Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Canada's military

513 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

 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.

Please cite the poll with its actual questions and methodology that shows 90% of Canadians support your views.

You are right Pondering shouting Make Love not War is not going to change a thing in the Middle East. Military intervention on the other hand has and will continue to change the area. Since a picture is worth a thousand words here are some to show you what I am against.  Since we are throwing around Vietnam War era slogans I must say I still think that fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

According to your logic people should have supported the American involvement in Vietnam because the majority of Americans supported it. If you don't see the absurdity of that argument maybe the pictures will help.

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

monty1 wrote:

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!

Ok, if you're saying Trudeau is wrong, I apologize. If on the other hand you agree other zpondering's assertion it's ok cuz 90% of Canadians support slaughtering civilians, go enlist in the Ait Force and take your Peacenik buddy, Pondering, with you!

That's the LPC way now, let's go slaughter civilians? Thanks but no thanks.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
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!

I would never enlist in a million years but I don't judge people who do.

Canada regularly participates in off-shore violence. People who sign up for military service know this or should. They, including you, know that you will be training to kill people. I don't judge you for choosing to be trained to kill but it isn't something I would want to do.

It is politicians, not the military, who decides where that killing of people is going to happen and who is going to get killed. That too is known when you sign up. The military are just the hired guns. I think it's pretty hypocritical to sign up as a hired gun then be surprised because you're expected to use your training.

If you join the military with the expectation of never using the killing techniques you were trained in then you are ripping off Canadians and accepting money under false pretences.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
  Ok, if you're saying Trudeau is wrong, I apologize. If on the other hand you agree other zpondering's assertion it's ok cuz 90% of Canadians support slaughtering civilians, go enlist in the Ait Force and take your Peacenik buddy, Pondering, with you! That's the LPC way now, let's go slaughter civilians? Thanks but no thanks.

Why do you have to lie about me and other Canadians? You are the one who signed up to be trained to kill not me.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:
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!

No I didn't. I spend a lot of time looking for it online but couldn't.

I have noticed on more than one occasion the press misrepresenting Trudeau or trying to get him to say something damaging.

Pondering

Going against the will of the majority of Canadians Trudeau is withdrawing the CF 18s by February 22nd at the latest.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/08/canada-to-end-bombing-miss...

...two surveillance aircraft and an air-to-air refueller jet will continue.

...Canada will triple the number of the military trainers. (note, from 69 now)

...the government will deploy medical personnel to provide training to Iraqi forces in how to treat battlefield casualties

...Canada will also provide weapons — small arms, ammunition and optics — to help with the training of local forces.

...Ottawa will earmark $840 million over three years to provide shelter, food, health care and other essentials (for refugees).

...$270 million will go towards improving local capacity in education, health, water and sanitation.

...the complement of military personnel dedicated to the mission rise to 830, up from 650 now.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

Going against the will of the majority of Canadians Trudeau is withdrawing the CF 18s by February 22nd at the latest.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/08/canada-to-end-bombing-miss...

...two surveillance aircraft and an air-to-air refueller jet will continue.

...Canada will triple the number of the military trainers. (note, from 69 now)

...the government will deploy medical personnel to provide training to Iraqi forces in how to treat battlefield casualties

...Canada will also provide weapons — small arms, ammunition and optics — to help with the training of local forces.

...Ottawa will earmark $840 million over three years to provide shelter, food, health care and other essentials (for refugees).

...$270 million will go towards improving local capacity in education, health, water and sanitation.

...the complement of military personnel dedicated to the mission rise to 830, up from 650 now.

I won't say excellent but still, very good. The bulk of it is in humanitarian aid and it's about as good as Trudeau could demsnd of the harks within the Liberal caucus. That is, after it took Harper to turn 70% of Canadians into hawks who want to go bombing.

When we stop killing them over there, they will stop wanting to kill us over here!

Turdeau is going to pay big for this and guess who the ignorant asses will be who are at the center of the jeering and gnashing of teeth. 

So let us begin and we'll hear how every ass loves his own bray. 

swallow swallow's picture

No no, it's not 70%, it's 90% now. Or maybe 110%! 

NDPP

Obama, Canada's Trudeau Discuss Fight Against Islamic State - White House

http://news.trust.org/item/20160208210306-17j8h

"US President Barack Obama spoke by telephone on Monday with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about Canada's role in the international effort to combat Islamic State, the White House said.

Obama 'welcomed Canada's current and new contributions to coalition efforts and highlighted Canada's leadership in the coalition,' the White House said in a statement..."

The boss likes it.

Pondering

swallow wrote:

No no, it's not 70%, it's 90% now. Or maybe 110%! 

70% want us to keep bombing.

I rounded up from what I read (sorry can't find link) which is that 89% want us to keep contributing to the battle against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

That tells me that 19% are fine with not bombing but don't want us to withdraw completely. That leaves only 11% opposed to our participation.

Do you honestly doubt those numbers?

swallow swallow's picture

I doubt all polls, because opinions can change. Most Canadians supported Bill C-51. Then people changed their minds as they learned more. Same thing can operate here. 

If we simply accepted polls, and didn't believe pesuasion can change minds, then we'd be debating Prime Minister Mulcair's policy on bombing Syria. 

 

 

NDPP

Canada Re-Tools ISIL Mission, Withdraws Jets; 'Engagements' Possible Says Vance

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/02/08/trudeau-expected-to-lay-out-...

"Canadian military trainers [Special Forces] will likely face 'engagements' with enemy Islamic militants in Iraq but that doesn't mean they're taking part in a combat mission, the chief of the defence staff said Monday. 'In my view, it's a non-combat mission in that we are not the principal combatants here.'

The size of Canada's 'train, advise and assist' mission will also triple, including additional medical personnel and equipment including small arms, ammunition and optics to assist in training Iraqi security forces, amost exclusively in the Kurdish north.

