You forgot to put 4). I totally stand behind my comment that:
The notion that even with controversial issues a leader should pick a position then stick to it dogmatically right or wrong is an old-fashioned patriarchal attitude.
There is nothing trivial about it and it is relevant. Patriarchal attitudes and structures permeate our society and politics is no exception. The term "patriarchal" is eminently suited to the notion that leaders should not alter their position (or even have a nuanced one).
This is something I did not say and you need to stop pretending I am saying things I did not say. This is the third time in the last day or so that you have pretended I have said something I did not say.
What you have put there in italics suggesting is a quote from me is entirely made up by you and I have not even said anything like it.
I don't flag posts often but I am flagging this as it is completely out of line beyond baiting and trolling.
***
--- Your quote: "Flip flop" is still a perjorative immature and aggressive term. ---
Perhaps you might want to make sure that you educate: The CBC, The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and others that this is a term you are offended by. Since I used the word it comes across as suggesting I am being immature and aggressive for using it. As well upthread you said I was being patriarchal as well.
I don't accept any of that. And I should not have to put up with these kinds of accusations for expressing opinions here in the same terms that are being used widely in the media and even by others across this board.
It is you that is being aggressive here.
What I read into that was not a presumption that Canadians would deliver it direct to the people but rather fly it to some authority in the country. I don't think the implications are the same.
I am assuming Trudeau is favouring aid perhaps like what Canada deliverd to Ukraine. I have not heard Trudeau say he was in favur of having military advisors there as part of the aid-- did he say that?
What kind of advisors? Scientists? Sociologists? Or Military personel?
Sending military personel = a military excursion.
What kind of non-combat roles do you think Mr Trudeau envisions us helping with?
Labling something non-combat wouldn't remove the level of danger. On the streets over there cars are driving up to other cars and randomly shooting into them. Then dragging the passengers out and killing them.
[ graphic video of drive by shootings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrM9X3zPlc ]
Anyone delievering humanitarian aid would need to be escoerted by armed and armored security vehicles. They may not be technically filling a combat-role (seeking out the enemy) but it's combat never the less. Canadian advisors in Afghanistan saw a hell of a lot of combat while they were embeded with and advising the Afghan National Army.
Are we just getting wrapped around termonology and semantics at this point?
I single out comments I feel are interesting or worthy of response. How hostile someone is or isn't to Trudeau is immaterial.
I have no need to participate in a "my links are better than yours" debate.
That debate can be evaluated here: http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/national-child-care-program?pa.... I think readers are capable of evaluating respective arguments for themselves.
Be that as it may "Flip flop" is still a perjorative immature and aggressive term.
You forgot to put 4). I totally stand behind my comment that:
The notion that even with controversial issues a leader should pick a position then stick to it dogmatically right or wrong is an old-fashioned patriarchal attitude.
There is nothing trivial about it and it is relevant. Patriarchal attitudes and structures permeate our society and politics is no exception. The term "patriarchal" is eminently suited to the notion that leaders should not alter their position (or even have a nuanced one).
What a relief your ego is still intact after being all tied up in knots just last night with all the ground shifting and rabbit holes and not being able to share your feelings because it's taboo. You seemed quite distraught.
There is a few problems with not delievering aid directly.
1. It can find it's way (much easier) into the hands of criminals who then extort locals selling them the aid at exorbitant prices.
2. Aid organizations (red cross was bad for this in Afghanistan) contract out the actual delievery of supplies to local companies which as you may imagine aren't always that piticular on delivering it to those in need.
3. Bad guys (sorry for the lack of a better term) intercept it and use it themselves.
I understand the theory behind people wanting to send aid but not take a "combat role" however there's a good chance that the aid can just end up in the hands of the people committing these mass murders.
I'm not sure what Mr Trudeau said regarding advisors.
Getting involved in direct combat has multiple implications only one of which is endangering Canadian troops. If Canadian lives are to be endangered then we owe it to our military to know exactly what our objectives are and the reason for our participation in trying to stop this particular atrocity as opposed to other atrocities.
As I understand it our CF-18s are in dire need of replacement. Is sending CF-18s the best use of our limited dollars and equipment? Bombing runs are less likely to result in Canadian casualties than providing ground troops to defend refugees trying to escape but that is not justification for choosing to help by bombing instead. How about providing defended military medical units to help the Kurds? Maybe sending CF-18s is the best contribution we can make but that case has not been made. We don't really have our own specific objective. We are basically working for the Americans even if it isn't official.
Irwin Cotler has been pushing to bomb Syria for 4 years but he is still against Harper because he doesn't think we should be doing it at the behest of the Assad regime. Other people in this thread have condemned support for the "freedom fighters" as undermining an elected leader. AC has pointed out that Saudi Arabia should be taking care of it. I don't know that it is that simple but they should certainly be paying a greater share. Why should Canadian coffers be tapped for this? Even the Kurds have oil wells.
Trudeau is not saying we shouldn't send CF-18s. He is saying the case hasn't been made for it and he is right. There was no serious debate. The level of discourse is "ISIS bad, we go shoot". Maybe we should go shoot but it is a complex situation and it is not obvious that bombing Syria will be helpful over the long run.
We have about the population of California. I don't want us to just be a mini US army. Maybe the whole peace-keeping thing didn't work out or maybe we should go back to it but if not then I think we need to specialize more so we can fulfil specific needs. Maybe a greater percentage of our military should be special forces whatever that means. Maybe we could specialize in providing fully functional medical treatment units staffed and defended by Canadian forces.
The decision to send CF-18 seems to be based in diplomacy, everyone else is participated so we have to join in. That is not a good reason to go to war. As Trudeau said we should have our own stance on foreign affairs.
The rhetoric that ISIS is targeting Canada is cheap seeing as they only said that after Canada sent advisors. They are threatening us due to our participation.
Again, I am not saying that we shouldn't send bombers, only that the case has not been made for it. Discussions in this thread have pointed out the complexity of getting involved. Supporting helping the Kurds beat back ISIS was uncomplicated because ISIS was clearly an invading force from outside the territory. ISIS is a cross border movement but in some places it has indigenous support which is a complicating factor.
The whole "root causes" thing can't be ignored.
At the beginning of all of this when Harper was just sending military advisors Trudeau said this: