Canada Shunned by Coalition Allies

On Guard for Thee · February 9, 2016

Everyone knew he volunteered us for Afghanistan to make amends for turning down Iraq.

Everyone know he volunteered us for Afghanistan because it could be argued it was a legal war under international law, which Iraq was clearly not, even though the argument under article 51 as to Afg. is extremely contentious.

waldo · February 10, 2016

why yes siree, in spite of Rona (bomb, baby bomb) Ambrose... or wannabe Michele Rempel's caterwauling in continuing to play up the 'token' CF-18 bombing contribution, officials from the U.S. Obama admin, U.S. Pentagon, NATO and other allies have been quite praising and enthusiastic over the newly announced plans for Canada's coalition contribution. No "shunning" - go figure.

and now, that guy supposedly "from afar", he who is just so transfixed and mesmerized by all that is Canada and Canadian politics, comes out with a status update (rather than actually posting in a thread) presuming to solicit meaningful board discussion, suggesting that:

Gerald Butts gets teets squeezed using Twitter... Wants U.S. Pentagon to cover Liberal "butts".

now certainly, PM Trudeau's principal secretary Gerald Butts is very twitter engaged: the actual exchange is presented here... seems like a rather straight-forward exchange with Butts bringing clarity to the misunderstanding others had about "owning the position" and just how long that position has been presented by Trudeau Liberals.

let the waldo do and go where other members won't... meaningful discussion within forums threads affording an opportunity to reveal status update blowhardiness! What a concept.

.

waldo · February 10, 2016

There are only two options: either Trudeau is so thick he does not understand how stupid this sounds when he says it, or he has so little respect for the intelligence of Canadians that he says it anyway.

finite resources... money is better spent on training, where Canada can add better value. You know, what Trudeau has been saying forevah!

.

Big Guy · February 10, 2016

Waldo , our planes are supporting the kurds on the ground.

Well, then we are making enemies of the Turks.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/turkey-washington-ambassador-support-syrian-kurds-pyd-160209184552483.html

So Pik, who are we (you) supporting - the Kurds or the Turks?

PIK · February 10, 2016

Right now we are trying to destroy ISIS. The thing here is at the core liberals are not to brave of a people. They have proved that time and time again, just like now when you people are coming up with every excuse you can think of to get out of this. Canadians want to be in this fight. But the liberals prefer that others carry the load for us. Remember trudeau said we are going have a leaner military, that is liberal speak for we are going to gut it again. Trudeau is in over his head.

waldo · February 10, 2016

Right now we are trying to destroy ISIS. The thing here is at the core liberals are not to brave of a people. They have proved that time and time again, just like now when you people are coming up with every excuse you can think of to get out of this. Canadians want to be in this fight. But the liberals prefer that others carry the load for us

is uhhh... lofty highs bombing the only measure of your suggested "bravery"? Coalition members Germany and Italy aren't bombing; Belgium has also stopped participating in the bombing it was doing... so... as you say, "not too brave of a German, Italian and Belgian people", hey!

.

Big Guy · February 10, 2016

is uhhh... lofty highs bombing the only measure of your suggested "bravery"? Coalition members Germany and Italy aren't bombing; Belgium has also stopped participating in the bombing it was doing... so... as you say, "not too brave of a German, Italian and Belgian people", hey!

.

I too wonder what the sense of conflict or bravery has to so with dropping bombs from 10,000 ft. There is no anti-aircraft artillery, no land to air missiles and no enemy aircraft. This is shooting fish in a barrel. This is as one sided a war as it can be. I have no problem with dropping all those bombs except all we are doing is creating more refugees. We destroy their homes and then wonder why they leave to fins shelter.

Shooting fish in a barrel is an effective way to kill fish - but it certainly is not "brave" - unless the fish are shooting back.

Topaz · February 10, 2016

Why hasn't NATO stopped the flow of arms to ISIS and their money? Seems kinda useless of fighting them if ISIS has all the money and arms...... does NATO know what they are doing? guess it a good way to keep the war going.

waldo · February 12, 2016

more, uhhh... "shunning"!

U.S. backs Canada’s new IS mission ahead of coalition meeting

NATO allies approve Canada’s retooled strategy against ISIS

Sajjan said Lt.-Gen. Sean MacFarland — the U.S. Army officer commanding the campaign against ISIS — told him that the Trudeau government’s plan to replace aerial bombing runs with beefed-up training efforts on the ground will help him better plan the next phases of the war, the centrepiece of which will likely be the step-by-step recapture of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city in the Kurdish north.

Rue · February 12, 2016

Bombing is over rated. Does anybody remember North Viet Nam?

In this current battle at times yes, at other times no. It was most certainly over-rated at the beginning. Obama would severly limit the so called bombing runs and they were pretty much a transparent p.r. exercise. He had to look like he was fighting terrorism while in reality doing nothing. He had to deflect from the fact he created the very ISIL that now turned on him and made his foreign policy a farse. He had to do something so that when Hilary Clinton ran, she had some sort of current anti terror campaign to refer to as being a Democrat initiative that she could then claim credit for and counter Republican accusation of complacency.

