Do you approve of Canada ending its bombing mission against ISIS?

[Rumors]

Do you approve of Canada ending its bombing mission against ISIS?

[SignalHillHiker]

I'm torn. I'm not worried about the bombing campaign making Canada a target, we already are. I'm just concerned it's not an effective way to protect and strengthen moderate civilians, which is my primary want.

[drew]

Yes

[JHikka]

The bombing missions were entirely effective and were contributing to the disruption of ISIS activity in the region. Not pleased they're ending.

[kwoldtimer]

I do, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that our U.S. Allies approve as well.

[VANRIDERFAN]

As to the allied (re US ) response? Well for sure they are not going to publicly say that they would be annoyed at our decision. Word on the military street in Washington is that the americans are very happy that we left our ISR and refueling aircraft in theatre and that we will be increasing our training cadre with the Kurds.

That being said;
If the Trudeau Liberals are so adamant that bombing doesn't work, then why did they leave the ISR and Refueling aircraft in theatre? Because the strike capability of the coalition is SEVERELY diminished without those types of aircraft supporting the fighter-bombers. Is it a case of "Support to bombing if necessary but not necessarily supporting bombing" (with all due regards to Mackenzie-King)? Then this decision is in the finest traditions of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Now if Trudeau had said "We are pulling the CF-188's out of theatre due to the fact they are getting close to end of their service life and we want to use their remaining hours for the defence of Canada" I could support that line of reasoning but the way he just dismissed the capabilities of our fighter community as useless really ticks me off.

As to the debate about this being a non-combat deployment? Ask the Canadian soldiers who is ducking bullets being fired at them, they'll tell you pretty quick if it is combat or not!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

As to the allied (re US ) response? Well for sure they are not going to publicly say that they would be annoyed at our decision. Word on the military street in Washington is that the americans are very happy that we left our ISR and refueling aircraft in theatre and that we will be increasing our training cadre with the Kurds.
That being said;
If the Trudeau Liberals are so adamant that bombing doesn't work, then why did they leave the ISR and Refueling aircraft in theatre? Because the strike capability of the coalition is SEVERELY diminished without those types of aircraft supporting the fighter-bombers. Is it a case of "Support to bombing if necessary but not necessarily supporting bombing" (with all due regards to Mackenzie-King)? Then this decision is in the finest traditions of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Now if Trudeau had said "We are pulling the CF-188's out of theatre due to the fact they are getting close to end of their service life and we want to use their remaining hours for the defence of Canada" I could support that line of reasoning but the way he just dismissed the capabilities of our fighter community as useless really ticks me off.
As to the debate about this being a non-combat deployment? Ask the Canadian soldiers who is ducking bullets being fired at them, they'll tell you pretty quick if it is combat or not!

Actually, it seems to me that the tripling of Canada's training presence will increase the risk to our military, non- combat mission or not.

[*Stardust*]

I agree with the bombing mission ending, but the new mission isn't that much better in my opinion. My concern is reading the other day on CBC where Canada will be supplying arms to the Kurds, which was part of the plan, but it talked about how that could have repercussions in the future on how those arms would be used. I mean, there are risks with every military mission, but it got me thinking.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics...ners-1.3441141

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes. Bombing was pretty ineffective by the sheer number dropped there. The only recourse is to pulll out militarily and spend billions providing aid over the next 50 years. Picking a side serves no purpose except for the billions in military contracts and cheap black gold. So, we are going to arm the Kurds that are currently in a loose coalition with Al Quaida and have their own atrocities to speak for. Nice.

[Black Star]

Bomb the piss out of those savages


IMG_8956 by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I'm torn. I'm not worried about the bombing campaign making Canada a target, we already are. I'm just concerned it's not an effective way to protect and strengthen moderate civilians, which is my primary want.

Agree completely. Plus I'm not sure there's ANYTHING we can do over there to help the situation. The entire region is a clusterfuck, most of them hate us and each other. You could almost argue that they were better off with dictators like Hussein and Gadaffi. Yeah they were assholes and murderers but pretty sure less innocent civilians were being killed then as there are now. ISIS stepped into that power vacuum with ease and its been a nightmare ever since.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

Agree completely. Plus I'm not sure there's ANYTHING we can do over there to help the situation. The entire region is a clusterfuck, most of them hate us and each other. You could almost argue that they were better off with dictators like Hussein and Gadaffi. Yeah they were assholes and murderers but pretty sure less innocent civilians were being killed then as there are now. ISIS stepped into that power vacuum with ease and its been a nightmare ever since.

How do you know that most of the people there "hate us?" And you can't really group all of those counties together as there are huge differences among them. Gadaffi was president of Libya, an African country, not the Middle-East.

