Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Canada's military

513 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

NDPP wrote:

Whatever is ultimately decided certainly won't depend on or reflect the thoughts and wishes of Canadians. Let's get real about where power is and where it is not. This government will do as its elite managers and owners wish, not the country's people. Unless and until they demonstrate their power and willingness to employ it against any leadership that refuses to carry out their wishes.

At present this is not the case and we're only along for the ride.

Who says it doesn't reflect the thoughts and wishes of Canadians? Apparently 70% want us to keep bombing though that could change tomorrow. Even if there are second thoughts about the bombing the vast majority of Canadians want us to be in NATO and want us to fight ISIL.

That doesn't make it the right decision but as far as I can tell Canadians are content to let the goverment do as it pleases between elections short of doing something very radical like ending medicare.

If Trudeau did as you suggest the majority of Canadians would be strongly opposed and angry at Trudeau for surrendering to the terrorists because that is how it would be viewed. People might even demonstrate.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

As an ex Service Man, I am completely opposed to this mindless, stupid, imperialist adventurimsm. This mess happened solely because of Bush. Let him clean it up. Canadians want this? That's the argument? Really? Seems to me that this is an easy thing to say to justify this. Wonder how the view is from the cheap seats? Why is it that people who make this argument are ALWAYS the ones who have never served and have NO understanding of the real cost of this?

monty1

NDPP wrote:

Whatever is ultimately decided certainly won't depend on or reflect the thoughts and wishes of Canadians. Let's get real about where power is and where it is not. This government will do as its elite managers and owners wish, not the country's people. Unless and until they demonstrate their power and willingness to employ it against any leadership that refuses to carry out their wishes.

At present this is not the case and we're only along for the ride.

At present the case is, the government is going along with the people's wishes and so the government could be said to be along for the ride. But the government is going to hop off on the 6 bombers and bring them home and so they won't be going along for the ride. We must face reality for now, and if when March expires the govenrment is still along for the ride then we can say so.

And again, the reason why we aren't going to bomb them anymore over there is so they won't be motivated to kill Canadians over here. Is anybody under any illusions on why the WTC came tumbling down on 811 and the UK was hit on 7/7? If so then try your theories here and see what kind of reception you get!

The reason why Trudeau is taking all the flak from rats like Rex Murphy, the CBC, the Cons, and all the other warmongers is because of one reason only. He's not cooperating with those rats and their efforts to have Canadians killing people with the US in their war. 

Facts are stubborn things.

And so, the reason why the NDP supporters here have joined with those rats is a different reason, granted, and a loftier reason. Politics.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

As an ex Service Man, I am completely opposed to this mindless, stupid, imperialist adventurimsm. This mess happened solely because of Bush. Let him clean it up. Canadians want this? That's the argument? Really? Seems to me that this is an easy thing to say to justify this.

There is no justification for bombing in proximity to civilians by a country which is not under threat.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Why is it that people who make this argument are ALWAYS the ones who have never served and have NO understanding of the real cost of this?

Because our system of government is democratic which in my view beats military dictatorships.

I used to think the end of the draft was a good thing (although it still exists in Canada) but I realized that it was not. When citizens are subject to draft I think they are less likely to approve of military intervention.

But as things stand, the public seems to support some military intervention and the decision to participate is always up to the PM. (I do think that should be changed to parliament.)

As always, we turn to government when it is the people who must be influenced so they will bring pressure to bear on government.

As we have stopped pipelines (so far) so we can also stop military actions, get a basic income programe, stop the privatization of medicare services etc. We can do it all, or could if that represented the will of the people. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

The issue isn't what people want. When the cause is unjust, the government should lead. Trudeau doesn't lead; he follows. He's afraid to lead. Suck up to the Americans Justin and kill civillians. That is just great! Heaven forbid he should act like a Prime Minister.

Paladin1

monty1 wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Is there a point when civilian loss of life reaches a point where Canadian military involvement should supported?

Never!

While I'm lothe to envoke Godwin this makes me wonder if there are people who protested against Canadians deploying in WW1 & WW2.

 

Quote:

There is no other way of saving civilian lives. Aiding the US in their wars ensures that more lives will be lost and more refugees will be bombed out of their homes.

We sacrifice people on the anvil of war in the hopes that by ignoring the current humans suffering the future will see less humans suffering in the future.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well Paladin, I'm against this adventurism in the Middle East. Bush and his pals caused this. Let the Americans clean this up. I'm not interested in making Exon rich.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

 

Governments are supposed to rise above the prejudice of the population. Otherwise we do not have a democracy we have a tyranny of the majority. Determining whether to kill civilians should not be a f'ing popularity contest. If the government was pro-active in addressing the situation from a non intervention perspective they could win the people over. The Liberals supported bill C51 based on polls that showed Canadians loved it, that is until they were educated about it.

Quote:

Canadians are firmly supportive of Bill C-51, the federal government’s proposed anti-terror legislation that contains a range of measures that would, among other things, provide law enforcement agencies with expanded powers.

Four-in-five (82%) adult Canadians surveyed online by the Angus Reid Institute say they support the draft law, with fully one-quarter (25%) saying they “strongly” support C-51.

http://angusreid.org/c51/

 

Here is what Canadian's thought about aboriginal funding after being barraged by negative stories on First Nations finances. Should Harper have cut off funding because of it?

Quote:

The survey found that almost two-thirds of respondents think native Canadians get too much support from taxpayers. Furthermore, 81 per cent believe reserves should not get any more money until external auditors review their finances.

Conversely, only 27 per cent of Canadians believe that federal money spent on reserves is managed well by native leaders and communities. As well, 60 per cent think that most of native peoples’ problems are brought upon by themselves.

Ipsos Reid also surveyed attitudes on some of the key players involved in recent events. National aboriginal leaders, including the Assembly of First Nations, got the highest support, at 51 per cent of respondents. Mr. Harper was a few notches lower, at 46 per cent support. The Idle No More movement received the approval of 38 per cent of those who took the poll while Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence trailed at just 29 per cent.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-attitudes-hardeni...

How long to you think Canada should have waited to legalize same sex marriage if it was based on a popularity contest?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

Of course when we interned the Japanese the governmert said they were acting on the wishes of the people.

