New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

conservatives utter contempt for Trudeau only makes me like him more. I can't wait for the liberals to be elected in power and watch the fox news like reactions up here. Should be very entertaining.

Exhibit 1134 on why mandatory voting laws are a very bad idea.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Disband the military? Of course not. No one is better equipped to provide on the ground humanitarian support. Canada has broad capabilities beyond just combat.

We just don't need to be doing token combat missions to help. The U.S., France and Britain are enough chefs in the kitchen.

With ISIS targeting humanitarian workers, we would probably bury a lot of soldiers.

Unless your willing to go in and fight to establish a logistics beach head and then use armored vehicles and troops to protect travel routes a humanitarian mission would fail.

At this point if Trudeau wants a humanitarian mission he would have to accept boots on the ground in not small numbers.

I think he's using a lot of buzz words that make him look reasonable, but in all reality he has very little to no clue about what's happening over there.

and his dick joke was ridiculous, I'm sure his handlers will right him a nice clarification.

[Daradon]

Well, Trudeau and the Libs are also in trouble of looking disorganized or wishy washy on the issue as they seemed to support some sort of role earlier.

They are just trying to distance themselves from the conservatives on the issue, which might be pointless in this situation as it appears the majority of Canadians are for air strikes. Even if they aren't, their position still has them vote spliting with the NDP anyway.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Do you think we should disband our military?

Serious question.

If you are not prepared to stand up against the worst parts of humanity, is there any need for you to have an army?

You're presenting a false dicotomy here. Militaries are for defending the country as much as attacking others. In fact, in this day in age, with waning imperialism, that's really all they are 'supposed' to be for. Just because someone doesn't want to use the military in an offensivr engagement doesn't mean they see no use for it.

Now, I'm not against attacking ISIS, but the question you asked really isn't as serious as you seem to think it is. There are plenty of reasons to have a functioning military and still be against action v ISIS (or other engagements).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I would disagree with Trudeau on that point, but could at least respect his opinion. As noted though, it was his need to behave like a grade school student and make a dick joke that made him look like a moron. And this guy thinks he could hack it as a diplomatic leader?

Maybe it's just me, but I'll take making one dick joke over continued contempt for democratic discourse.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

garbage

what we're doing is bombing the worst atrocities the earth has seen in 80 years.

Haha, you have to be kidding me. Darfur? Rwanda? ISIS exists because of the West's continuous involvement (illegally in many cases) in middle Eastern affairs. It's ridiculous that our solutions to problems created by Western combat missions are more combat missions.

[Lionel Steel]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Haha, you have to be kidding me. Darfur? Rwanda? ISIS exists because of the West's continuous involvement (illegally in many cases) in middle Eastern affairs. It's ridiculous that at our solutions to problems created by Western combat missions is more combat missions.

Completely agree.

ISIS is terrible, but I don't see how anyone can argue that the West played a huge role in their rise. Has there been any talk of what the end game is here? If ISIS is defeated, does the west just leave? What if someone worse fills the power vacuum?

How many times has the west illegally intervened into the affairs of sovereign nations since the end of WW2? Is Iran better off for our involvement? Is Iraq? How have all the West-assisted coups in South America worked out?

I think now might be a time to step back and really question if military intervention is the way to go here. At the very least, can we just stop pretending that the reasons are completely altruistic?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lionel Steel

Completely agree.

ISIS is terrible, but I don't see how anyone can argue that the West played a huge role in their rise. Has there been any talk of what the end game is here? If ISIS is defeated, does the west just leave? What if someone worse fills the power vacuum?

How many times has the west illegally intervened into the affairs of sovereign nations since the end of WW2? Is Iran better off for our involvement? Is Iraq? How have all the West-assisted coups in South America worked out?

I think now might be a time to step back and really question if military intervention is the way to go here. At the very least, can we just stop pretending that the reasons are completely altruistic?

I thing your question here is the wrong question.

I think that the air strike's are going to become a very ineffectual strategy anyways. I think that Obama selling this on the pretext that the end goal of the destruction of IS is either disingenuous or he was sold the wrong and much to positive message by his advisers.

Frankly IS is already reacting to the airstrikes by moving their logistics centers and troops and leadership centers into civilian areas, and this coalition is desperate to not create a high civilian casualty count.

Second of all, IS is not a sophisticated military with a need for a lot of logistics. These guys for the most part walk into battle or drive pickups and other vehicles into battle, so unlike an Iraq that was crippled when America removed their technology in the first days of Desert Storm. The bombing campaign will be more like pin pricks.