'I want Canadians to know that we will be involved in engagements as we defend ourselves or those partners who we are working with,' said Vance. 'That's because the 'assist' function helps them plan, helps them determine how best to accomplish the missions' and by doing that, they 'may very well need support in defending them - and in so doing, defending ourselves.'

Vance also said Canadian troops would 'mark targets' - designating enemy positions for targeting by air and artillery strikes...'We're going to perfect, in fact, our efforts in targeting so that we can directly support the coalition finding targets for coalition aircraft to strike,' Vance said.

The NDP accused the Liberals of 'blurring the line' between combat and non-combat roles. Trudeau said Monday the government wouldspend more than $1.6 Billion over the next three years on the mission as a whole..."

This is a combat mission. He should have said "the mission as a hole". Just watch it grow bigger, deeper and darker. Watch Ottawa throw more down it.

 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

I doubt all polls, because opinions can change. Most Canadians supported Bill C-51. Then people changed their minds as they learned more. Same thing can operate here. 

If we simply accepted polls, and didn't believe pesuasion can change minds, then we'd be debating Prime Minister Mulcair's policy on bombing Syria.

Polls do change but there is a huge difference between the examples you give and a sustained situation as exists in the mid-east against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Canadian views on our responsibility to our allies is not something that varies dramatically from week to week. Even the "friendly-fire" death of a Canadian soldier didn't lessen support for the mission against ISIS.

To be against this mission would take a much deeper understanding of world affairs than people are likely to acquire any time soon.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Canadian views on our responsibility to our allies is not something that varies dramatically from week to week.

So the view in your opinion is fuck the Syrians and bombs away we are friends with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Canadian views on our responsibility to our allies is not something that varies dramatically from week to week.

So the view in your opinion is fuck the Syrians and bombs away we are friends with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Not at all. I am glad we aren't bombing anymore. I wish we were not helping to determine targets or refueling either.

I would prefer that we stay out of it completely other than humanitarian aid. That's not going to happen. Helping the Kurds defend themselves and take back lost territory seems like a morally justifiable thing to do.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Canadian views on our responsibility to our allies is not something that varies dramatically from week to week.

So the view in your opinion is fuck the Syrians and bombs away we are friends with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Not at all. I am glad we aren't bombing anymore. I wish we were not helping to determine targets or refueling either.

I would prefer that we stay out of it completely other than humanitarian aid. That's not going to happen. Helping the Kurds defend themselves and take back lost territory seems like a morally justifiable thing to do.

I'm with you all the way except in support of the Kurds which is a made up ploy that goes back to the demonization of Saddam. But anyways, we've got the best that Trudeau dare offer. And it's going to be a fight to save his neck on that after listeing to the "At Issue" panel tonight with the mealy mouth warmonger Mansbridge who is in a position of power to spew propaganda.

NDPP

And, like I said, the most important thing was that Washington like it. They do. Especially JTF2/Special Forces. Oh sorry, 'trainers'. Notice their plan is still to dismember Iraq and Syria...

 

Allies Respond to ISIS Plans - Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings Institution (vid)

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2683205790

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Not at all. I am glad we aren't bombing anymore. I wish we were not helping to determine targets or refueling either.

I would prefer that we stay out of it completely other than humanitarian aid. That's not going to happen. Helping the Kurds defend themselves and take back lost territory seems like a morally justifiable thing to do.

I'm with you all the way except in support of the Kurds which is a made up ploy that goes back to the demonization of Saddam. But anyways, we've got the best that Trudeau dare offer. And it's going to be a fight to save his neck on that after listeing to the "At Issue" panel tonight with the mealy mouth warmonger Mansbridge who is in a position of power to spew propaganda.

Protecting the Kurds may have been a ploy to invade but that doesn't mean Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator that murdered citizens.

As for Assad...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/un-investigators-find-extermin...

Tens of thousands of detainees are held by the government at any one time, and thousands more have “disappeared” after arrest by state forces or gone missing after abduction by armed groups, the report said.

Through mass arrests and killing of civilians, including by starvation and denial of medical treatment, state forces have “engaged in the multiple commissions of crimes, amounting to a systematic and widespread attack against a civilian population.”

There were reasonable grounds to believe that “high-ranking officers,” including the heads of branches and directorates commanding the detention facilities and military police, as well as their civilian superiors, knew of the deaths and of bodies buried anonymously in mass graves.

And his enemies......

The independent experts said they had also documented mass executions and torture of prisoners by two jihadi groups, the Nusra Front and Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. These constituted war crimes and in the case of Islamic State also crimes against humanity, it said.

Yes, lots of this turmoil and violence can be placed at the feet of the US and the US is using ISIS as an excuse to try to force regime change.

Nevertheless, ISIS did invade Kurdish territory in Iraq as well as in Syria they are brutalizing civilians, raping and murdering at will, including beheading children.

Helping the Kurds seems morally defensible to me.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
  Ok, if you're saying Trudeau is wrong, I apologize. If on the other hand you agree other zpondering's assertion it's ok cuz 90% of Canadians support slaughtering civilians, go enlist in the Ait Force and take your Peacenik buddy, Pondering, with you! That's the LPC way now, let's go slaughter civilians? Thanks but no thanks.

Why do you have to lie about me and other Canadians? You are the one who signed up to be trained to kill not me.

OK, so lets unback your latest bull, Pondering.

Yeah, I signed up to kill; I suppose that is what looks like to you. That's because you havent' got a clue about the idea of national service, owing a debt to your country, duty and honor. But why should that stop you, you know everythign. You always know everthing, and you aren't shy to tell us all every chance you get, because that's how you roll.