Quote:

Previous chroniclers could only speculate on the reasons behind the seven-year exile of Japanese Canadians. When Forrest E. La Violette wrote The Canadian Japanese and World War II 2 in the 1940s, wartime censorship hindered his efforts. In addition, as a sociologist La Violette was primarily interested in the exile of Japanese Canadians as a social phenomenon, one that parallelled a similar exile of Japanese Americans. Accordingly, he accepted the explanation of the government of the day – that it had merely responded to a mistaken but overwhelming surge of public opinion in British Columbia. La Violette was unable – or lacked the interest – to determine how that surge of public opinion materialized, or how it came to be translated into the repressive policies applied to the innocent Japanese.

http://www.japanesecanadianhistory.ca/Politics_of_Racism.pdf

Then there are the views of Candians on other Canadians religions.

Quote:

Those findings leave little doubt that Canadians with a Christian background travel through life benefiting from a broad tendency of their fellow citizens to view their religion more favourably than any other. Across Canada, 72 per cent said they have a “generally favourable opinion” of Christianity. At the other end of the spectrum, Islam scored the lowest favourability rating, just 28 per cent. Sikhism didn’t fare much better at 30 per cent, and Hinduism was rated favourably by 41 per cent. Both Buddhism, at 57 per cent, and Judaism, 53 per cent, were rated favourably by more than half the population—but even Jews and Buddhists might reasonably ask if that’s a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty result.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/what-canadians-think-of-sikhs-jews-ch...

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K, thanks for making this argument. The argument that government is giving people "what they want" rings hollow. Did anyone want a tax cut that goes only to the rich? Did anyone want a war that goes on when promised it woudln't? Did anyone want to elect a PM who says he isn't interested helping working Canadians get a raise? That argument is one that is refuge of people with no counter argument. It isn't anything to do with democracy, its about making apologies for inaction. I guess we can expect plenty of this over the next four years!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The issue isn't what people want. When the cause is unjust, the government should lead. Trudeau doesn't lead; he follows. He's afraid to lead. Suck up to the Americans Justin and kill civillians. That is just great! Heaven forbid he should act like a Prime Minister.

He is leading it just isn't in the direction you want him to. In my opinion he thinks he is doing the right thing. Did you watch the video of Sajjan? He is, or was, an active soldier in Afghanistan. Do you respect him?

Has anyone watched the video?

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Governments are supposed to rise above the prejudice of the population. Otherwise we do not have a democracy we have a tyranny of the majority. Determining whether to kill civilians should not be a f'ing popularity contest. If the government was pro-active in addressing the situation from a non intervention perspective they could win the people over. 

Maybe they could but I think the Liberals do believe that they are doing the right thing in helping the Kurds and their other planned interventions. They also have the support of the people in that. If he were just listening to popular opinion the bombers would stay put.

The Liberals are planning changes to C 51.

Despite the survey you quoted the Liberals are increasing funding to indigenous peoples.

The Liberals are not making all their decisions based on popular opinion however they do have the support of the majority of Canadians in this. When the majority of Canadians and the government are in agreement it is public opinion that must be changed because as long as the public is with the government the government has no reason to change course.

Do you think all the peole who support this military intervention are evil?

Have you watched the video interview yet?

NDPP

Nor do I necessarily accept that somone who only just severed his employment with the military necessarily becomes automatically a champion of peace. I come from a military family and instincts of 'loyalty' even obedience, tend to linger long after. I've heard the same rationale for putting forestry executives in charge of forest ministries and regard it as a very dodgy proposition at best. I certainly understand trying to sell him to us like that though.

As for the proposition that Canadian Forces will help 'stabilize' the region - Jordan and Lebanon were mentioned, I very much doubt, given our history of carrying water for both dog and tail, America and Israel, that Lebanese would appreciate or trust the Canadian lackey to help 'stabilize' their country. The kingdom of Jordan, although more subservient to Israel officially, might not either. I think only Canucklheads would be fooled into thinking we were conducting our own 'independent foreign policy'.

"The Yinon plan is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel reconfigure its geopolitical environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states. Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunnis.

Aside from a divided Iraq which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon...also dissolution in North Africa...spilling over into Sudan, Libya and the rest of the region. Viewed in this context, the war in Syria and Iraq is part of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence, working hand in glove with the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and NATO, is directly supportive of the crusade against the so-called Islamic State, which ultimately seeks to destroy both Syria and Iraq as nation states."        Greater Israel - the Yinon Plan - Israel Shahak/M. Chossudovsky

So since we will likely do what the PTB not we the sheeple decide, as we always do, let us see just how close to this scenario Canada's upcoming 'stabilization' contributions adhere. Time will tell.

As for Washington, the ultimate decider of what will be and what will not with its 'sunny ways' Canadian vassal, Robert Parry of Consortium News analyzed Democratic candidates on Middle East war during their recent debate. His observation and analysis of Hillary Clinton's positions are of obvious relevance. What Sam wants will also weigh heavily on decisions made on our behalf in Ottawa by JT et al.

"No one, it seems wants to risk offending Official Washington's neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment [pro-Israel] that is ready to castigate any candidate who suggests that there are other strategies - besides more and more 'regime changes' that might extricate the United States from the Middle East quicksand.

Late in Thursday's Democratic debate - when the topic of war finally came up - former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continued toeing the neocon line, calling Iran the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world, when that title might objectively go to US [or] 'allies' such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of whom have been aiding Sunni jihadists fighting to overthrow Syria's secular regime.

Israel has also provided help to A/Q's Nusra Front, which has been battling Syrian troops and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters near the Golan Heights - and Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians has played a key role in stirring up hatred and violence in the Middle East.

But Clinton has fully bought into the neocon narrative, not especially a surprise since she voted for the Iraq War, pushed the disastrous Libyan 'regime change' and has sought a 'limited' US invasion of Syria (to prevent the Syrian army from securing its border with Turkey and reclaiming territory from jihadists and other rebels).

'We have to figure out how to deal with Iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world,' Clinton said. They are destabilizing governments in the region by continuing to support Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon against Israel. Arch-neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project For the New American Century, has praised Clinton's aggressive foreign policy..."

