Big Guy Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) PM Harper has just tabled a motion to extend the Canadian involvement in the coalition (of USA + a few) for another year and expand it into Syria. The NDP has just said they will vote against it and the Liberals have also said they will vote against it. For those voters for whom this is tipping point issue, it is now pretty clear of the positions of the various parties. While the NDP position has been well known the Liberal decision was unclear until Trudeau voiced it this morning. The closer we come to the next federal election, the clearer becomes the difference in policies between the major parties. This is risky for all involved. If there is another terror attack in Canada or more ISIS atrocities are televised and the Conservatives are able to blame it on the war then the Conservatives will get a boost. If more Canadians are killed over there or the war starts to go badly and the Opposition Parties can blame it on Harper then they will get a boost. Either way, Harper officially wears this war - for better or worse. Now maybe we can get back to the far more important issue - our wavering economy! http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/24/Stephen-harper-seeking-to-extend-military-mission-into-Syria-so-warplanes-can-strike-isis-safe-haven/ Edited March 24, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 He'll get us in, and we will have someone else try to bring them home. I've seen this before .. I think.... Quote
Topaz Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 This war against ISIS is really stupid. First, the West supplies weapons to the rebels to fight the government of Syria, then the rebels are now fighting against the West and the West are going in to Syria to fight against the rebels, better know as ISIS, to help the government of Syria!!! just another bad decision of Harper's and now he's made this war Harper's War on ISIS, NOT Canada. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 This war against ISIS is really stupid. First, the West supplies weapons to the rebels to fight the government of Syria, then the rebels are now fighting against the West and the West are going in to Syria to fight against the rebels, better know as ISIS, to help the government of Syria!!! just another bad decision of Harper's and now he's made this war Harper's War on ISIS, NOT Canada. Clearly you did not listen to Harper and John Baird who both warned us that we could not offer as much as we would like to the Syrian opposition because you couldn't really depend on what you were going to end up with - that the end result might even be worse. Baird and Harper were criticized at the time but their foresight has proven accurate - Syria is a mess. Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Clearly you did not listen to Harper and John Baird who both warned us that we could not offer as much as we would like to the Syrian opposition because you couldn't really depend on what you were going to end up with - that the end result might even be worse. Baird and Harper were criticized at the time but their foresight has proven accurate - Syria is a mess. I listened and it convinced me that neither have a handle on the rats est they are getting us into. We are going to end up in bed with Assad. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Clearly you did not listen to Harper and John Baird who both warned us that we could not offer as much as we would like to the Syrian opposition because you couldn't really depend on what you were going to end up with - that the end result might even be worse. Baird and Harper were criticized at the time but their foresight has proven accurate - Syria is a mess. Four years of NATO intervention will mess any country up. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Not surprisingly Trudeau is against it, after he was for it. Now he can play both sides of the debate, like the Liberals always have. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Not surprisingly Trudeau is against it, after he was for it. Now he can play both sides of the debate, like the Liberals always have. Like the majority of politicians, regardless of political stripes. Why the F are we still trusting these dolts? Quote
cybercoma Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Like the majority of politicians, regardless of political stripes. Why the F are we still trusting these dolts? The majority of politicians either support or oppose the mission for reasons they've given. It's only the Liberals who support AND oppose the mission. Quote
eyeball Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 When will this finally be about support for the GWOT instead of the growing pile of missions it's composed of? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Moonlight Graham Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Someone should probably be blowing up these maniacs, but why Canada? Why must we make countless Muslims/Arabs PO'd and want to kill us when we make such a small contribution to the overall fight vs ISIS? Doing a cost/benefit analysis of Canada's military involvement vs ISIS, I'd say the costs for us far outweighs the benefits. Edited March 25, 2015 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Derek 2.0 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 Someone should probably be blowing up these maniacs, but why Canada? Why must we make countless Muslims/Arabs PO'd and want to kill us when we make such a small contribution to the overall fight vs ISIS? Supporters of radical Islam are PO'd and want to kill everyone already that doesn't share their perverted interpretation of the Quran...... And why do you feel our contribution is small? Its on par with that of the British, French and Australians..... Doing a cost/benefit analysis of Canada's military involvement vs ISIS, I'd say the costs for us far outweighs the benefits. What factors do you include in your analysis? Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 What factors do you include in your analysis? COSTS: -Terrorist attacks that occurred within Canada weeks after Canada joined the fight vs ISIS, and the terror plots, threats, and radicalization against Canada since we started attacking ISIS. -Increased resources to prevent above -Bills/laws being unveiled to prevent above that limit our civil liberties - Canadian blood and treasure spent on our military mission. BENEFITS: -Small contribution towards a coalition seeking to destroy a humanitarian and security threat overseas (mind you, to fix a problem Canada did not create, unlike the US, UK, and Australia). -Goodwill with some allies for contributing to said coalition. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