There's a big difference between you and me, honesty. I signed up to fight if it came down to it alright, and I did so to protect your sorry butt. Your sad, pathetic, seflish, butt. Yours, and the other 90% of Canadians who think its jiust fine to go ahead and do this as long as they aren't the ones who end up with blood on their hands See Pondering, you're all talk, and no action, And that is what is the worst thing about you. You talk and talk, while giiving up nothing. Why should you, you know others will for you. Suckers, like me. Yep, I'm a sucker, I acutally care about protecting your sad sorry butt. Why, duty, honor, service devotion, loyalty, committment, love of country.

Lie, that would mean I had you wrong. Nope, I've got you dead to rights. I am describing you exactly for what you are, and you know it, deep down inside

Stop lecturing me, I'm sick of it How's the view from the cheap seats?

mark_alfred

Article from Peggy Mason, who is president of the Rideau Institute and former Canadian disarmament ambassador to the United Nations:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/mason-lets-leave-this-ill-co...

Quote:
Let's leave this ill-considered military mission altogether

The non-military aspects of the new Liberal plan, including diplomatic peacemaking in Syria, and promoting regional stability and improving Iraqi governance, are important steps in the right direction. However, the military components of the Liberal response, which involve not only an expanded training role but continued participation in the air campaign through reconnaissance and refuelling, will only heighten Canadian involvement in an ever-deepening quagmire.

NDPP

This is How Canada is Overhauling Its Fight Against the Islamic State  -  by Justin Ling

https://news.vice.com/article/canada-sends-in-hundreds-of-special-forces...

"...When asked, Trudeau was very unsure of who exactly his plan would be training, deflecting the question to Vance. 'It is almost exclusively focused on the Peshmerga forces in the north,' Vance confirmed, although he remained deliberately vague as to what that means exactly, 'I'm not going to get into a breakdown as to where we're going to put all of our forces across Iraq.

The government also unveiled that it would be commencing weapon shipments to the Peshmerga. 'We're going to try and professionalize, somewhat, those Kurdish forces who take on a more predominant role in the fight,' Vance said.

That means Canada will begin kicking in automatic weapons, machine guns and mortars to these Kurdish forces for the first time. Previously Canadian transport planes ferried Soviet-era light weapons from Eastern Europe to the Peshmerga, [Ukraine?] although it never contributed weapons of its own..."

 

I see Jordan came up in JT's news conference. Interesting place. Lots going on there and not just far too many refugees. The Canadian military knows Jordan well, even if it isn't talked about much..

 

CANSOFCOM Silent About Participation in Jordanian Exercise (2014)

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/cansofcom-hush-hush...

"I asked CANSOFCOM about the training going on in Jordan and was told the command couldn't talk about it...Here are photos of Canadian special-forces training in Jordan with their Jordanian counterparts..."

 

 No wonder they didn't want to talk about it. US Special Forces and CIA is known to train Syrian 'rebels' in Jordan too. Probably still do. Perhaps JTF2 'trainers' will help train more than Peshmerga in Iraq? Perhaps that's why JT became tongue-tied when asked? Anything's possible in something like this..

Jordan, training, special forces, anti-Assad 'rebels'...

2015: WP - "Much of the CIA's money goes toward running secret training camps in Jordan, getting intelligence to help guide the operations of agency-backed militias and managing a sprawling logistics network used to move [rebel] fighters sent into Syria over the past several years - meaning that the agency is spending roughly 100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program.

The CIA declined to comment on the program or its budget. But US officials defended the scale of the expenditures, saying the money goes toward much more than salaries and weapons, and is part of a broader, multi-billion dollar effort including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to bolster a coalition of militias known as the Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army..."

Secret CIA Effort in Syria Faces Large Funding Cut

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawmakers-move-to...

 

Still in Jordan, more recent military news...

UK To Hold Large Scale Drills in Jordan 'Likely Aimed at Countering Russia'

https://youtu.be/n2JsdWrg1u0

"This may perhaps be either an operation which may come out of a reaction to events in Syria or the region, or it may be part of a wider, bigger strategy of the UK, to integrate Middle-Eastern partners into anti-Russian operations..."

 

Canada,  whatever their real plans are, whatever JT and General Vance have actually committed this country to, it's obvious to me  things may not be what they seem and that we're being taken into something we're probably very much going to regret later...

 

NDPP

This may add to our understanding of what CF may be expected to participate in...

 

More US Coalition Forces Likely Needed To Fight ISIS Top Commander Says

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/more-u-s-coalition-forces-likely-nee...

"There is a good potential that more US and coalition forces will be needed to fight the Islamic State group, the top commander of military operations in Iraq and Syria said Monday.

Army Lt Gen Sean MacFarland told Pentagon reporters that he is working on ways to increase pressure on the Islamic State militants and some options may require more troops on the ground to assist local Iraqi or Syrian forces. He would not detail whether those personnel would be trainers or combat troops.

'I'd like the enemy to find out about it for the first time when the area around them is going up in smoke,' said MacFarland, adding that he is reviewing what the right mix of new forces and capabilities should be and is in discussions with coalition partners and the government of Iraq.

His comments come as the coalition is working through plans for the battle to retake the northern city of Mosul and the Syrian city of Raqqa, which IS uses as headquarters..."

 

NDPP

Mason: Let's Leave This Ill-Considered Military Mission Altogether  -  by Peggy Mason

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/mason-lets-leave-this-ill-co...

"...The military components of the Liberal response, which involve not only an expanded training role but continued participation in the air campaign through reconnaissance and refuelling will only heighten Canada's involvement in an ever-deepening quagmire.

Canada would have far greater impact if we pulled out of the military mission altogether and concentrated on regional stabilization, humanitarian measures, and above all, acting as a catalyst for a new strategy that puts diplomatic peacemaking in Syria and Libya and governance reforms in Iraq at the heart of coalition efforts."

Troops Out Now!

Paladin1

Our planes are flying around marking targets to be destroyed by NATO.

Our planes are flying around refueling other planes which are bombing targets.