Robert Parry: Giving Peace Very Little Chance

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35040-giving-peace-very-l...

If it isn't obvious already, I say again, entry into this great and growing maelstrom of imperialism, militarism and madness is a dangerous folly. It will be far easier to say no now than later. If this requires large numbers of people into the streets so the message is delivered loud enough for Washington or Tel Aviv to hear that Canada is not on for this, so be it. Otherwise, Canadian Forces will do whatever they are told and go wherever they are put. And, once more, we will be along for what will be a very rough ride.

Let it not be so.

 

NDPP

Our Expanded Mission Sure Looks Pretty - But Will It Actually Defeat IS?  - by George Petrolekas

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/our-expanded-mission-sure-looks-p...

The leaked expansion of Canada's Islamic State mission will certainly look pretty on a PowerPoint slide. At least 500 more troops will be sent with a doubling of special forces, a dollop of humanitarian aid and an as yet unclear diplomatic effort.

The enabling aircraft, the refueller and surveillance planes will stay, so we are still part of the air campaign, but look at how much we are doing. Just don't ask too many difficult questions.

In a deficit-challenged environment, costs are going to increase...Add all of those up and the support costs through C-17 flights and other means will be ENORMOUS."

 

This is just the opening act. Expansion is guaranteed. "Costs are going to increase." Here we go again...

Pondering

NDPP wrote:
Nor do I necessarily accept that somone who only just severed his employment with the military necessarily becomes automatically a champion of peace. I come from a military family and instincts of 'loyalty' even obedience, tend to linger long after. I've heard the same rationale for putting forestry executives in charge of forest ministries and regard it as a very dodgy proposition at best. I certainly understand trying to sell him to us like that though. 

I didn't try to sell him that way, only to illustrate that he does have knowledge of what is going on in the mid east and personal experience of war because lack of it is used as a criticism.  

It seems no one here has watched this video about how he rose to his current position.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-as-go-to-guy-in...

I admit it is slow going but it gets more and more interesting as it advances. The associated article does not cover what is in the video.

NDPP wrote:
As for the proposition that Canadian Forces will help 'stabilize' the region - Jordan and Lebanon were mentioned, I very much doubt, given our history of carrying water for both dog and tail, America and Israel, that Lebanese would appreciate or trust the Canadian lackey to help 'stabilize' their country. The kingdom of Jordan, although more subservient to Israel officially, might not either. 

Then they will refuse our help and we won't do it. If they accept our help that seems to be a good thing for us to do.

NDPP wrote:

 I think only Canucklheads would be fooled into thinking we were conducting our own 'independent foreign policy'.

 

Why would they think that when we are part of a coalition and have discussed our plans with them and had specific requests?

NDPP wrote:
Aside from a divided Iraq which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon... 

Then if we help stabilize Lebanon we are undermining the Yinon plan.

NDPP wrote:
So since we will likely do what the PTB not we the sheeple decide, as we always do, let us see just how close to this scenario Canada's upcoming 'stabilization' contributions adhere. Time will tell.

Maybe you are a sheeple just following those who influence you.

NDPP wrote:
  If it isn't obvious already, I say again, entry into this great and growing maelstrom of imperialism, militarism and madness is a dangerous folly. It will be far easier to say no now than later. If this requires large numbers of people into the streets so the message is delivered loud enough for Washington or Tel Aviv to hear that Canada is not on for this, so be it.

That's exactly what it will take.

NDPP wrote:
Otherwise, Canadian Forces will do whatever they are told and go wherever they are put. And, once more, we will be along for what will be a very rough ride. 

That argument and calling people sheeple will not influence many people to your cause.

I read your post right after reading the following article and they have a different take on the situation. The Guardian is not known for being right-wing.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/aleppo-europe-vladi...

While it is certainly true that the US destabilized the region that doesn't change the current facts on the ground.

It is far more complicated than you suggest. If Lebanon and Jordan want our help then stabilizing those countries seems to be the right thing to do from a moral standpoint but I don't know that it is in Canada's best interests to do so. It's a huge mess. For us to withdraw completely and do nothing at all in the fight against ISIL would most certainly come with a huge cost on the international stage. I've no idea if that would hurt us in any tangible way.

Reading that article scares me. I read lots of anti-war stuff on Counterpunch and other places. Then I read articles like in the Guardian. Even though I try to be informed and do understand that the US bears huge responsibility for events I don't know what the best course of action is for Canada.

After having watched that video, I do think that Sajjan is a far better man than I expected to get as Minister of Defence.

Watch the video. Then judge him. I don't expect it to change anyone's mind on the wisdom of our participation.

NDPP

Pondering wrote:

It's a huge mess.

We agree. Forget Sajjan, his merits or demerits are irrelevant. This is a global geostrategic end-game underway. Winner take all.

NDPP

PS: Thanks for that hilariously outrageous piece from The Guardian. You're right it's not known as right-wjng. That's why it works so well on open-minded-confused liberals. It's a perfect liberal honey-trap. Aside from explaining why Syria is all the evil Putin's fault again, I see also the sidebar has Madelaine Albright saying there's a special place in hell for women who don't support Clinton.

Keep reading the Guardian, it's a big winner among babblers and explained to them why R2P was necessary to stop Gadaffi killing his own people and why we have to support the 'Revolution of Dignity' in Ukraine. Keep reading it and you'll soon know exactly why you have to support the escalating costs of Canadian involvement in the Middle East and why it is absolutely right and necessary too.Wink

iyraste1313

I'd like to hear what people think we should do. Just withdraw all our miltary personnel and keep them in Canada?

...first fire the upper management of the CBC responsible for the lies and deceptions...use the money to do actual reporting, so that Canadians may wake up from their brainwash!

...second go after the complicit and material support for the mercenaries of ISIS ad nauseum on the ground......call in the ambassadors of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Isreal and the USA to warn them not another drop of support for the mercenaries anywhere...drop all weapons  support!

....where the people rising up as in the case of the self defence forces of Rojava, make agreements for technical support to rebuild their territories...but please keep your corporate ecociders out of the picture!