Does IS have to be stopped and stomped out, I believe it does, at the very least their continued success is going to distort energy prices. At the very worst, they continue to spread and recruit and export their terror brand to different countries, and then we have a real problem. We are also looking at the beginning of a genocide based state, and as citizens of the world, we really can't stand by and watch as they gun down, forcibly convert and kill, murder anyone who they don't like. Nasty hostage beheadings aside, the world media is already losing interest in the mass slaughter of people caught behind the so called lines.

The bottom line is that the only way to defeat IS is with boots on the ground and solid intelligence and being able to fight the war ruthlessly.

Seal operators in different wars have called it "Making footsteps" because you make the enemy so afraid and worried about what your going to do next that they worry about that and lose the initiative and start making mistakes.

Frankly IS is not making a lot of mistakes.

As well they don't even have to recruit and train anymore, they just have to inspire, and the more that they win with impunity and the West reacts weakly, the more that different radicalized individuals will strike out on their own in their own countries.

I believe that the only way to defeat IS is to go in and rip it out by the roots and however the human and monetary cost to that is huge. You would then have to occupy the area and ruthlessly deal with the insurgency while spending a lot on improving education and ifrastructure.

I also believe that you have to choke off their funding by threatening supporting countries, and you have to go in and clean out their radicalizing mosques and leaders.

Its a job that can't be done with a 100 figher bomber salute.

[rubecube]

Do people really not see the connection between IS' recruiting abilities and Western military presence in the middle East? You put boots on the ground and it's just more material they can use to recruit.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do people really not see the connection between IS' recruiting abilities and Western military presence in the middle East? You put boots on the ground and it's just more material they can use to recruit.

I think that's irrelevant

If you put boots on the ground, they'll use it to recruit

IF they continue to have success with no consequences of a weak response then they'll use that to recruit.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do people really not see the connection between IS' recruiting abilities and Western military presence in the middle East? You put boots on the ground and it's just more material they can use to recruit.

This is why I think it's critical that the "boots on the ground" come in the form of soldiers from Arab League nations (backed with a UN mandate), not Western forces. I think there's a role to play for NATO to assist anti-IS operations with intelligence-sharing and air support, but more Western meddling in Middle East affairs isn't going to solve anything. We need the governments of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, etc. to really step up and take a leadership role in stamping out Islamic extremism.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that's irrelevant

If you put boots on the ground, they'll use it to recruit

IF they continue to have success with no consequences of a weak response then they'll use that to recruit.

Okay, so what does boots on the ground accomplish then? You stamp out IS (maybe) and at the same time create another generation of extremists. What is your end game? If you want to criticize Trudeau for suggesting diplomatic or humanitarian approaches, then you at least need to turn a critical eye towards the tired and failed policies of military intervention that others are suggesting. We have seven decades of history which demonstrate how fundamentally flawed and short-sighted military intervention usually is, but we want to mock someone who thinks it might be time to try something new?

[Lionel Steel]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I thing your question here is the wrong question.

I think that the air strike's are going to become a very ineffectual strategy anyways. I think that Obama selling this on the pretext that the end goal of the destruction of IS is either disingenuous or he was sold the wrong and much to positive message by his advisers.

Frankly IS is already reacting to the airstrikes by moving their logistics centers and troops and leadership centers into civilian areas, and this coalition is desperate to not create a high civilian casualty count.

Second of all, IS is not a sophisticated military with a need for a lot of logistics. These guys for the most part walk into battle or drive pickups and other vehicles into battle, so unlike an Iraq that was crippled when America removed their technology in the first days of Desert Storm. The bombing campaign will be more like pin pricks.

Does IS have to be stopped and stomped out, I believe it does, at the very least their continued success is going to distort energy prices. At the very worst, they continue to spread and recruit and export their terror brand to different countries, and then we have a real problem. We are also looking at the beginning of a genocide based state, and as citizens of the world, we really can't stand by and watch as they gun down, forcibly convert and kill, murder anyone who they don't like. Nasty hostage beheadings aside, the world media is already losing interest in the mass slaughter of people caught behind the so called lines.

The bottom line is that the only way to defeat IS is with boots on the ground and solid intelligence and being able to fight the war ruthlessly.

Seal operators in different wars have called it "Making footsteps" because you make the enemy so afraid and worried about what your going to do next that they worry about that and lose the initiative and start making mistakes.

Frankly IS is not making a lot of mistakes.

As well they don't even have to recruit and train anymore, they just have to inspire, and the more that they win with impunity and the West reacts weakly, the more that different radicalized individuals will strike out on their own in their own countries.