However, Putin and Hollande changed that. The French and Russian bombing missions are real and have forced the Americans to intensify their bombings and now the British are involved and those missions are real.

Canada has engage in about 1,500 air sortees and they are all real. They have all taken out targets. Their results are real.

Me personally, I think it can most certainly be argued the actual soldiers on the ground are as important as any air mission. I think the increase of what we do on the ground in regards to humanitarian and training missions is as important if not more important and as if not more dangerous.

I commend the new mission.

The jets I see more as a symbolic gesture of solidarity. The Dutch will replace the RCAF. Our F18's quite frankly are old an the longer they stayed there the more likely we risked one of them crashing.

I think Trudeau is a fool. I think his ridiculing Harper and referring to the F18 mission and calling the jets penises was childish idiocy.

At the time Harper sent htem their mission was vital and helped and was asked for.

Now the French have stepped up as have the British and Dutch and we have changed our mission. I think what we will now do is important and commendable and should not be under-estimateed. I do myself believe we should have rotated another 6 jets in. However in fairness, the new mission can be argued to make up for taking the jets out.

I criticize Trudeau because he thinks there's a nice way to kill people and maintain his holier then though smug superiority complex when it comes to morality. I think however the current Defence Minister is honourable and assured we more than made up for removing the jets.

The point is we now continue with a vital role and are spending a lot of money in the effort, more money than before so let's be fair.. I will not put that down, Fair is fair. I do not agree with the removal of the jets but the increase of our role in other ways as if not more dangerous and even more needed, is a good thing.

We have nothing to be ashamed of. Trudeau himself is a joke but I defend his Defence Minister who is an honourable man doing an honourable job. His former participation in Afghanistan and working with the US Armed Forces is an asset-he gets along well with the US military-they worked with him. That's a big positive factor.

What will happen however which is clear is the Liberals will do nothing and allow the deteriorated armed forces to further rust which is an issue for another thread.

This is just my opinion but its a response to you. I think you are right that we might at times over emphasize the air role.

I have always argued the only true effective method of defeating ISIL is on the ground with properly trained swift moving, small commando units.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Rue

PIK · February 12, 2016

Waldo I would bet what they say behind close doors is a lot different then what they say publicly.

eyeball · February 12, 2016

As if pointing that out ever mattered when it came to the things politicians do.

Smallc · February 12, 2016

Waldo I would bet what they say behind close doors is a lot different then what they say publicly.

How is that any different than any other time? Harper didn't fund the military as he promised. Do you think the US was ecstatic about that?

cybercoma · February 12, 2016

Who gives a fig what the US thinks? Canada is a sovereign state.

On Guard for Thee · February 12, 2016

Right now we are trying to destroy ISIS. The thing here is at the core liberals are not to brave of a people. They have proved that time and time again, just like now when you people are coming up with every excuse you can think of to get out of this. Canadians want to be in this fight. But the liberals prefer that others carry the load for us. Remember trudeau said we are going have a leaner military, that is liberal speak for we are going to gut it again. Trudeau is in over his head.

Why would you think sitting in an F 18 at 10k feet pushing buttons is braver than being on the ground training soldiers? And do Canadians want to be in this fight? Depends entirely on which poll you read, and what question is asked. There is no quorum. Perhaps Liberals and Canadians are smart as well as brave.

Wilber · February 14, 2016

So we are going to train other people to kill people instead of doing it ourselves, that way our conscience can be clear. Of course then we will lose any control we might have had over who gets killed because of our actions, but that's OK because we won't be the ones actually pulling the trigger.

That's being brave and smart in true Canadian style.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Wilber

eyeball · February 14, 2016

Our government's conscience may be clear but we still got it coming anyway, in spades.

Smallc · February 14, 2016

So we are going to train other people to kill people instead of doing it ourselves, that way our conscience can be clear.

We were already doing that.

eyeball · February 14, 2016

Exactly. Canadians were under the impression Trudeau was going to turn down a different path and away from military involvement in the ME region.

Aside from shuffling a few pawns around a chess board nothing has changed at all and the game plods on.

bush_cheney2004 · February 14, 2016

Exactly. Canadians were under the impression Trudeau was going to turn down a different path and away from military involvement in the ME region.

Why would they think that ? The election has been over for months.

On Guard for Thee · February 14, 2016

The jets are headed home soon, Trudeau did what he said he would. The allies seem quite happy with the alternate plan. Let's wait to see how it works.

GostHacked · February 14, 2016

Because nobody is willing to put troops on the ground to engage them because of internal political consequences.

That's been tried before, and now here we are again because the previous job was not completed.

GostHacked · February 14, 2016

Who gives a fig what the US thinks? Canada is a sovereign state.

So is Syria.

bush_cheney2004 · February 14, 2016

Looks like Canada will have to clean up the mess it made in Libya too. Oh what is a poor Canadian PM to do ?

Topaz · February 14, 2016

Those Canadian fighter jets past their time and parts for them was reported coming out of museums at one time, it would cost too much to keep them going and there is the cost of bombing and Canada has to do what is good for Canada and who cares what anyone thinks. The only party that doesn't like withdrawing of the jets are the Tories.