Yes...teach our military how to grow food organic, how to understand populist movements, lend support to their populist militias, be activists on the ground to rebuild their territories

Yes and teach our military about international law, Nuremberg principles so they can go to bat for the people to bring the war criminals in Washington, Langley Tel Aviv et al to Court to put these sociopaths where they belong....

...of course just a partial list

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

The Liberals are not making all their decisions based on popular opinion however they do have the support of the majority of Canadians in this. When the majority of Canadians and the government are in agreement it is public opinion that must be changed because as long as the public is with the government the government has no reason to change course.

Indeed they are not making all their decisions based on popular opinion. It seems that the popular opinion meme is just another shell game to hide the fact that they have no foreign policy of their own and like Harper will fall into step with the Commander in Chief. The only difference is Trudeau smiles and tries to sell war crimes as mothers milk while Harper was belligerent. These sales were wrong when Harper was in power and they are still wrong. As you say though its not like Trudeau is following public opinion on all issues.

Quote:

A poll by Nanos Research suggests most Canadians consider the massive arms sale out of line with Canada’s values and believe human rights should trump jobs. The survey showed nearly six in 10 feel it is more important to ensure arms go only to countries “that respect human rights” than it is to support 3,000 jobs by selling weaponized armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia.

A spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion declined to comment on the poll on Friday.

The Canadian government is the prime contractor in the deal to sell combat vehicles with machine guns and anti-tank cannons to the Saudi force that protects the Mideast kingdom’s monarchy from internal threats. The deal is expected to include upward of 1,000 fighting vehicles, plus service and training.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-face-court-challe...

monty1

NDPP wrote:

Our Expanded Mission Sure Looks Pretty - But Will It Actually Defeat IS?  - by George Petrolekas

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/our-expanded-mission-sure-looks-p...

The leaked expansion of Canada's Islamic State mission will certainly look pretty on a PowerPoint slide. At least 500 more troops will be sent with a doubling of special forces, a dollop of humanitarian aid and an as yet unclear diplomatic effort.

The enabling aircraft, the refueller and surveillance planes will stay, so we are still part of the air campaign, but look at how much we are doing. Just don't ask too many difficult questions.

In a deficit-challenged environment, costs are going to increase...Add all of those up and the support costs through C-17 flights and other means will be ENORMOUS."

 

This is just the opening act. Expansion is guaranteed. "Costs are going to increase." Here we go again...

Quoting ol George must put a bad taste in your mouth NDPP, but I understand it's good politics. He has so many serious doubts on whether the war on ISIS can be accomplished by not directly killing people over there. 

My own personal comments on his article would have been something like: Well this is encouraging and makes me feel safter already! If Georige is getting mad about it there must be 'something' good about the change of policy!

edit: maybe he has a point on the cost? but then on the other hand, does he want it to cost more or less? 

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's a huge mess.

We agree. Forget Sajjan, his merits or demerits are irrelevant. This is a global geostrategic end-game underway. Winner take all.

Has there ever not been a global geostrategic end-game underway?  Winner take all? Like, say, back to the days of Rome?

What people here seem to be proposing is just close our doors to the world and forget about it. To me that is no different than saying I know, lets pass a law saying we must have a rainbow everyday!

I like to live in the world of feasible. Maybe over time you could convince the government directly or Canadians in general that we should be like Switzerland. Maybe you could even do it in five or ten years but you would have to do a lot more to make it happen. The reality is, at the very least, we will be involved for the next five years and our military won't be disbanded anytime soon. It's not a matter of "if" we will be involved. That part is decided. We are.

It worries me that Bill Monreau is the Finance Minister because it indicates whose advice Trudeau is taking. Crystia Freeland's position on trade deals is also worrisome.

From my perspective the fact that no one seems to be interested in our Minister of Defence suggests they don't want to be directly informed. They are just as "sheeple" as everyone else. Just following a different leader.

Comments on the stablilization of Jordan and Lebanon at their invitation that suggests we are invading them as happened in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq illustrates ignorance of world affairs. I don't pretend I have all the answers or that I understand the Middle East and China and Russia. Neither does Trudeau for that matter. The only people that understand all of that are people who have been studying it professionally for decades.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-as-go-to-guy-in...

I thought the video above could prompt some interesting discussion aside from just "make love not war" type sloganeering.

Paladin1

The Angus Reid Institute is reporting running a poll and  the majority of Canadians support the bombing missing in Iraq and Syria. It reports that the majority of Canadians disagree with Trudeau's plan to pull the fighters out. 

monty1

Paladin1 wrote:

The Angus Reid Institute is reporting running a poll and  the majority of Canadians support the bombing missing in Iraq and Syria. It reports that the majority of Canadians disagree with Trudeau's plan to pull the fighters out. 

I think most people already know that but the point of running another poll to prove it is to drive the point home to the people of Canada. The point being, Trudeau is a fu--ing surrender monkey who doesn't agree that bombing is a good thing to do to people in foreign lands and we must continue so we kill all those ISIS bad guys. (that the US created)

Thanks for mentioning it! Ya can't make this shit up!

swallow swallow's picture

The majority of Canadians also supproted Bill C-51, until the debate developed, and then they didn't. So a poll is not a clincher of much. 

I think there's a false assumption operating. The Daeash are bad news. Somethig needs to eb done. Bombing is something, so let's do that, some argue. 

But when bombing makes things worse, then it may not be a good plan. The evidence is that bombing has made things worse in the Middle East in most cases. 

On the other hand, things can be done. Trudeau's photo-op welcoming refugees, I think, probably did far more to harm Daesh prospects than any number of bombs. 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

The Angus Reid Institute is reporting running a poll and  the majority of Canadians support the bombing missing in Iraq and Syria. It reports that the majority of Canadians disagree with Trudeau's plan to pull the fighters out. 

It seems that the majority of Canadians do not support selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Strange how the poll that justifies war will likely be cited time and time again as a rationale but the other will not be something the government needs to concern itself with.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So, we sell weapons to the Saudis and bomb the hell out of Civillians. Boy we Canadian are a peaceful lot! Great Job following in Pearson's footsteps, Justin! You SO rock!

Pondering

AC, I am particularly surprised that you won't give a military man that has seen action the opportunity to win your respect as an individual.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It seems that the majority of Canadians do not support selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Strange how the poll that justifies war will likely be cited time and time again as a rationale but the other will not be something the government needs to concern itself with.