Our soldiers are on the ground "training" locals however it's expected that they will be shot at and return fire.

Our soldiers are on the ground marking targets for planes to drop bombs on.

 

But we're not "in combat" lol

 

On a side note the small arms we're sending to the area sure will help out our premiere Canadian gun manufacture, I bet they were pretty pumped over hearing that.

iyraste1313

Surely all this support fo the pershmerga must be put into some geostrategic context......

Are the Kurds of Iraq preparing to declare independence politically via referendum or whatever?

Are the Kurds there actually coordinating with ISIL in their shipments of oil?

Would an independent Iraqi Kurdistan backed by Israel, Canada USA bring control of the oil resources of Iraq under control of the West´s oil industry?
Does Canada have full backing of the Iraqi government is all these military plans? 

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Not at all. I am glad we aren't bombing anymore. I wish we were not helping to determine targets or refueling either.

I would prefer that we stay out of it completely other than humanitarian aid. That's not going to happen. Helping the Kurds defend themselves and take back lost territory seems like a morally justifiable thing to do.

I'm with you all the way except in support of the Kurds which is a made up ploy that goes back to the demonization of Saddam. But anyways, we've got the best that Trudeau dare offer. And it's going to be a fight to save his neck on that after listeing to the "At Issue" panel tonight with the mealy mouth warmonger Mansbridge who is in a position of power to spew propaganda.

Protecting the Kurds may have been a ploy to invade but that doesn't mean Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator that murdered citizens.

As for Assad...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/un-investigators-find-extermin...

Tens of thousands of detainees are held by the government at any one time, and thousands more have “disappeared” after arrest by state forces or gone missing after abduction by armed groups, the report said.

Through mass arrests and killing of civilians, including by starvation and denial of medical treatment, state forces have “engaged in the multiple commissions of crimes, amounting to a systematic and widespread attack against a civilian population.”

There were reasonable grounds to believe that “high-ranking officers,” including the heads of branches and directorates commanding the detention facilities and military police, as well as their civilian superiors, knew of the deaths and of bodies buried anonymously in mass graves.

And his enemies......

The independent experts said they had also documented mass executions and torture of prisoners by two jihadi groups, the Nusra Front and Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. These constituted war crimes and in the case of Islamic State also crimes against humanity, it said.

Yes, lots of this turmoil and violence can be placed at the feet of the US and the US is using ISIS as an excuse to try to force regime change.

Nevertheless, ISIS did invade Kurdish territory in Iraq as well as in Syria they are brutalizing civilians, raping and murdering at will, including beheading children.

Helping the Kurds seems morally defensible to me.

Your heart is in the right place but I'm sorry to say that your recall of history is all mixed up with US propaganda. It would take a week of uninterrupted supplying of facts to turn you back. 

However, it appears to me that your are right a lot more than you are wrong and right on most issues more than the others on this board. Or so it appears because they are all to wound up in hating of Trudeau to ever make  any sense and make a difference in our common fight.

swallow swallow's picture

Pondering, what you're offering is the langauge of helplessness. You might as well ahve been there in the 1980s saying: "Well, I want apartheid to end in South Africa, but that will never happen, so there's no point trying." Or "Canadaisn support the war in Vietnam, the best we can do is keep our troops from combat roles, no point pushing for peace." 

Just because an issue is tough doesn't mean it's not worth trying to change things. 

monty1

swallow wrote:

Pondering, what you're offering is the langauge of helplessness. You might as well ahve been there in the 1980s saying: "Well, I want apartheid to end in South Africa, but that will never happen, so there's no point trying." Or "Canadaisn support the war in Vietnam, the best we can do is keep our troops from combat roles, no point pushing for peace." 

Just because an issue is tough doesn't mean it's not worth trying to change things.

That's not fair to Pondering but I'll not defend her. I will say that I could be wrongfully charged with the same for my antiwar stance and for accepting the progress that has been made by Trudeau instead of being opposed to it along with the Conservativews, but on different grounds.

It's obvious that both of us want to change things and it's been stated clearly enough. None of us on this forum seem to be confused about the final goal is to stop US wars.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If you are involved in an armed robbery but carry no gun and only do the recon and gas up and drive the getaway car you are charged with murder if one of your allies kills someone. Canada is actively aiding and abetting the bombing of Syria so the idea that we are no longer involved in the bombing is merely Orwellian disinformation designed to fool people who prefer platitudes to reality.

Thanks for the info NDPP. I didn't realize that our troops will be stabilizing Jordan by training terrorists to attack Syria. Your posts often help cut to the heart of the matter. We are doubling down on our illegal activities in the region and that will only lead to more hardship for the very people we claim to be helping. It is a war crime to train people to attack another country.

The CBC is our state media and low and behold they are giving lots of air to the forces that want to be even more aggressive in our imperialism while allowing hardly a peep on the air from voices that want peace. That by definition is how you manufacture consent. Low information listeners then think it can only be a choice between bad and worse and then they buy the argument that talking about any of the good choices that could be made will lead to getting the worst that the nastiest war mongers are  pushing. So its better if we just accept that Canada is engaging in imperial war crimes.

 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yeah, I signed up to kill; I suppose that is what looks like to you. That's because you havent' got a clue about the idea of national service, owing a debt to your country, duty and honor. But why should that stop you, you know everythign. You always know everthing, and you aren't shy to tell us all every chance you get, because that's how you roll.

There's a big difference between you and me, honesty. I signed up to fight if it came down to it alright, and I did so to protect your sorry butt. Your sad, pathetic, seflish, butt. Yours, and the other 90% of Canadians who think its jiust fine to go ahead and do this as long as they aren't the ones who end up with blood on their hands See Pondering, you're all talk, and no action, And that is what is the worst thing about you. You talk and talk, while giiving up nothing. Why should you, you know others will for you. Suckers, like me. Yep, I'm a sucker, I acutally care about protecting your sad sorry butt. Why, duty, honor, service devotion, loyalty, committment, love of country.

