and evil!

Now you want to impose sanctions again.

[Argus]

My point is this: Coyne is a partisan hack.

Drivel. Coyne has printed lots of nasty columns about Harper.

He derides Trudeau's sensible belief that Canada should be humanitarian aid and support to those fleeing the

brutal crackpots of ISIS controlled territory.

He derides Trudeau's political cowardice, you mean? He derides Trudeau saying we should carry the luggage, but let the others do the fighting? He derides Trudeau's crass, political decision that opposing intervention will be worth more votes?

Edited October 5, 2014 by Argus

[PrimeNumber]

Yes, it always comes down to that with lefties. They presume that their position (whatever it is) is the morally superior one. That at least provides them with some cover for it not being the intelligent one.

I personally don't see how it's morally superior to carry the luggage and hold the coats of the other 17 countries involved in this, but wring our hands and pretend we're too noble to actually pull any triggers ourselves.

Pitching in is pitching in, the problem with conservatives is that unless were directly spilling enemy blood they don't think it qualifies as pitching in. If we take the money we would use on fighters and troops on the ground and funnel it into humanitarian aid we can be very large contributors to this conflict without firing a single shot. Sure America won't like it, but who gives a rats ass what America likes? Lets do what we are good at, lets take a moral high ground. Pulling triggers is not noble, the glory and romanticism of war died when WWII ended. Only in America does this glory and romanticism of bloodshed continue. The intelligent road would be the one helping people displaced by this conflict. The Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium can do what they want. Let's try and be leaders here on the world stage and attempt to actually be at the forefront of humanitarian efforts instead of at the back end of military strength.