The poll doesn't justify war. Even though Trudeau knows that the majority of Canadians want us to keep bombing someone has influenced him to think that is not a good idea and he is following that advice rather than doing what Canadians want.

Don't you wonder who that could be?

 

monty1

Pondering wrote:

AC, I am particularly surprised that you won't give a military man that has seen action the opportunity to win your respect as an individual.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It seems that the majority of Canadians do not support selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Strange how the poll that justifies war will likely be cited time and time again as a rationale but the other will not be something the government needs to concern itself with.

The poll doesn't justify war. Even though Trudeau knows that the majority of Canadians want us to keep bombing someone has influenced him to think that is not a good idea and he is following that advice rather than doing what Canadians want.

Don't you wonder who that could be?

 

I just have to comment on that one Pondering. It's nobody. It's Trudeau's own choice and it doesn't have to come from an adviser. It's very simple to figure out that if it 'appears' that we're not killing them over there then they won't want to kill us over here. 

And the vindication *we get for taking the position of supporting pulling out the 6 bombers is that the Conservatives just hate it and all their supporters in the media just hate it too. And even though we know that there has to be a lot more creepy warmongers who want to keep them in but can't be honest about it because their party would show division if they did. I can think of two of the main parties that would apply to. It has to mean something. It has to make a difference. If not then Trudeau could relent to the pressure on some kind of pretext and who would hate him for it?

*assuming you want the bombers to be pulled out.  

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

The poll doesn't justify war. Even though Trudeau knows that the majority of Canadians want us to keep bombing someone has influenced him to think that is not a good idea and he is following that advice rather than doing what Canadians want.

Don't you wonder who that could be?

He is in a good position to reneg on his promise to (finally) return the CF18s back to Canada. He can easily justify it by saying with coming influx of Canadian soldiers in the region it only makes sense to have Canadian aircraft supporting them.

CF18s already assisted in repelling a large scale surprise ISIS attack against our allies with embedded Canadian soldiers.

If a Canadian soldier is killed after the CF18s are moved back to Canada the conservatives will fall over themselves in a race to proclaim how the Canadians life may have been saved if we just kept the Canadian jets in country.

monty1

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The poll doesn't justify war. Even though Trudeau knows that the majority of Canadians want us to keep bombing someone has influenced him to think that is not a good idea and he is following that advice rather than doing what Canadians want.

Don't you wonder who that could be?

He is in a good position to reneg on his promise to (finally) return the CF18s back to Canada. He can easily justify it by saying with coming influx of Canadian soldiers in the region it only makes sense to have Canadian aircraft supporting them.

CF18s already assisted in repelling a large scale surprise ISIS attack against our allies with embedded Canadian soldiers.

If a Canadian soldier is killed after the CF18s are moved back to Canada the conservatives will fall over themselves in a race to proclaim how the Canadians life may have been saved if we just kept the Canadian jets in country.

Well said and well thought out Paladin!

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

I just have to comment on that one Pondering. It's nobody. It's Trudeau's own choice and it doesn't have to come from an adviser. It's very simple to figure out that if it 'appears' that we're not killing them over there then they won't want to kill us over here. 

Trudeau, as PM, has the final say.I am pretty much 99.999% sure he would discuss this decision with advisors.

I also think that choice of advisors can indicate something about the person choosing them.

His choices of Moreau and Freeland for finance and trade as well as his recent comments concerning minimum wage tells me he is sadly in thrall of right wing economic theory.

His choice of Sajjan tells me something different about him. I think Sajjans comments about mistakes made in Afghanistan and the failure of the war on terror is shocking enough for people who are genuinely interested in what our military is doing to want to get to know him a bit better rather than just ranting and saying the same things over and over and over again as though saying bombing is bad one more time is going to convince anyone of anything.

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

AC, I am particularly surprised that you won't give a military man that has seen action the opportunity to win your respect as an individual.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It seems that the majority of Canadians do not support selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Strange how the poll that justifies war will likely be cited time and time again as a rationale but the other will not be something the government needs to concern itself with.

The poll doesn't justify war. Even though Trudeau knows that the majority of Canadians want us to keep bombing someone has influenced him to think that is not a good idea and he is following that advice rather than doing what Canadians want.

Don't you wonder who that could be?

 

Pondering, please civy, stop patronzing me. When I was in the Service, Civy, I didn't go "Ready Aye Ready" every single time. This has nothing to do with "giving" anyone a chance. This has to do with keeping a promise. It doesn't matter; people clearly thought the Libs would pull out. The Libs lied to get votes. Make no mistake about it Pondering, this impacts peoples lives. You don't seemt to get, or frankly, understand it, civy.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, please civy, stop patronzing me. When I was in the Service, Civy, I didn't go "Ready Aye Ready" every single time. This has nothing to do with "giving" anyone a chance. This has to do with keeping a promise. It doesn't matter; people clearly thought the Libs would pull out. The Libs lied to get votes. Make no mistake about it Pondering, this impacts peoples lives. You don't seemt to get, or frankly, understand it, civy.

And saying that over and over again is going to do what?

I didn't suggest you say "ready aye ready". I suggested you get to know him better because I thought he is someone you might even admire. I still think you would have admired him but I no longer believe you would ever give him a fair hearing.

If anyone thought Trudeau had taken the same stand as the NDP it's because they didn't bother to inform themselves. Trudeau clearly said multiple times, every time the subject came up, that Canada would still be involved and be part of the coalition against ISIL and that we would increase our participation. 

 

NDPP

Just so it's clear, the jets' contribution was miniscule. As I recall they didn't drop more than 500 bombs in the whole year and a half there. So JT will now exchange a mission almost over for an even more substantial 'enormously expensive' commitment, twice the special forces (which aren't going there just for 'training', no matter what they tell you) and the strong probability this is only the thin edge of the wedge.

 ISUS is not their real enemy. That's what they tell the schmucks. Russia is.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, please civy, stop patronzing me. When I was in the Service, Civy, I didn't go "Ready Aye Ready" every single time. This has nothing to do with "giving" anyone a chance. This has to do with keeping a promise. It doesn't matter; people clearly thought the Libs would pull out. The Libs lied to get votes. Make no mistake about it Pondering, this impacts peoples lives. You don't seemt to get, or frankly, understand it, civy.

