What a piece of shit......

[Obvious Li]

Quiet, Justin. The adults are talking.



It's hard to imagine what Mr. Trudeau was trying to prove when he said the government should provide humanitarian aid and non-combat support to the coalition taking on the Islamic State – "rather than whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are." Did he think his remark was funny? Hip? Accurate?



Prime Minister Stephen Harper is defending his government's decision to launch airstrikes on ISIL targets in the Middle East. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says airstrikes will only encourage more extremists to join the militant group.



Between that comment, his reference in the Commons to the CF-18s as "a few aging warplanes" and his party's weakly reasoned argument against a combat role for Canada in Iraq and Syria, Mr. Trudeau has performed poorly on the biggest file to cross his desk since becoming party leader.



The nub of his argument against a combat role is that "it is always easier to get into a war than to get out of one." Yes, it can be easier to get in than out, but he has offered no evidence that the deployment of six CF-18s, one refuelling plane and two surveillance aircraft will grow into something larger. He is not saying it will, and he's not saying it won't. He's just saying, darkly, it could.



Okay, but you still have to make a decision. The question as defined by the government's motion was, Should we or should we not join our friends and allies – the U.S., Saudi Arabia, France, the U.K., Germany, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, the Netherlands and others – that have committed their air forces to bombing IS positions? It's that question that Mr. Trudeau has avoided answering directly.



Thomas Mulcair, the Opposition Leader, wasn't any more compelling in his refusal to support the combat mission. "The tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another Western-led invasion in that region," he said. It is a big stretch to qualify this as an invasion, and a significant number of the active participants are not Western countries but Middle Eastern ones.



At least Mr. Mulcair is being consistent with his role as Opposition Leader and with the core values of the NDP. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, leads a third party that, when in government, showed a willingness to take the risk of deploying troops. Key Liberals – Roméo Dallaire, Lloyd Axworthy and Bob Rae – support a combat mission. Mr. Trudeau, though, dismisses combat as macho posturing and Canada's military capabilities as "a few aging warplanes." If he were prime minister, is this what he would tell Canada's allies?

[RW]

What's your objection exactly?

[Anonymous]

Quiet, Justin. The adults are talking.



It's hard to imagine what Mr. Trudeau was trying to prove when he said the government should provide humanitarian aid and non-combat support to the coalition taking on the Islamic State – "rather than whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are." Did he think his remark was funny? Hip? Accurate?



Prime Minister Stephen Harper is defending his government's decision to launch airstrikes on ISIL targets in the Middle East. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says airstrikes will only encourage more extremists to join the militant group.



Between that comment, his reference in the Commons to the CF-18s as "a few aging warplanes" and his party's weakly reasoned argument against a combat role for Canada in Iraq and Syria, Mr. Trudeau has performed poorly on the biggest file to cross his desk since becoming party leader.



The nub of his argument against a combat role is that "it is always easier to get into a war than to get out of one." Yes, it can be easier to get in than out, but he has offered no evidence that the deployment of six CF-18s, one refuelling plane and two surveillance aircraft will grow into something larger. He is not saying it will, and he's not saying it won't. He's just saying, darkly, it could.



Okay, but you still have to make a decision. The question as defined by the government's motion was, Should we or should we not join our friends and allies – the U.S., Saudi Arabia, France, the U.K., Germany, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, the Netherlands and others – that have committed their air forces to bombing IS positions? It's that question that Mr. Trudeau has avoided answering directly.



Thomas Mulcair, the Opposition Leader, wasn't any more compelling in his refusal to support the combat mission. "The tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another Western-led invasion in that region," he said. It is a big stretch to qualify this as an invasion, and a significant number of the active participants are not Western countries but Middle Eastern ones.



At least Mr. Mulcair is being consistent with his role as Opposition Leader and with the core values of the NDP. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, leads a third party that, when in government, showed a willingness to take the risk of deploying troops. Key Liberals – Roméo Dallaire, Lloyd Axworthy and Bob Rae – support a combat mission. Mr. Trudeau, though, dismisses combat as macho posturing and Canada's military capabilities as "a few aging warplanes." If he were prime minister, is this what he would tell Canada's allies?

I don't know much about these issues, but sending in bombers makes me feel, I don't know.

[Obvious Li]

Quiet, Justin. The adults are talking.



It's hard to imagine what Mr. Trudeau was trying to prove when he said the government should provide humanitarian aid and non-combat support to the coalition taking on the Islamic State – "rather than whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are." Did he think his remark was funny? Hip? Accurate?



Prime Minister Stephen Harper is defending his government's decision to launch airstrikes on ISIL targets in the Middle East. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says airstrikes will only encourage more extremists to join the militant group.



Between that comment, his reference in the Commons to the CF-18s as "a few aging warplanes" and his party's weakly reasoned argument against a combat role for Canada in Iraq and Syria, Mr. Trudeau has performed poorly on the biggest file to cross his desk since becoming party leader.



The nub of his argument against a combat role is that "it is always easier to get into a war than to get out of one." Yes, it can be easier to get in than out, but he has offered no evidence that the deployment of six CF-18s, one refuelling plane and two surveillance aircraft will grow into something larger. He is not saying it will, and he's not saying it won't. He's just saying, darkly, it could.



Okay, but you still have to make a decision. The question as defined by the government's motion was, Should we or should we not join our friends and allies – the U.S., Saudi Arabia, France, the U.K., Germany, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, the Netherlands and others – that have committed their air forces to bombing IS positions? It's that question that Mr. Trudeau has avoided answering directly.



Thomas Mulcair, the Opposition Leader, wasn't any more compelling in his refusal to support the combat mission. "The tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another Western-led invasion in that region," he said. It is a big stretch to qualify this as an invasion, and a significant number of the active participants are not Western countries but Middle Eastern ones.



At least Mr. Mulcair is being consistent with his role as Opposition Leader and with the core values of the NDP. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, leads a third party that, when in government, showed a willingness to take the risk of deploying troops. Key Liberals – Roméo Dallaire, Lloyd Axworthy and Bob Rae – support a combat mission. Mr. Trudeau, though, dismisses combat as macho posturing and Canada's military capabilities as "a few aging warplanes." If he were prime minister, is this what he would tell Canada's allies?

I don't know much about these issues, but sending in bombers makes me feel, I don't know.

well lets make it closer to home...how would you feel if one of these canadianized jihadists came to calgary...went to your sons school...took the class hostage and started beheading your sons classmates on camera........ISIS is currently calling for radicalized north american muslims to do just this...i am sure there are several hiding in Calgary.....so what do you think...should we try and bomb them out of existance over there...or put them in prison here after they behead our kids....your call ?????

[ghost]

I dunno. I think we'd be safer as a country if we choose not to get involved.



And I agree with him. At what point is the line drawn before the war gets beyond everyone's control? Sending humanitarian aid to the people who need help sounds like the better thing to do.

[Romero]

I'm quite pleased with what Trudeau said. Honest and to the point. We won't accomplish anything good by bombing over there. What has the US, UK and France accomplished? Little more than killing dozens of civilians so far.



Look at Turkey just sit on the sidelines. Why are we doing all the dirty work for them, Saudi Arabia and the others? Let them deal with it. Canada should only be involved with peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. Bombing ISIS definitely wouldn't lessen the chance of a terrorist attack here.



We're falling right into ISIS's trap. This is exactly what they want. As with so many other extremist groups, we've been doing one heckuva job helping give them their power. Much of ISIS's weaponry is stamped "From your friends in the West"!



We whipped out our CF-18s in Libya and now it's a terrorism hellhole and recruitment centre.

[Romero]

And we should have given up on the F-35 years ago. We could of had an entire fleet of the latest F-18 variant by now.

[Gary Oak]

Quiet, Justin. The adults are talking.