Lie, that would mean I had you wrong. Nope, I've got you dead to rights. I am describing you exactly for what you are, and you know it, deep down inside

Stop lecturing me, I'm sick of it How's the view from the cheap seats?

You're the one doing the lecturing and claiming civilians that aren't ready to sign up have no right to support military action.

So do tell Arthur, who did you think was going to invade Canada? My father fought in WWII which was a threat to Europe so theoretically could have been a threat to us eventually. Since then I don't think there has even been a theoretical threat to Canada. If the US wants anything here they are just going to buy it. We have to keep our presence up on our northern shores but that doesn't take much of a military. Our military exists to be stationed in various places around the world.

I respect those who serve who realize that they serve at the behest of the elected government in the name of citizens. I respect those who sign up and when called to serve realize that they can't take up arms against another human being so leave the forces. I deeply respect those who are deployed around the world, not just to the mid-east. I want veterans to receive all the support they need and have earned when they return to Canadian soil. They are putting their lives on the line to serve Canada. I greatly admire Sajjan's view that developing strong relationships with the people is more important than high tech weapons. His form of intelligence work is very different than what I expected it to be. Because of him more people lived. I am grateful that he is now serving Canada as Minister of Defence. I'm happy that a man who has been on the front lines and does understand what is at stake has that position. In my opinion he is doing an excellent job refashioning Canada's role in the mid-east and it is directly due to his experiences in Aghanistan and all the experiences that lead up to that point in his life.

You speak disparagingly of him I suppose because he dared run and win as a Liberal. That negates all the duty, honor,loyalty and commitment to Canada that he has shown throughout his years of service to Canada.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

What Canada is doing in Syria reminds me very much of our own history. Those proud Irish knew how badly the Irish in Canada were being treated so of course it was right and just to invade the country and liberate us all from the yoke of the British rule.

Quote:

"We are the Fenian Brotherhood, skilled in the arts of war,
And we're going to fight for Ireland, the land we adore,
Many battles we have won, along with the boys in blue,
And we'll go and capture Canada, for we've nothing else to do."
-Fenian soldier's song

Depending on your point of view, it was part of a raid or an invasion. Whatever its nomenclature, the June 2, 1866, encounter at Ridgeway between Canadian militia and the Fenian Brotherhood's force of Civil War veterans left enduring marks upon the history of Canada, the United States, and Ireland. Regiments of a self-styled "army of liberation" crossed an international border and fought British subjects on behalf of the Irish Republic.

...

A Fenian invasion of Canada was not a ludicrous proposition in 1866. There were large numbers of unemployed ex-soldiers available for Fenian recruitment. Toleration of Fenian activities during the Civil War when the Brotherhood had been permitted to construct its own military framework within that of the US, their purchase of war surplus arms, and the federal government's silence toward their filibustering plans were all interpreted as governmental approval. The Fenians also took comfort in America's case of Anglophobia, generated by Britain's recognition of the Confederacy's belligerent rights during the Rebellion. Even under stable political conditions, this widespread negativity toward England and the weight of Irish ballots would have encouraged Congress and the Executive to handle Fenians with care, but with these two branches of government at loggerheads over Reconstruction, the political importance of the Irish vote was greatly exaggerated. Finally, a majority of Americans were then "continentalists" who anticipated Canada's future annexation.

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbertuca/155/FenianRaid.html

monty1

There's little doubt Pondering that Trudeau has done a lot more against Canada supporting US wars than the Conservatives would have ever done, and as much as the NDP would have done or even wanted to do. 

And the important thing is that as the % of Canadians who are opposed to Trudeau bringing the 6 bombers home rises, we are being vindicated for our stand and for the progress being made. 

It's not necessary to continue to  tell them that we are opposed to taking part in US led wars but it doesn't hurt. And it's sort of fun to keep reminding them. 

Their hearts are in the right place but they haven't learned how to be effective yet and that would result in no progress being made and more people being killed by Canadians and more blood on our hands, if they were listened to. They're decent people and far from Conservatives! 

It's not their fault. It's not their fault! 

NDPP

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If you are involved in an armed robbery but carry no gun and only do the recon and gas up and drive the getaway car you are charged with murder if one of your allies kills someone. Canada is actively aiding and abetting the bombing of Syria so the idea that we are no longer involved in the bombing is merely Orwellian disinformation designed to fool people who prefer platitudes to reality.

Thanks for the info NDPP. Your posts often help cut to the heart of the matter.

Thanks Krop, ditto..

monty1

NDPP wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If you are involved in an armed robbery but carry no gun and only do the recon and gas up and drive the getaway car you are charged with murder if one of your allies kills someone. Canada is actively aiding and abetting the bombing of Syria so the idea that we are no longer involved in the bombing is merely Orwellian disinformation designed to fool people who prefer platitudes to reality.

Thanks for the info NDPP. Your posts often help cut to the heart of the matter.

Thanks Krop, ditto..

I would rather be the accomplice to the crime than the murderer and that's what is left out purposely in that scenario. And it's also so applicable to the analogy that is being used to compare with Canada's role in the US led wars. But of course I would be better off to not be an accomplice of course, and that is also applicable. Not to even have to mention that everyone knows that in general the killer will receive harsher punishment than the accomplice. Again applicable to Canada's participation. No bloody lawyer would allow him/herself to be upstaged like that pal.

Stay credible.

swallow swallow's picture

monty1 wrote:

That's not fair to Pondering but I'll not defend her.

As I'm sure you've noticed, she's more than capable of defending herself! 

But I do think it's worth pointing out that "the polls are against us" is an argument that feeds into inaction - when what we need is more activism. Which, in turn, can change polls over time. As it did in Vietnam. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yeah, I signed up to kill; I suppose that is what looks like to you. That's because you havent' got a clue about the idea of national service, owing a debt to your country, duty and honor. But why should that stop you, you know everythign. You always know everthing, and you aren't shy to tell us all every chance you get, because that's how you roll.