And saying that over and over again is going to do what?

I didn't suggest you say "ready aye ready". I suggested you get to know him better because I thought he is someone you might even admire. I still think you would have admired him but I no longer believe you would ever give him a fair hearing.

If anyone thought Trudeau had taken the same stand as the NDP it's because they didn't bother to inform themselves. Trudeau clearly said multiple times, every time the subject came up, that Canada would still be involved and be part of the coalition against ISIL and that we would increase our participation. 

 

He's a Liberal. Nope. You've convinced me Liberals aren't worthy of admiration or trust; they're just overly ambitous know it alls who think they knwo what is best for everyone.

Todrick of Chat...

Arthur Cramer wrote:

He's a Liberal. Nope. You've convinced me Liberals aren't worthy of admiration or trust; they're just overly ambitous know it alls who think they knwo what is best for everyone.

How is this different than any other political party or organization? Everyone wants to be in power and control other people. 

Pondering

As I said, you are too prejudice to give him a fair hearing so it would be a complete waste of time.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

He's a Liberal. Nope. You've convinced me Liberals aren't worthy of admiration or trust; they're just overly ambitous know it alls who think they knwo what is best for everyone.

How is this different than any other political party or organization? Everyone wants to be in power and control other people. 

I don't have to admire a guy for doing his job. Bravo for doing your job. Congratulations!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

As I said, you are too prejudice to give him a fair hearing so it would be a complete waste of time.

I don't understand what he is doing differently than his predecessor. He sure seems to be taking his lead from the same people he said did such a bad job in Afghanistan. When he starts making the connections between our allies the Turks and Saudi's and ISIS and other terrorists I will listen very carefully. In the meantime we are about to go to war in a sovereign nation and most likely will end up doing more harm than good. It is not our place to invade Syria and it will end badly. At best we will take some territory in Syria and then what? Its not like NATO will then hand it over to the government of Syria. The Saudi's and Turks would love to carve up Syria and take the oil leaving the people with a foreign occupation and no functioning central government. You know just like Libya and Afghanistan and Yemen.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

As I said, you are too prejudice to give him a fair hearing so it would be a complete waste of time.

I don't understand what he is doing differently than his predecessor. He sure seems to be taking his lead from the same people he said did such a bad job in Afghanistan. When he starts making the connections between our allies the Turks and Saudi's and ISIS and other terrorists I will listen very carefully. In the meantime we are about to go to war in a sovereign nation and most likely will end up doing more harm than good. It is not our place to invade Syria and it will end badly. At best we will take some territory in Syria and then what? Its not like NATO will then hand it over to the government of Syria. The Saudi's and Turks would love to carve up Syria and take the oil leaving the people with a foreign occupation and no functioning central government. You know just like Libya and Afghanistan and Yemen.

Well if none of you will watch the video you will not understand so to me it seems like you are choosing not to understand.

Are we in Syria? Aren't we with the Iraqi Kurds? I understand we have done some bombing in Syria but the plan is to stop doing that.

I have done a bit of reading in the Syria thread. There are no good guys. Destabilizing Assad's regime is a bad idea for the same reason taking Gaddafi out was a bad idea. Miserable as the citizens were/are pure chaos follows which is not better.

I think it's fine to have idealistic goals but in terms of immediate plans and what I hope for within the near future I find it's better to be realistic.

Somewhere about 11% of Canadians want us to pull out entirely. Support for pulling out would have to be far higher to have any chance of success.

We aren't going to ally ourselves with Russia and the 4+1. For the foreseeable future, probably at least a century, the US will be our closest ally next to the UK.  That doesn't mean we have to participate or support everything they do. Under the Liberals we did invade Afghanistan but we did not invade Iraq. In the invasion of Afghanistan we took responsibility for specific areas rather than embedding ourselves in the US Military. Under Harper things have been very different. I don't think Chretien would have participated in the invasion of Libya nor bombed Syria.

It is obvious from the number above that 90% of Canadians want us to stay in the fight against ISIL. That is huge and pretty much guarantees we will not be pulling out. There is 70% resistence to pulling out the CF 18s. It is true that polls change as they have on C 51 but this has been going on for a long time it isn't something people just heard about. To pull out the CF 18s before we replace them with something else would be much more difficult than pulling them out as we are taking on a different role.

So, working from the standpoint we will participate some roles are better than others. We need specific and finite goals that we can achieve independently even as part of a coalition.

We are with the Kurds at their request. We are not an invasion force. We are helping them defend their land and take back places that were conquered by ISIS.  I have a hard time seeing that as morally wrong. We may even be acting as a deterrent to invasion by Turkey.

If Jordan and Lebanon want our help stabilizing their countries so they don't slide into the chaos of Syria, Libya and Iraq that also seems morally defensible to me.

I understand that people here want us out completely and I am sympathetic to that view point. I would like us to be Switzerland. I want us out of the arms industry too. I just don't have any expectations of that happening anytime soon so it is a matter of making the best out of a bad situation.

The video is not that big a deal. It's just an interview in which he talks about how he became a police officer and how interacting with gangs led him to intelligence work which led him into the armed forces after which he touches on his experiences in Afghanistan but it does offer a lot of insight into what makes him tick and his character in general. I would think that even if you hated his guts you would want to know about the man who is leading our military participation.

But, I don't mind that none of you will watch it because you would only return with snide put-downs anyway.

Paladin1

monty1 wrote:

Well said and well thought out Paladin!

Thank you Monty.

 

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I don't have to admire a guy for doing his job. Bravo for doing your job. Congratulations!

 

Quote:
In doing what we ought we deserve no praise for it is out duty.
  ;)

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

As I said, you are too prejudice to give him a fair hearing so it would be a complete waste of time.