It's hard to imagine what Mr. Trudeau was trying to prove when he said the government should provide humanitarian aid and non-combat support to the coalition taking on the Islamic State – "rather than whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are." Did he think his remark was funny? Hip? Accurate?



Prime Minister Stephen Harper is defending his government's decision to launch airstrikes on ISIL targets in the Middle East. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says airstrikes will only encourage more extremists to join the militant group.



Between that comment, his reference in the Commons to the CF-18s as "a few aging warplanes" and his party's weakly reasoned argument against a combat role for Canada in Iraq and Syria, Mr. Trudeau has performed poorly on the biggest file to cross his desk since becoming party leader.



The nub of his argument against a combat role is that "it is always easier to get into a war than to get out of one." Yes, it can be easier to get in than out, but he has offered no evidence that the deployment of six CF-18s, one refuelling plane and two surveillance aircraft will grow into something larger. He is not saying it will, and he's not saying it won't. He's just saying, darkly, it could.



Okay, but you still have to make a decision. The question as defined by the government's motion was, Should we or should we not join our friends and allies – the U.S., Saudi Arabia, France, the U.K., Germany, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, the Netherlands and others – that have committed their air forces to bombing IS positions? It's that question that Mr. Trudeau has avoided answering directly.



Thomas Mulcair, the Opposition Leader, wasn't any more compelling in his refusal to support the combat mission. "The tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another Western-led invasion in that region," he said. It is a big stretch to qualify this as an invasion, and a significant number of the active participants are not Western countries but Middle Eastern ones.



At least Mr. Mulcair is being consistent with his role as Opposition Leader and with the core values of the NDP. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, leads a third party that, when in government, showed a willingness to take the risk of deploying troops. Key Liberals – Roméo Dallaire, Lloyd Axworthy and Bob Rae – support a combat mission. Mr. Trudeau, though, dismisses combat as macho posturing and Canada's military capabilities as "a few aging warplanes." If he were prime minister, is this what he would tell Canada's allies?

I don't know much about these issues, but sending in bombers makes me feel, I don't know.

well lets make it closer to home...how would you feel if one of these canadianized jihadists came to calgary...went to your sons school...took the class hostage and started beheading your sons classmates on camera........ISIS is currently calling for radicalized north american muslims to do just this...i am sure there are several hiding in Calgary.....so what do you think...should we try and bomb them out of existance over there...or put them in prison here after they behead our kids....your call ?????

Muslims are pedophile slime that want to kill all white people. Would Trudeau change his mind if some muslim slime raped or beheaded one of his kids. Is that what it will take to get him to pull his head out of his ass. acc_devil  ac_umm  ac_drinks

[Romero]

Right-Left Alliance Needed to Stop This War!



The current war, and the endless war it is part of, must be opposed by people across the political spectrum who put peace ahead of party. ISIS has a one-hour video asking for this war. Giving it to them, and boosting their recruitment, is insanity. Ending insane policies is not a left or right position. This is a war that involves bombing the opposite side in Syria from the side we were told we had to bomb a year ago, and simultaneously arming the same side that the U.S. government is bombing. This is madness. To allow this to continue while mumbling the obvious truth that "there is no military solution" is too great an evil to fit into any lesser-evil electoral calculation.



This war is killing civilians in such large numbers that the White House has announced that restrictions on killing civilians will not be followed. This war is being used to strip away our rights at home. It's draining our economy. It's impoverishing us – primarily by justifying the routine annual spending of roughly $1 trillion on war preparations. It's endangering us by generating further hatred. And all of this destruction, with no upside to be found, is driven by irrational fear that has people telling pollsters they believe this war will endanger them and they're in favor of it.