There's a big difference between you and me, honesty. I signed up to fight if it came down to it alright, and I did so to protect your sorry butt. Your sad, pathetic, seflish, butt. Yours, and the other 90% of Canadians who think its jiust fine to go ahead and do this as long as they aren't the ones who end up with blood on their hands See Pondering, you're all talk, and no action, And that is what is the worst thing about you. You talk and talk, while giiving up nothing. Why should you, you know others will for you. Suckers, like me. Yep, I'm a sucker, I acutally care about protecting your sad sorry butt. Why, duty, honor, service devotion, loyalty, committment, love of country.

Lie, that would mean I had you wrong. Nope, I've got you dead to rights. I am describing you exactly for what you are, and you know it, deep down inside

Stop lecturing me, I'm sick of it How's the view from the cheap seats?

You're the one doing the lecturing and claiming civilians that aren't ready to sign up have no right to support military action.

So do tell Arthur, who did you think was going to invade Canada? My father fought in WWII which was a threat to Europe so theoretically could have been a threat to us eventually. Since then I don't think there has even been a theoretical threat to Canada. If the US wants anything here they are just going to buy it. We have to keep our presence up on our northern shores but that doesn't take much of a military. Our military exists to be stationed in various places around the world.

I respect those who serve who realize that they serve at the behest of the elected government in the name of citizens. I respect those who sign up and when called to serve realize that they can't take up arms against another human being so leave the forces. I deeply respect those who are deployed around the world, not just to the mid-east. I want veterans to receive all the support they need and have earned when they return to Canadian soil. They are putting their lives on the line to serve Canada. I greatly admire Sajjan's view that developing strong relationships with the people is more important than high tech weapons. His form of intelligence work is very different than what I expected it to be. Because of him more people lived. I am grateful that he is now serving Canada as Minister of Defence. I'm happy that a man who has been on the front lines and does understand what is at stake has that position. In my opinion he is doing an excellent job refashioning Canada's role in the mid-east and it is directly due to his experiences in Aghanistan and all the experiences that lead up to that point in his life.

You speak disparagingly of him I suppose because he dared run and win as a Liberal. That negates all the duty, honor,loyalty and commitment to Canada that he has shown throughout his years of service to Canada.

Ah Pondering, another obtuse, arrogant, self righteous answer from you. I'll give you one thing, you're consistent.

I've already thanked you for your father's sevice, and you haven't done the same for mine, but that's OK, But I didn't care about your Dad's sercice; it has NOTHING to do with OUR conversation IN THE PRESENT. I don't CARE what you think about veterans; so what? Big deal? You want me to thank you, pat yourself on your own back. Big deal Pondering. As to Veterans, isn't this the Minister who is backing out of restoring Vet Offices shut down by the Tories. Glass house, Pondering?

Your LPC hero, DID HIS JOB! So what? Big deal. I've told you, when people thank me for my service, my answer has ALWAYS been thank you for allowing me to serve. Your whole answer is deflection. You're trying to make  it about someone else, not you. You're all, self absorbed, tone-deaf, patronizing talk. Fine, your choice, but be honest. Its about putting up Pondering, PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!

As to the current Minister, so what? He's a Liberal. I do not understarnd how anyone of good will could vote Liberal or run as a Liberal, given the Liberals ACTUAL record of governance since the 76 Turner budget.

Me lecturing you? Really? That's ALL you do. I didn't say you can't have an opinon; go ahead. But you dont get to change the truth as it suits you!

Another consitently tone-deaf answer from you Pondering. Thanks

Pondering

swallow wrote:

monty1 wrote:

That's not fair to Pondering but I'll not defend her.

As I'm sure you've noticed, she's more than capable of defending herself! 

But I do think it's worth pointing out that "the polls are against us" is an argument that feeds into inaction - when what we need is more activism. Which, in turn, can change polls over time. As it did in Vietnam. 

I absolutely agree with that which is why I often point out that it is the people we have to convince not the government and partisanship undermines the arguments.

Were it not for the draft I doubt there would have been any large anti-Vietnam protests. The right wing think-tanks have been brilliant in figuring out how to achieve their goals. The left-wing is going to have to get a lot more sophisticated in its approach to shaping public opinion or it will continue to be closer to one step forward, two steps back rather than two steps forward to one step back.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
swallow wrote:
monty1 wrote:
That's not fair to Pondering but I'll not defend her.

As I'm sure you've noticed, she's more than capable of defending herself! 

But I do think it's worth pointing out that "the polls are against us" is an argument that feeds into inaction - when what we need is more activism. Which, in turn, can change polls over time. As it did in Vietnam. 

I absolutely agree with that which is why I often point out that it is the people we have to convince not the government and partisanship undermines the arguments.

Were it not for the draft I doubt there would have been any large anti-Vietnam protests. The right wing think-tanks have been brilliant in figuring out how to achieve their goals. The left-wing is going to have to get a lot more sophisticated in its approach to shaping public opinion or it will continue to be closer to one step forward, two steps back rather than two steps forward to one step back.

i disagree with the substance of this.

the so called 'right wing' owns NA's media. the only thing they've figured out is to control the message source. fom what i've learned here is rabble was started to counter msm lying lies. yet here, right now, we are subjected to people trying to re-enforce the lying lies of corporate owned media, their political parties and their dupes who parrot the line they want parroted. we're being subjected to the very thing rabble was trying to give an alternate voice to.

people stuck on stupid and voting against their own best interests can fo imv. you can't change stupid.

imv parents, family and friends need to raise the knowlege of human justice and stop tolerating it in others especially in those who make excuses and toady to those who serve corporate interests like Justin and the Liberals.