marcus Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 Supporters of radical Islam are PO'd and want to kill everyone already that doesn't share their perverted interpretation of the Quran...... B.S. They're not going to be attacking Switzerland because Switzerland is not going into Syria and Iraq. Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Mighty AC Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 Why is it that we so regularly interfere in the affairs of this region again? If there was only away to mitigate climate change and end our reliance on such a volatile region... Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Mighty AC Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 The majority of politicians either support or oppose the mission for reasons they've given. It's only the Liberals who support AND oppose the mission. I find Trudeau's statement very clear and hard to argue with. 1) Lethal force is justifiable when it serves our national interests. This plan does not. 2) Canada should offer training and humanitarian support. 3) Entering a war without well defined targets and objectives is a recipe for disaster. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 Looks like Canadian support for the mission remains high. Critics are at a political disadvantage. Remember "human rights", "Responsibility to Protect", and all that jazz ? Three recent polls suggest that support for the mission itself is high. According to an Ipsos Reid survey for Global News, 74 per cent of Canadians agreed with the deployment of fighter jets in Iraq for use in airstrikes against ISIS, while 26 per cent disagreed. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-has-support-of-canadians-polls-suggest-1.3007042 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 COSTS: -Terrorist attacks that occurred within Canada weeks after Canada joined the fight vs ISIS, and the terror plots, threats, and radicalization against Canada since we started attacking ISIS. -Increased resources to prevent above -Bills/laws being unveiled to prevent above that limit our civil liberties - Canadian blood and treasure spent on our military mission. - Yet there are to high profile anti-terror trials going on presently, that entail planned attacks predating the rise of ISIS -We've been increasing resources to combat radical Islam since 9/12 -As I asked in the C-51 thread, what civil liberties are being curtailed? -To date, the cost in blood and treasure has been less than our first 6 months in Afghanistan. Going forward, due to the nature of the current mission versus our past mission in Afghanistan, both costs (blood/treasure) will be significantly cheaper. BENEFITS: -Small contribution towards a coalition seeking to destroy a humanitarian and security threat overseas (mind you, to fix a problem Canada did not create, unlike the US, UK, and Australia). -Goodwill with some allies for contributing to said coalition. -Again you frame our contribution as small....why? I would suggest (cost) effective and resulting in positive gains that are a benefit to both the Iraqis and Kurds............One could also point to past Canadian military actions and reflect if Canada helped create those problems too. -I would add to goodwill the morality of helping a democratically elected Government, found within a economically vital region of the World, halting the genocide of its people Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I find Trudeau's statement very clear and hard to argue with. 1) Lethal force is justifiable when it serves our national interests. This plan does not. 2) Canada should offer training and humanitarian support. 3) Entering a war without well defined targets and objectives is a recipe for disaster. 1. When did a stable Middle East stop being in Canada's national interests? 2. What good is training and humanitarian support without a semblance of security in the region? 3. There are well defined targets and objectives....... Though I disagree with the NDP, I'll give them credit for articulating their position clearly........Trudeau's position makes no sense, well running counter to past Canadian military actions started namely by past Liberal Governments........ Should King and St Laurent have applied the "Trudeau doctrine" to the Second World War and Korea? Edited March 25, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 I think its optimism to the point of naivete to think we are going to muster much goodwill from this effort in that region. And yeah there might be some oil there if you have a hudred billion or so to rebuild the infrastructure.And of course the oil is scattered across sectarian lines. Much better off to bring the 18s and the people back home and invest in some Chevy Volts. Quote
eyeball Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 1. When did a stable Middle East stop being in Canada's national interests? 1953, the year or closest allies decided what was in our interest. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
poochy Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 Not surprisingly Trudeau is against it, after he was for it. Now he can play both sides of the debate, like the Liberals always have. That's the liberals, standing for everything and nothing all at once. Quote
Big Guy Posted March 25, 2015 Author Report Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) The goal of the mission now is to "defeat" ISIS not "degrade" ISIS. Nobody in government can explain to us who/what ISIS is. There is no nation of ISIS so I assume that it is a group of people who share an ideology. What criteria do you use to evaluate if/when we have attained our goal to defeat ISIS? Who are we now at war against? What is our exit strategy? We do not know what victory would look like nor are we prepared for an exit short of victory. We really are part of the coalition of the dumb - but looks like our war is spreading into Syria where we will be taking out the folks who are fighting against our new ally - Assad. This has become the coalition of the dumber! This is now Harpers war to win or lose. Edited March 25, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 Alright then lets send Harper over there to fight it. He can take Kenny along for advice. Quote
Mighty AC Posted March 25, 2015 Report Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) 1. When did a stable Middle East stop being in Canada's national interests? 2. What good is training and humanitarian support without a semblance of security in the region? 3. There are well defined targets and objectives....... 1. Is creating a stable ME what we've really been doing for a decade? Why are we doing this and who for? 2. Treating, sheltering and relocating those affected by war is a useful and noble deed. Training those that wish to defend their own state and also those that would provide treatment and aid to those affected by war is important and necessary. 3. I think Big Guy already handled this point very well two posts above this one: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24356-extending-mission-against-isis/page-2#entry1041316 Edited March 25, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Recommended Posts
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.