Canada Shunned by Coalition Allies

[waldo]

A new poll...a new poll!

A new poll suggests that majority of Canadians

bogus headline, bogus representative poll man! The polling is not random; the polling complement of 1500 "adult Canadians" comes only from persons who have chosen to sign-up/register to be a member of the "Angus Reid Internet Forum"... if you register you can win a prize!!!

.

[dialamah]

bogus headline, bogus representative poll man! The polling is not random; the polling complement of 1500 "adult Canadians" comes only from persons who have chosen to sign-up/register to be a member of the "Angus Reid Internet Forum"... if you register you can win a prize!!!

.

I'm on that forum, and I missed the invite! Damn!

[ReeferMadness]

bogus headline, bogus representative poll man! The polling is not random; the polling complement of 1500 "adult Canadians" comes only from persons who have chosen to sign-up/register to be a member of the "Angus Reid Internet Forum"... if you register you can win a prize!!!

I'm not convinced that this is a pressing issue for most Canadians. And from everything I've heard, it matters little to our allies.

[Argus]

A new poll...a new poll!

A new poll suggests that majority of Canadians disagree with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's pledge to withdraw Canada's CF-18 fighter jets by the end of March from the U.S.-led bombing mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Why are Americans always watching Canadian media and talking about Canadian issues anyway? I don't get it...

[Special Delivery]

Canada wasn't the only one not asked Russia has done more in their bombing against ISIS than NATO. I don't think most Canadians really care about this, and the Defence Minister, seems to hold his own and we can't always please everyone, can we?

Once again I have t agree with Topaz. This is a time I think Canada needs to distance themselves from U.S. foreign policy to see if the new incoming Sanders or Trump regime will make the same demands of Canada or find a more effective way to deal with those furious with America's meddling abroad. As I pointed out in another thread, the roots of terrorism are always being ignored in the Western media http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html ALL TERRORISM MUST STOP - NO MATTER WHAT NATION IS SPONSORING IT!

[bush_cheney2004]

Why are Americans always watching Canadian media and talking about Canadian issues anyway? I don't get it...

Off topic....Canadians do it all the time with U.S. media and topics.

[WestCanMan]

Off topic....Canadians do it all the time with U.S. media and topics.

Busted.

[Big Guy]

I'm not convinced that this is a pressing issue for most Canadians. And from everything I've heard, it matters little to our allies.

The only assistance that Canada is giving to this USA created civil war is political cover. The previous governments "Me too USA" foreign policy needs to change to "What's best for Canada" foreign policy. As far as being "shunned" it reminds me of Harper Conservatives deriding Jack Layton with the "Taliban Jack" label years ago. I am sorry he is not here to tell them "I told you so!".

I have no problem with these other countries marching into this cesspool and "shunning" Canada. Let's see where they are in two years.

[WestCanMan]

It seems like the same people who want to stop bombing IS are the same ones who want an open door policy at our border.

Is Islamic state really all that bad? Is it really that big of a deal if a few Canadians are killed by terrorists?

I can pretty much guess your answer if you tell me which party you voted for.

[overthere]

I'm not convinced that this is a pressing issue for most Canadians. And from everything I've heard, it matters little to our allies.

Yes, our allies are very deeply interested in how well we relate and talk, our style, not what we actually do. That is how military alliances have always worked.

[Topaz]

Since it was the US, Britain and others that started this mess in the ME, why shouldn't Canada DO what is in Canada's best INTEREST, since that the line the US always uses. Russia has the #1 jet fighter in the world and now the US is throwing billions and trillions( money they don't really have) towards keeping up with Russia. We don't always agree with friends and family, this is no different. While the US and other countries want to be super powers, Canada just wants to get along with everyone, not fight them.

[overthere]

Since it was the US, Britain and others that started this mess in the ME, why shouldn't Canada DO what is in Canada's best INTEREST, since that the line the US always uses. Russia has the #1 jet fighter in the world and now the US is throwing billions and trillions( money they don't really have) towards keeping up with Russia. We don't always agree with friends and family, this is no different. While the US and other countries want to be super powers, Canada just wants to get along with everyone, not fight them.

With a couple of different place names substituted, that sounds nearly exactly like an interview Neville Chamberlain once gave.

[eyeball]

Yes, our allies are very deeply interested in how well we relate and talk, our style, not what we actually do. That is how military alliances have always worked.

That is how they've also gotten away with being complete sphincters on the global stage. We've said squat, related with them just fine and even participated in a little geopolitical vandalism of our own on occasion.

What we should do is apologize for our misbehaviour and tell our allies to stop being such sphincters and subordinate their armed forces in the ME region to someone with the moral and ethical background required to clean up their mess. That wouldn't be us by the way. I'd suggest people like...Aung San Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama but they're probably busy dealing with more of the same where they live at the hands of the usual suspect buddies of ours.