I don't understand what he is doing differently than his predecessor. He sure seems to be taking his lead from the same people he said did such a bad job in Afghanistan. When he starts making the connections between our allies the Turks and Saudi's and ISIS and other terrorists I will listen very carefully. In the meantime we are about to go to war in a sovereign nation and most likely will end up doing more harm than good. It is not our place to invade Syria and it will end badly. At best we will take some territory in Syria and then what? Its not like NATO will then hand it over to the government of Syria. The Saudi's and Turks would love to carve up Syria and take the oil leaving the people with a foreign occupation and no functioning central government. You know just like Libya and Afghanistan and Yemen.

Well if none of you will watch the video you will not understand so to me it seems like you are choosing not to understand.

Are we in Syria? Aren't we with the Iraqi Kurds? I understand we have done some bombing in Syria but the plan is to stop doing that.

I have done a bit of reading in the Syria thread. There are no good guys. Destabilizing Assad's regime is a bad idea for the same reason taking Gaddafi out was a bad idea. Miserable as the citizens were/are pure chaos follows which is not better.

I think it's fine to have idealistic goals but in terms of immediate plans and what I hope for within the near future I find it's better to be realistic.

Somewhere about 11% of Canadians want us to pull out entirely. Support for pulling out would have to be far higher to have any chance of success.

We aren't going to ally ourselves with Russia and the 4+1. For the foreseeable future, probably at least a century, the US will be our closest ally next to the UK.  That doesn't mean we have to participate or support everything they do. Under the Liberals we did invade Afghanistan but we did not invade Iraq. In the invasion of Afghanistan we took responsibility for specific areas rather than embedding ourselves in the US Military. Under Harper things have been very different. I don't think Chretien would have participated in the invasion of Libya nor bombed Syria.

It is obvious from the number above that 90% of Canadians want us to stay in the fight against ISIL. That is huge and pretty much guarantees we will not be pulling out. There is 70% resistence to pulling out the CF 18s. It is true that polls change as they have on C 51 but this has been going on for a long time it isn't something people just heard about. To pull out the CF 18s before we replace them with something else would be much more difficult than pulling them out as we are taking on a different role.

So, working from the standpoint we will participate some roles are better than others. We need specific and finite goals that we can achieve independently even as part of a coalition.

We are with the Kurds at their request. We are not an invasion force. We are helping them defend their land and take back places that were conquered by ISIS.  I have a hard time seeing that as morally wrong. We may even be acting as a deterrent to invasion by Turkey.

If Jordan and Lebanon want our help stabilizing their countries so they don't slide into the chaos of Syria, Libya and Iraq that also seems morally defensible to me.

I understand that people here want us out completely and I am sympathetic to that view point. I would like us to be Switzerland. I want us out of the arms industry too. I just don't have any expectations of that happening anytime soon so it is a matter of making the best out of a bad situation.

The video is not that big a deal. It's just an interview in which he talks about how he became a police officer and how interacting with gangs led him to intelligence work which led him into the armed forces after which he touches on his experiences in Afghanistan but it does offer a lot of insight into what makes him tick and his character in general. I would think that even if you hated his guts you would want to know about the man who is leading our military participation.

But, I don't mind that none of you will watch it because you would only return with snide put-downs anyway.

Actually, you DO mind Pondering; that's the basis of your post. It's about duty Civy. No one told him to sign up.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Well if none of you will watch the video you will not understand so to me it seems like you are choosing not to understand.

So you start off with a strawman argument. I watched the video and it didn't impress me nor make me think he is anything but an imperial soldier ready to do what his superiors think is best.

We are stopping the bombing but instead are sending our forces to refuel the jets of our allies who are bombing. That is just pure double speak. Trudeau is showing that he is a quick study in the art of disinformation. There are various Kurdish groups fighting ISIS and we are doing nothing to support the Syrian Kurds who are currently doing most of the heavy fighting. In fact the Liberals have not even spoken out against the Turkish attacks against both the Syrian Kurds and the Kurdish people who live in Turkey. Just like the Saudi's they turn a blind eye to the actions of their allies and condemn the actions of anyone who opposes the Western grab for hegemony in the region.

 We have gone back to being a colonial state and are unwilling to set an independent foreign policy and I object to that even if the majority of Canadians are fine with it. The reason I come to this site is to talk with people who oppose the global domination agenda of the Western oligarchy, why do you come here? Ready Aye Ready for POTUS and country appears to be our ruling elites new mantra.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

I just have to comment on that one Pondering. It's nobody. It's Trudeau's own choice and it doesn't have to come from an adviser. It's very simple to figure out that if it 'appears' that we're not killing them over there then they won't want to kill us over here. 

Trudeau, as PM, has the final say.I am pretty much 99.999% sure he would discuss this decision with advisors.

I also think that choice of advisors can indicate something about the person choosing them.

His choices of Moreau and Freeland for finance and trade as well as his recent comments concerning minimum wage tells me he is sadly in thrall of right wing economic theory.

His choice of Sajjan tells me something different about him. I think Sajjans comments about mistakes made in Afghanistan and the failure of the war on terror is shocking enough for people who are genuinely interested in what our military is doing to want to get to know him a bit better rather than just ranting and saying the same things over and over and over again as though saying bombing is bad one more time is going to convince anyone of anything.

 

 

I'm not sure if you are aggreeing or disagreeing with what I said. Sure he talks to advisers but there's little doubt that he has spearheaded the move to bring those 6 bombers home. And that was before he chose Sajjan, but admittedly he could have been having conversations with Sajjan long before the Liberal victory.

But make sure to put some empahasis on the most important point to make with our fellow socialists around here and that is the amount of noise being made by Trudeau's opponents on the left as well as the right, tell us that the change of mission is hugely important. It's all about Canada appearing to be totally in cahoots with the US led wars. And I'll remind them again, the US has 13,000 war planes with which to do the job of killing people with bombs.

Did you hear Mansbridge again last night try to trick Trudeau into saying that he is morally opposed to bombing. Trudeau found a good answer for the creep that left no doubt that he is morally opposed but he said it in a way that Mansbridge couldn't use. Instead, Mansbridge took his words and changed them to say that he isn't morallly opposed. The games of the rabid right!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1

Pondering said:

Quote:
I understand that people here want us out completely and I am sympathetic to that view point. I would like us to be Switzerland. I want us out of the arms industry too. I just don't have any expectations of that happening anytime soon so it is a matter of making the best out of a bad situation.