 

MegB

Arthur Cramer wrote:

OK, so lets unback your latest bull, Pondering.

Yeah, I signed up to kill; I suppose that is what looks like to you. That's because you havent' got a clue about the idea of national service, owing a debt to your country, duty and honor. But why should that stop you, you know everythign. You always know everthing, and you aren't shy to tell us all every chance you get, because that's how you roll.

There's a big difference between you and me, honesty. I signed up to fight if it came down to it alright, and I did so to protect your sorry butt. Your sad, pathetic, seflish, butt. Yours, and the other 90% of Canadians who think its jiust fine to go ahead and do this as long as they aren't the ones who end up with blood on their hands See Pondering, you're all talk, and no action, And that is what is the worst thing about you. You talk and talk, while giiving up nothing. Why should you, you know others will for you. Suckers, like me. Yep, I'm a sucker, I acutally care about protecting your sad sorry butt. Why, duty, honor, service devotion, loyalty, committment, love of country.

Lie, that would mean I had you wrong. Nope, I've got you dead to rights. I am describing you exactly for what you are, and you know it, deep down inside

Stop lecturing me, I'm sick of it How's the view from the cheap seats?

AC, these personal attacks against Pondering have got to stop. NOW.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

NDPP wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If you are involved in an armed robbery but carry no gun and only do the recon and gas up and drive the getaway car you are charged with murder if one of your allies kills someone. Canada is actively aiding and abetting the bombing of Syria so the idea that we are no longer involved in the bombing is merely Orwellian disinformation designed to fool people who prefer platitudes to reality.

Thanks for the info NDPP. Your posts often help cut to the heart of the matter.

Thanks Krop, ditto..

I would rather be the accomplice to the crime than the murderer and that's what is left out purposely in that scenario. And it's also so applicable to the analogy that is being used to compare with Canada's role in the US led wars. But of course I would be better off to not be an accomplice of course, and that is also applicable. Not to even have to mention that everyone knows that in general the killer will receive harsher punishment than the accomplice. Again applicable to Canada's participation. No bloody lawyer would allow him/herself to be upstaged like that pal.

Stay credible.

You are such an authority on every subject you astound me. Please keep posting these kinds of posts since they reveal your character and place it on display front and center for all to see.

By the way this is the actual law in Canada.

Quote:

Parties to offence

21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;

(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or

(c) abets any person in committing it.

Common intention

(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-3.html#docCont

This is how they treat people in the states for what they call felony murder.

Quote:

In another group of cases, the person executed participated in a felony during which a victim died at the hands of another participant in the felony. The defendant in such cases was typically found guilty of "felony murder" or under the "law of parties," and in some states can receive the death penalty, despite not having killed or directed the killing of the victim. The US Supreme Court has restricted the use of the death penalty in such cases. See Enmund v. Florida and Tison v. Arizona.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/those-executed-who-did-not-directly-kill...

Quote:

Most forms of murder require an intent to commit death. Felony murder only requires the intent to commit the felony. During the course of the felony, any homicide will be considered murder, whether it's intentional or accidental. This is called the felony murder rule.

Under the felony murder rule, all participants of a felony can be charged with murder if a homicide occurs. This is true even if a participant isn't directly responsible for the death. For example, the driver of a getaway car can be charged with felony murder if his partner accidently shoots someone while attempting to rob a bank. The purpose for the felony murder rule is to deter people from engaging in felonies knowing that they can be liable for the actions of their partners.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/murder-during-the-commis...

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

MegB wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

OK, so lets unback your latest bull, Pondering.

Yeah, I signed up to kill; I suppose that is what looks like to you. That's because you havent' got a clue about the idea of national service, owing a debt to your country, duty and honor. But why should that stop you, you know everythign. You always know everthing, and you aren't shy to tell us all every chance you get, because that's how you roll.

There's a big difference between you and me, honesty. I signed up to fight if it came down to it alright, and I did so to protect your sorry butt. Your sad, pathetic, seflish, butt. Yours, and the other 90% of Canadians who think its jiust fine to go ahead and do this as long as they aren't the ones who end up with blood on their hands See Pondering, you're all talk, and no action, And that is what is the worst thing about you. You talk and talk, while giiving up nothing. Why should you, you know others will for you. Suckers, like me. Yep, I'm a sucker, I acutally care about protecting your sad sorry butt. Why, duty, honor, service devotion, loyalty, committment, love of country.

Lie, that would mean I had you wrong. Nope, I've got you dead to rights. I am describing you exactly for what you are, and you know it, deep down inside

Stop lecturing me, I'm sick of it How's the view from the cheap seats?

AC, these personal attacks against Pondering have got to stop. NOW.

OK, no personal attacks. I stand by the content of what I wrote, but I won't persue it further. You've set your expectation.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:
Your heart is in the right place but I'm sorry to say that your recall of history is all mixed up with US propaganda. It would take a week of uninterrupted supplying of facts to turn you back.

You are close to right but it would take much more than a week. While the US has always warred in its own economic interests the "other side" aren't exactly angels either. Before the US there were the evils of the British Empire and they weren't first either.

My first introduction to barbarism was a line drawing in a history book of indians burning a missionary at the stake. I was horrified by it. I would even say traumatized. I could only process it by distancing it, as if they were practically a different species, a different race yes, but I didn't associate it with indians bused to my school because it was also a distant time. I processed it by thinking people today could never do anything so monstrous. Then I found out about WWII, a war my father had fought in. There were graphic photographs of people in cattle cars, finding out what was to happen to them was a shock. I could not, still can't really, understand how people could be so evil, so brutal, it took by breath away. Years later, when I was around 16 or 17 I went to visit a friend in the hospital due to a motorcycle accident. He was bandaged from head to foot. I made it out of the room but walked straight into a wall before fainting at the thought of the pain he must have endured. It still makes me physically nauseous to read of the horrors people commit against one another.