According to the Congressional Research Service 79% of weapons shipments to Middle Eastern countries are from the United States, not counting arms given to allies of ISIS or used by the US military. Rather than arming this region to the teeth and joining in wars with US weapons on both sides, the United States could arrange for and lead an arms embargo. It could also provide restitution for what it has done in recent years, including the destruction of Iraq that allowed the creation of ISIS. Making restitution in the form of actual aid (as opposed to "military aid") would cost a lot less than lobbing $2 million missiles at people who view them as recruitment posters and tickets to martyrdom. That shift would also begin to make the United States liked rather than hated.



http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/10/09/right-left-alliance-needed-to-stop-this-war/">//http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/10/09/right-left-alliance-needed-to-stop-this-war/

[Obvious Li]

agreed..we stop getting involved over there..in exchange we put a complete ban on travel out of the middle east, excepting Israel......no planes, trains or autos allowed out, only in......a complete 100% ban...then we set about transporting the millions who have settled in europe and north america back home.

[Anonymous]

I dunno. I think we'd be safer as a country if we choose not to get involved.



And I agree with him. At what point is the line drawn before the war gets beyond everyone's control? Sending humanitarian aid to the people who need help sounds like the better thing to do.

That is what some of my friends at work were saying ghost..



But how do we ensure humanitarian aid is used for the people it was intended for?

[Anonymous]

The Liberal and Tories are playing politics with the ISIS involvement question. The only difference is that baby Trudeau is looking badly while Harper is winning.

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Trudeau was trying to prove when he said the government should provide humanitarian aid and non-combat support to the coalition taking on the Islamic State – "rather than whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are." Did he think his remark was funny? Hip? Accurate?



Between that comment, his reference in the Commons to the CF-18s as "a few aging warplanes" and his party's weakly reasoned argument against a combat role for Canada in Iraq and Syria, Mr. Trudeau has performed poorly on the biggest file to cross his desk since becoming party leader.



The nub of his argument against a combat role is that "it is always easier to get into a war than to get out of one." Yes, it can be easier to get in than out, but he has offered no evidence that the deployment of six CF-18s, one refuelling plane and two surveillance aircraft will grow into something larger. He is not saying it will, and he's not saying it won't. He's just saying, darkly, it could.



Okay, but you still have to make a decision. The question as defined by the government's motion was, Should we or should we not join our friends and allies – the U.S., Saudi Arabia, France, the U.K., Germany, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, the Netherlands and others – that have committed their air forces to bombing IS positions? It's that question that Mr. Trudeau has avoided answering directly.



Thomas Mulcair, the Opposition Leader, wasn't any more compelling in his refusal to support the combat mission. "The tragedy in Iraq and Syria will not end with another Western-led invasion in that region," he said. It is a big stretch to qualify this as an invasion, and a significant number of the active participants are not Western countries but Middle Eastern ones.



At least Mr. Mulcair is being consistent with his role as Opposition Leader and with the core values of the NDP. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, leads a third party that, when in government, showed a willingness to take the risk of deploying troops. Key Liberals – Roméo Dallaire, Lloyd Axworthy and Bob Rae – support a combat mission. Mr. Trudeau, though, dismisses combat as macho posturing and Canada's military capabilities as "a few aging warplanes." If he were prime minister, is this what he would tell Canada's allies?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/justin-trudeaus-lousy-week/article20993905/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e20993905/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/justin-trudeaus-lousy-week/article20993905/

[Anonymous]

Both Harper and baby Trudeau's positions are purely political. Most Canadians currently support Canada bombing ISIS targets(I am NOT one of them) even though it will certainly drop as this drags on.

 

Almost* two-thirds (or 64 per cent) of Canadians said they're strongly or somewhat in support of Canada sending jets, likely CF-18s, to launch strikes on ISIS targets in Iraq, according to an exclusive Global News/Ipsos Reid poll.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/majority-of-canadians-back-use-of-fighter-jets-to-strike-isis-in-iraq/">http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/major ... s-in-iraq/">http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/majority-of-canadians-back-use-of-fighter-jets-to-strike-isis-in-iraq/

The West usually makes things worse whenever they go into that part of the world. I hope this is the one time they get it right.