Saddam Hussein was pretty evil as a leader according to a friend of mine who is Kurdish and grew up in Iraq. A number of her family member died as they were gassed by the Iraqi army under Saddam's orders. Most Iraqis have a lot of respect for Canadians by the way.

[Rico Rommheim]

That entire region is a goddamn mess. Anyone who gets involved get screwed somehow. Why should we care, or get involved in this part of the world? Think about it, what do we owe Syria, or Iraq? We owe them nothing.

If the americans were smart they would have left that part of the world blow itself up long ago.

[tomthumb2]

Originally Posted by Loco101

How do you know that most of the people there "hate us?" And you can't really group all of those counties together as there are huge differences among them. Gadaffi was president of Libya, an African country, not the Middle-East.

Saddam Hussein was pretty evil as a leader according to a friend of mine who is Kurdish and grew up in Iraq. A number of her family member died as they were gassed by the Iraqi army under Saddam's orders. Most Iraqis have a lot of respect for Canadians by the way.

From pretty much everything I read and see in the news, plus my Iranian and Lebanese friends who say most people there are brainwashed from their own governments and media (just like a lot of us over here, IE: anyone who listens to Trump). Agree with you 110% on Saddam. He was pure evil but things are no better now that he's gone. It's a revolving door of hatred, corruption and killing and sadly it will never end.

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

That entire region is a goddamn mess. Anyone who gets involved get screwed somehow. Why should we care, or get involved in this part of the world? Think about it, what do we owe Syria, or Iraq? We owe them nothing.

If the americans were smart they would have left that part of the world blow itself up long ago.

Because this isn't the tenth century! The world is far too interconnected and technology has advanced too far for us to be able to ignore what happens in the rest of the world. It wouldn't blow itself up, which of course would be an intolerable tragedy if it did, it'd just lead to more and more horror and that horror would leak, maybe in unexpected ways.

[kool maudit]

When a country says it is "fighting ISIS", that's code for "doing a bunch of shady shit in accordance with the longstanding Nato/western plan to destabilize the Middle East for geopolitical reasons".

Are ISIS horrible barbarians? Yeah. That's in their press pack.

But the real question is how, once the various grab-bag rebels and warlords and radicals are routed, are people to live? What regime will run the hospitals, the water boards, the police forces?

Libya is worse without Gaddhafi. Iraq is worse without Hussein. Syria has no hope of enjoying anything close to functioning state structures without rebuilding those of the Assad regime (even if, as Moscow proposed in 2013, this is done prior to his replacement).

Were those guys gloomy dictators? Yeah. But the lesson of the 2000s is that there is a stage of national circumstance BELOW "gloomy dictator", and Nato has placed these three countries exactly there.

Coalition of moderate rebels my fucking left nut. Nato armed Al-Qaeda in Syria. Remember al-Qaeda? They were the ISIS before ISIS. Then somehow...

What the Nato are doing in Syria is hopeless and confused at best, dishonest and evil at worst.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

Because this isn't the tenth century! The world is far too interconnected and technology has advanced too far for us to be able to ignore what happens in the rest of the world. It wouldn't blow itself up, which of course would be an intolerable tragedy if it did, it'd just lead to more and more horror and that horror would leak, maybe in unexpected ways.

Um, western powers rampaging through the middle-east was quite in vogue in the 10th century. It didn't work in anybody's favour back then, either.

[kool maudit]

The First Crusade, it must be remembered, also centred on Syria where the expansion of the Seljuk Turks was changing the public and religious face of Anatolia and Syria following the Byzantines' loss at Manzikert.

It wasn't just "Europeans killing muslims for no reason because they were racist" or whatever.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

How do you know that most of the people there "hate us?" And you can't really group all of those counties together as there are huge differences among them. Gadaffi was president of Libya, an African country, not the Middle-East.

Saddam Hussein was pretty evil as a leader according to a friend of mine who is Kurdish and grew up in Iraq. A number of her family member died as they were gassed by the Iraqi army under Saddam's orders. Most Iraqis have a lot of respect for Canadians by the way.

Except that the West didn't knock off Saddam Hussein because he was an evil leader who was cruel to his people. They knocked him off because they wanted access to his oil and for other strategic reasons.

The West even supported and armed him in the 1980s when he happened to be in a war with our arch-enemy of the day: Iran.

The Congo-Kinshasa has an ongoing civil war that has killed nearly 5 million people over the past 10-15 years, and the international community has more or less treated this hugely tragic conflict with a big yawn.

[MoreTrains]

There is no way to stop or diminish a defensive force like Daesh from the air. The air war is soley there for press reasons. If NATO wanted to actually get rid of Daesh, they would be using many more ground forces.