You're right that although I do read a lot about the ins and outs yet don't have any genuinely in depth knowledge which is a drawback, but also might provide some clarity as well. At some point, due to western actions and influence, Kurdish territory was divided between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. Ever since they have been seeking independence. Minority Sunni muslims have controlled majority Shiite populations and for all I know vice versa. Power throughout the region is maintained by extreme unspeakable violence much of which is approved of by some populations.

So maybe the Kurds are being as brutally evil as others as they reclaim or gain territory. If true it is every bit as horrific but if it comes down to everyone being equally horrendous something still has to be done to prevent ISIS/ISIL/Daesh from forming a medieval style caliphate intent on taking over the world.

Between bombing and ground forces bombing poses the greater threat to civilian populations. People who sign up for battle, male or female, do so as adults although I wish one had to be 25 to sign up. So although I wish Canadian soldiers were not facing greater risk by being on the ground I prefer that to bombing babies.

The greatest chance for peace lies in the refugees breaking through Europe's borders.

If there is any chance of us becoming like Switzerland it lies in convincing the people. That won't happen through partisan arguments that target the current government rather than the specific military interventions.

P.S. I used the word indians rather than indigenous peoples or First Nations because that was the word used at the time and I recall my perception of what the word "indian" meant back then and it doesn't mean at all the same thing as the terms we use today. They aren't even close to being synonyms. There is no relation between them. "Indians" were an imaginary people made up wholely from dreadful cowboy movies, head dresses and loin cloths.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Between bombing and ground forces bombing poses the greater threat to civilian populations. People who sign up for battle, male or female, do so as adults although I wish one had to be 25 to sign up. So although I wish Canadian soldiers were not facing greater risk by being on the ground I prefer that to bombing babies.

Well as a Vet with over 20 years service, I don't think how Canadians get killed, in the air or sea makes their deaths better. This is an American made mess. Canada should get the hell out of there and leave it to the Americans. No amount of discussion of whether Canadians should or shouldn't be there does anything to address the real issue, Canadians being sent over seas to fight in a meaningless, stupid, war; one where they possibly face death or maiming for nothing.

That's a crime. That is at Trudeaus' feet. He will tae each and every maiming and death as his true legacy. He could have lead and removed Canada from this but he chose not too. He's no better than Harper; in some ways, he's worse, and that frankly, if it isn't considered crimminal, it should be. Trudeau is as quilty as quilty could be. I've got friends suffering from PTSD with whom I went through basic, I know how they and their faimilies suffer. Justin doesn't get it, and he doesn't care. He never joined up to carry a weapon, he's incapable. And on top of that, the Minister, a man who has seen combat, whatever that acually was, we still don't know exacatly where he served and in what he participated, has abdicated his responsibility to look after those under his leadership. He's just as quilty, and his hands are just as dirty. He ought to be ashamed of himself. This isn't a G-d damn game!

Too damn bad Canadians are such lemmings.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Between bombing and ground forces bombing poses the greater threat to civilian populations.

What don't you understand about the fact that we are sending in a refueling plane to refuel our allies bombers and we are sending in specialized troops to provide those bombers with accurate targets. We are involved up to our eyeballs with the bombing and those civilian lives are in harms way because of our actions. This is just another example of Trudeau technically keeping his campaign promise but as the US and our other allies have said he upped the war game from what the despised Harper was doing. It is classic Orwellian spin.

Webgear

It is funny, people actually think the NDP would have done anything different than the Liberals. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Webgear wrote:

It is funny, people actually think the NDP would have done anything different than the Liberals. 

I respect you Service. But youre wrong, What's funy is that NDP wasn't given the chance to prove it one way or the other. And what's funnier is Trudeau lied, and he's being cheered, here, and elsewhere.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Webgear wrote:

It is funny, people actually think the NDP would have done anything different than the Liberals. 

Not everyone on this board that is for sure. Many of us remember its support for the destruction of Libya. They speak of other countries leaders in the same terms as our regime change driven NATO allies. Lately the NDP foreign policy has been reduced to, if NATO is doing it it must be okay. Of course they will not be supporting Trudeau on this mission but that is politics.

mark_alfred

Mulcair comments on the recent Liberal decision:  http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2683289182/

swallow swallow's picture

quizzical wrote:
we're being subjected to the very thing rabble was trying to give an alternate voice to.

I agree that this is a very real concern. If we accept arguments like "pulling out the bombers is the best we can realistically hope for," then we're accepting assumptions that rabble.ca was founded to challenge. 

 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair comments on the recent Liberal decision:  http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2683289182/

I thought most of the interview was good but on topics for another thread, corporate taxes and tax havens.

Having said that the lie at the beginning threw me off. Anyone who was paying attention must have heard Trudeau stating that we would still be involved and we would be expanding our ground troops to replace our bombing missions. Every time he was criticized for planning on pulling out the bombers he emphasized that we would still be part of the fight against ISIS because he knew that popular opinion was against pulling them out.

On the other hand I do believe the NDP would have pulled us out of the combat aspect and had military delivering humanitarian aid.

This would have been an easy give to NDP progressives. Elections seem to ride first and foremost on the economy. All other policies serve to create a general impression but there are few single issues that drive votes. Foreign affairs is usually not one of them. While the grand majority want us involved in the fight against ISIS that doesn't mean their vote rides on it. It's not a bread and butter issue which is what preoccupies people the most during elections. Pulling us out completely would drive the right winger absolutely batshit crazy and delight the NDP base. I think everyone else could have been won over by it if we spent the same amount of money on humanitarian aid. Imagine the impact that would make!  I think that would have generated a lot of Canadian pride.

On the third hand, the NDP would probably not have won a majority so that would have limited them. Parliament would vote against him. He most likely would have been forced to negotiate on it with the Liberals.

Pages