NDP, Liberals to vote NO going to war against ISIS

[valve37]

Makes perfect sense for after all it's not their relatives being beheaded or their children and spouses being raped and murdered. Call it a total disregard and non compassion for fellow man.

ISIS mission reveals Liberal divide: Party’s grandees express support for ‘robust Canadian mission’

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/05/isis-mission-reveals-liberal-divide-partys-grandees-express-...

[pierrelebel]

I agree with the NDP position in this respect.

Canadians could support the war effort against ISIS but it could be done without being the attacker.  We could supply assistance or humanitarian help.  It may be a lot more fruitful than sending a handful of F18 to kill people.  And make no mistake about it: we will kill people.

[valve37]

"I agree with the NDP position in this respect."

Yep, the NDP would send over aid workers, just the kind of targets ISIS like to get their hands on and then ....................................

[pierrelebel]

How will Canadians react six months or a year from now when we face the news that our Canadian forces have killed civilians, women and children with our bombs? (Americans call that "collateral damage" but how will Canadians feel about killing those people?)

Is that what being a Canadian is all about?

Do you expect Harper to ever win the Pearson Medal of Peace?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Medal_of_Peace

[valve37]

Did we not cause any collateral damage in the Afghanistan campain? It's a fact of war whether by bombs, artillery, tanks etc. Providing aid at this time will not stop ISIS. Our contribution of aerial bombs will help our partners do that. Much aid will be needed when the battle is won. Judging from the past the NDP will vote NO to any aid proposed by Stevie when it's all over, unless by some miraculous act of a higher intervention the NDP become the government.

As for the medal it's not inconceivable, after all Gisele Cote Harper won it in 1995.

Collateral damage is damage to things that are incidental to the intended target. It is frequently used as a military term where it can refer to the accidental or unintentional killing or wounding of non-combatants and/or destruction to non-combatant property during attacks on legitimate enemy targets.

[fixmusic2013]

Oh really valve?. The conservatives were demonizing assad but soon realized that he was fighting ISIS. Now the government will have to work with him if they want to deal with ISIS. The same ISIS that were fighting along side the US in Iraq and were given arms to fight assad.

Of course the harper government care so much about children and beheading as long as its palestinian kids dying and the saudi's doing the beheading.

There should be a rule in Canada where politicians kids and people like valve are required to join the military. Let see how fast they go to war.

[valve37]

Majority of Canadians back use of fighter jets to strike ISIS in Iraq

http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/majority-of-canadians-back-use-of-fighter-jets-to-strike-isis-in-i...

[fixmusic2013]

LMAO just like the Iraq war right?.

facepalm.....

[valve37]

Laff some more Fixmusic. In case you missed it .......................

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/shocking-footage-shows-isis-thugs-3932256

[fixmusic2013]

I can copy and paste too. Its not hard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-we-ignore-the-civilians-killed-in-american-wars/2011/1...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9P5vIzYyE

www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-yea...

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into_a_funeral

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/world/asia/08afghan.html?_r=0

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-killings-of-innocent-civilians-in-afghanistan-and-pakistan/31395

I can go back as far as the vietnam war if you want?.

How come you dodge the question about assad?. LOL. We are helping him now?, US were helping ISIS to defeat him why the sudden change of heart?. You do realize that US were fighting along side the sunni isis in Iraq right?.

I guess not. LMAO.

[fixmusic2013]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-afghan-children-killed-in-nato-airstrikes/53303...

Want some more?.

If you want Canada in that fight, do not be surprised if some homegrown kid do some terrorist stuff in our homeland. We only have people like you to blame.

[valve37]

It appears you do not acknowledge or perhaps understand the difference between collateral damage and genocide. Here I'll point out the difference:

Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the killing of members of the group.

Collateral damage is damage to things that are incidental to the intended target. It is frequently used as a military term where it can refer to the accidental or unintentional killing or wounding of non-combatants and/or destruction to non-combatant property during attacks on legitimate enemy targets.

[fixmusic2013]

It appears that you think any of those matter when there is a war.

Remember the US didnt call rwanda genocide?.

So how do you explain that oh great one?.

You keep dodging the question. Why are we buddies with Assad who we were demonising months ago?. He was beheading people too. If ISIS were such a threat to us then why were NATO working with them in Iraq and Syria?. You do realize they killed american soldiers in Iraq as well right until the US paid them to stop attacking the shiites?

Im sure you have no answer for that one and will do more copy and pasting. LOL.

[valve37]

Assad: for the same reason in WWII the US sent arms and notably Bell P39 Airacobra aircraft to Russia to defeat a common enemy at the time, the Nazis. ISIS in this case is the common enemy.

Really thought you would have caught on to that!

  

[fixmusic2013]

Please study up on your history. LOL.

Russia and US/Canada werent enemies before and during the Nazis reign. US and Russia conflict started after.

Months ago:

Assad were the enemy. ISIS were the friend.

Now

ISIS is the enemy and Assad is the friend.

[valve37]

No, you need to read the history. They have been anything but friendly and then only for WWII as allies to defeat the common enemy.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations

I rest my case, now go and prove Wikipedia wrong. Try Snopes for a starter.

[fixmusic2013]

Who said they were friendly?. Not only you need to learn your history, you need to learn how to read, period. LMAO.

They werent at war. There were no military conflict between them.

The only war is the Cold War which started after WW2.

So how is this the same as assad and isis?. LOL. oh right, it is not.

[valve37]

The US has never been at war with Syria either. However they have never been kissin cousins either. Syria is a puppet of Russia and supplies them with arms and has a port there.

Israel cleaned Syria's clock when attacked in three wars. I suppse in your eyes that was the US. 

[art-in-the-making]

This mission is far too unfocused, unplanned, haphazard. Jason Kenney was making a big deal about how Belgium is sending 6 f-16s. Big deal - if we're going to copy everything every European country does I could think of a number of smarter moves to copy.

Arguably, the ISIS mission may be the best of poor options available for Obama right now. But it is simply not a good match for Canada. And our modest contribution will be of minimal (and debateable) benefit in comparison to the cost, both in terms of resources and in national morale.

The trouble is, we don't have the depth in our miltary, our military support system, or our national war tolerance to handle this kind of ad-hoc, "throw some aircraft and crew into the pot" mission that has debatable merit, iffy outcome and every possibility of becoming a quagmire.

We should be saving our forces for those type of more well-defined missions such as in Afghanistan where we played a major role even with our limited military in Kandahar.

Always ready to send our troops into battle thinking by the seat of his pants, Harper fails to allow for the possibililty of unforeseen events that would be legitimate situations for us to get involved in. Putting us in the position of being spread too thinly in questionable ops, possibly preventing us from being effective elsewhere.

[disisus]

Harper isn't Assad's friend. He's afraid of him.

Last year Harper greatly encouraged other leaders to go after Assad.

He supported military action against Assad at the G8 and the UN.

He put down countries that didn't agree and used all types of name-calling ( if you get my meaning ).

Now he won't go into Syria without Assad's permission.

Sources say it's because he's afraid that Assad will shoot our CF-18's down if he doesn't get permission.