Friends don't let friends drive drunk for the same reason...it's the very same principle.

[Big Guy]

With a couple of different place names substituted, that sounds nearly exactly like an interview Neville Chamberlain once gave.

It also reminds me of the criticism of Chretien when he refused to join the USA in its invasion of Iraq. Those critics at the time also felt that Canada was letting its greatest friend down.

About 5,000 American military deaths later and about 40,000 wounded American troops later there are still some who think Canada should have "pulled its weight" in Iraq.

The smart ones thank Chretien for all of the Canadian lives he saved by standing up to the USA.

Yet, there are still posters here who have not learned a thing.

[Argus]

It also reminds me of the criticism of Chretien when he refused to join the USA in its invasion of Iraq. Those critics at the time also felt that Canada was letting its greatest friend down.

About 5,000 American military deaths later and about 40,000 wounded American troops later there are still some who think Canada should have "pulled its weight" in Iraq.

The smart ones thank Chretien for all of the Canadian lives he saved by standing up to the USA.

Yet, there are still posters here who have not learned a thing.

You're one of em. Australia went into Iraq and suffered much fewer casualties, proportionate to numbers, than we did in Afghanistan. We' d have been better off in Iraq.

[Queenmandy85]

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

[waldo]

You're one of em. Australia went into Iraq and suffered much fewer casualties, proportionate to numbers, than we did in Afghanistan. We' d have been better off in Iraq.

that's some logic there! Oh wait... you mean it was either/or?

.

[PIK]

Bombing is not over rated if used correctly. With ground troops it works, Without ,it can only slow up the enemy. And if bombing was used correctly in Vietnam, it would have made a huge difference .

[waldo]

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

no shortage of U.S. bombing! In spite of Rona (bomb, baby bomb) Ambrose's caterwauling in continuing to play up the 'token' CF-18 bombing contribution, U.S. officials yesterday were quite praising and enthusiastic over the announced plans for Canada's coalition contribution. No "shunning" - go figure.

.

[waldo]

Bombing is not over rated if used correctly. With ground troops it works

good on ya PIK, good on ya! Since there are no coalition forces "boots on the ground' at present... since the only ground forces are "local military", by your assessment (your identified "correct" assessment), training more of those local forces to "ground boot" is of paramount necessity. Good to read you getting on board the Trudeau Liberal plan for Canada's coalition contribution. Good on ya!

.

[Argus]

that's some logic there! Oh wait... you mean it was either/or?

.

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

[PIK]

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

[Big Guy]

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

Our planes had also been supporting the Turks who were shooting at the Kurds on the ground. And our planes were also supporting the Assad forces who were fighting ISIS - the same enemy we were fighting. They were also supporting ... ?

That is why they are coming back.

[waldo]

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

easy to say; do you have supporting stats that speak to the level of your granularity - stats that can also be used to compare that contribution to the broader U.S. led coalition bombing? Cause I've provided the latter without qualifying the Canadian numbers to your granular level. Your information would be helpful for historical perspective... given the end of that bombing is just weeks away now.

.

[overthere]

Andrew Coyne summarized the contradictory and essentially stupid policy spouted by Trudeau thus:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-now-a-word-from-our-prime-minister-on-canadas-new-role-in-iraq-and-syria

Still, in any mission, you need to make choices, even false ones. We can’t do everything. Rather, in the fight against ISIL we have chosen to do everything except the one thing our allies have asked us to do: fight ISIL. While Canadians have always been prepared to fight, we believe that in this campaign there are better ways we can contribute that build upon our uniquely Canadian expertise. Thus, rather than actually fly the planes ourselves, we will rely on our uniquely Canadian expertise in refuelling planes for others to fly.

Let me be clear. There is a role for bombing — just not by Canadian pilots. After all, combat is not what Canada is all about. Rather, what Canada is all about is standing by while others engage in combat on our behalf. Think of the consequences, if in the course of an airstrike aimed at ISIL one of our brave and talented Canadian pilots were to inadvertently kill a great number of innocent civilians. Whereas merely providing the fuel for the plane that does — along with aerial surveillance, and of course the essential work of identifying targets by our special forces, er, training advisers working on the ground — leaves us wholly uninvolved.

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.

On the same theme, last night The National on CBC had Trudeaus Cheerleader-In_-Chief Peter Mansbridge guidng the chorus. All three of his 'independent panel' just Loved what Justin was doing with this policy. The network and Mansbridge just get more pathetic every day. Sad to see such a once proud network turn into such relentless suckups, in public, every day.