Well said! Your entire message but that stood out as saying it all. The rest can sit on their asses and bitch and complain and accomplish nothing but your sensible message will get through to some people at least and we hope, will do that tiny bit of good that we are capalble of doing on this board.

As long as the right and the left keep screaming at Trudeau's intentions of bring the 6 bombers home then we know he's doing something right.

because: All of us on this board are united in saying: If we stop killing them over there then the won't want to kill us over here.

And if they don't like that then they can call us SURRENDER MONKEYS.

https://www.google.ca/search?tbs=simg:CAES5wEa5AELEKjU2AQaAghDDAsQsIynCB...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

monty1 wrote:

Pondering said:

Quote:
I understand that people here want us out completely and I am sympathetic to that view point. I would like us to be Switzerland. I want us out of the arms industry too. I just don't have any expectations of that happening anytime soon so it is a matter of making the best out of a bad situation.

Well said! Your entire message but that stood out as saying it all. The rest can sit on their asses and bitch and complain and accomplish nothing but your sensible message will get through to some people at least and we hope, will do that tiny bit of good that we are capalble of doing on this board.

As long as the right and the left keep screaming at Trudeau's intentions of bring the 6 bombers home then we know he's doing something right.

because: All of us on this board are united in saying: If we stop killing them over there then the won't want to kill us over here.

And if they don't like that then they can call us SURRENDER MONKEYS.

https://www.google.ca/search?tbs=simg:CAES5wEa5AELEKjU2AQaAghDDAsQsIynCB...

When are you enlisting Monty? Make sure to take Pondering with you! It's Justin calling! Ready, Aye, Ready, for you! Off you go then!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Get the popcorn out. Arthur versus Monty the mother of all battles.

 

CoolWink

monty1

Arthur Cramer wrote:
monty1 wrote:

Pondering said:

Quote:
I understand that people here want us out completely and I am sympathetic to that view point. I would like us to be Switzerland. I want us out of the arms industry too. I just don't have any expectations of that happening anytime soon so it is a matter of making the best out of a bad situation.

Well said! Your entire message but that stood out as saying it all. The rest can sit on their asses and bitch and complain and accomplish nothing but your sensible message will get through to some people at least and we hope, will do that tiny bit of good that we are capalble of doing on this board.

As long as the right and the left keep screaming at Trudeau's intentions of bring the 6 bombers home then we know he's doing something right.

because: All of us on this board are united in saying: If we stop killing them over there then the won't want to kill us over here.

And if they don't like that then they can call us SURRENDER MONKEYS.

https://www.google.ca/search?tbs=simg:CAES5wEa5AELEKjU2AQaAghDDAsQsIynCB...

When are you enlisting Monty? Make sure to take Pondering with you! It's Justin calling! Ready, Aye, Ready, for you! Off you go then!

What on earth are you talking about Arthur? Hey Arthur, see that link? That's how you upstage somebody and what occupation above all others never allows themselves to be upstaged? Ya think Arthur?

And Arthur, don't let yourself fall into the same trap. Haha, you would have to be pretty dumb if you did!

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
So you start off with a strawman argument. I watched the video and it didn't impress me nor make me think he is anything but an imperial soldier ready to do what his superiors think is best. 

Then I am sorry you wasted your time. Even though he is a soldier the video showed me that he is not a warmonger and he genuinely believes in reducing violence and has respect for the people wherever he goes be it a gang neighbourhood or Afghanistan. Especially the story about how a stolen bicycle changed the course of the war and the difference it made that he is Sikh.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
We are stopping the bombing but instead are sending our forces to refuel the jets of our allies who are bombing. That is just pure double speak. Trudeau is showing that he is a quick study in the art of disinformation. There are various Kurdish groups fighting ISIS and we are doing nothing to support the Syrian Kurds who are currently doing most of the heavy fighting.

I thought you didn't want us in Syria and the bombs, while being the wrong tool, are intended to help the Syrian Kurds defeat ISIS.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In fact the Liberals have not even spoken out against the Turkish attacks against both the Syrian Kurds and the Kurdish people who live in Turkey. Just like the Saudi's they turn a blind eye to the actions of their allies and condemn the actions of anyone who opposes the Western grab for hegemony in the region.

From what I can tell ISIS was used as an excuse by the US to displace Russia's influence or power in the region while Russia is trying to maintain or take back areas where they used to be the strongest power.

Nevertheless ISIS does have to be stopped. I feel very sorry for the people in the region. Nothing Canada does or doesn't do or says or doesn't say is going to stop the US or Russia. If we stop refueling planes, they will still get refueled.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
  We have gone back to being a colonial state and are unwilling to set an independent foreign policy and I object to that even if the majority of Canadians are fine with it. 

We are setting an independent foreign policy based on our own interests. One of those interests is our relationships with our allies.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The reason I come to this site is to talk with people who oppose the global domination agenda of the Western oligarchy, why do you come here? Ready Aye Ready for POTUS and country appears to be our ruling elites new mantra.

If we were obeying POTUS we would be bombing and putting twice as much money into defence. I'm against the global domination of elites but I also recognize the complexity of global affairs. There is no doubt in my mind that the US is responsible for the destabilization of the mid east, that they failed to support the Egyptian/Arab spring instead supporting a military dictatorship. One of our greatest sins is our support for Israel.

You say you come here to talk to people who oppose the global domination agenda which is fine. Gripe sessions can be good. We have certainly needed plenty of those during the Harper years and will need the same for the Trudeau years. Venting is healthy. I still like to get beyond venting to talking about how we get from here to there rather than shouting make love not war over and over again as though it will have any impact at all on the well-being of people in war-torn regions.

90% of Canadians want us to stay involved. Even if we assume the other 10% are all NDP supporters it shows that even the majority on the leftish side in Canada support our involvement. I'm pretty sure that babble doesn't want to define progressiveness as including only 10% of Canadians. That would be a very narrow definition. If you can only interact respectfully with 10% of Canadians you lose and the right wins.

 

swallow swallow's picture

Oh, it's 90% now? 

[url=http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/item/2245-63-of-canadians-opposed-t... of Canadians opposed to non-existent government program that gives Syrian refugees free iPhones[/url]

Pages