I believe that the only way to defeat IS is to go in and rip it out by the roots and however the human and monetary cost to that is huge. You would then have to occupy the area and ruthlessly deal with the insurgency while spending a lot on improving education and ifrastructure.

I also believe that you have to choke off their funding by threatening supporting countries, and you have to go in and clean out their radicalizing mosques and leaders.

Its a job that can't be done with a 100 figher bomber salute.

I really enjoy your insight into military strategy Captain, it's an area that I will admit to not being very well versed in.

I bolded the section of your post that I find really interesting. I would agree that everything you said, but are we willing to do what it takes to make it happen? Like you said, the monetary cost would be huge, along with the human cost it would take to conquer and occupy the areas that IS currently controls. Is it feasible for the west to do that?

Another thought, will we be able to convince people in the Middle East to accept the kind of fundamental changes to their society that we are proposing? More importantly, do we want to be a society that forces our views on other at the tip of the sword?

Why not let the Middle East decide their own fate for a change? Have they not earned that right?

I realize I am asking a lot of questions here, but that's because I legitimately don't know how we should proceed here. I think a lot of people are in the same boat.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, so what does boots on the ground accomplish then? You stamp out IS (maybe) and at the same time create another generation of extremists. What is your end game? If you want to criticize Trudeau for suggesting diplomatic or humanitarian approaches, then you at least need to turn a critical eye towards the tired and failed policies of military intervention that others are suggesting. We have seven decades of history which demonstrate how fundamentally flawed and short-sighted military intervention usually is, but we want to mock someone who thinks it might be time to try something new?

Respectfully Trudeau can talk about a diplomatic approach, but that's a pretty vague term that I have a feeling he's unwilling or unable to define. Diplomatic to who? Recognizing IS and then negotiating them out of their stance of genocide and exporting terror to the West? Good luck with that. Diplomacy to the neighboring nations and using them almost as a mercenary military with Western backing and air power? That will only foster a rise of radicalism and attacks in those nations. Maybe cut off the supporting nations in terms of economic sanctions and a refusal to buy their oil. Some good old gunboat diplomacy? I would actually be on board with that.

So lets go to the humanitarian side of things? Are we sending food and supplies to people trapped behind the line? Because to do that then you certainly have to put boots on the ground to make sure that it gets there because frankly if you just drop it off with our "allies" and hope that we don't end up clothing and feeding IS. On top of that IS is targeting humanitarian workers and convoys so your basically going to have to protect them. Maybe we could send food and blankets to refugee camps in places like Turkey, but that does nothing to address the human misery being done to the people stuck with IS.

Frankly you're going to have a rise of a next generation of extremists no matter what you do, and frankly its just as much the fault of the West as it is the fault of the nations there who allow for radical education and turn a blind eye to radicalization. Look at Saudi Arabia, they basically turned a blind eye to these crazies back after their last major terrorist attack in Saudia Arabia in exchange for a guarantee of no more attacks.

I still firmly believe that the military boots on the ground option is going to have to happen, but the Western Powers have to stop thinking of themselves in WW2 terms where you don't have a end game because you march in, beat your enemy and burger kings, massage parlors and liquor stores pop up over night.

You either have to have a end game that features a eradication of the radical elements of that society, which means that you stamp out Jihadist based schools and Mosques and their Iman, and you prepare to stay there a lot longer and fight a lot dirtier then your prepared to do. You also have to build schools and infrastructure and create a better life that people want to follow.

Because the other option is that all of the Western Nations stop buying oil and doing business in the middle east and completely stop doing business there, watch all of the economies collapse, watch ISIS and other groups go wild, and wait for the inevitable day that Israel drops a nuke.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lionel Steel

I really enjoy your insight into military strategy Captain, it's an area that I will admit to not being very well versed in.

I bolded the section of your post that I find really interesting. I would agree that everything you said, but are we willing to do what it takes to make it happen? Like you said, the monetary cost would be huge, along with the human cost it would take to conquer and occupy the areas that IS currently controls. Is it feasible for the west to do that?

Another thought, will we be able to convince people in the Middle East to accept the kind of fundamental changes to their society that we are proposing? More importantly, do we want to be a society that forces our views on other at the tip of the sword?

Why not let the Middle East decide their own fate for a change? Have they not earned that right?

I realize I am asking a lot of questions here, but that's because I legitimately don't know how we should proceed here. I think a lot of people are in the same boat.

I'm not the guy with the answers here, I tried to lay out what I thought above, and expect to take a unpleasant beatdown here shortly.

I would be ok if the Middle East decided its own fate, however that means the West should completely isolate itself from the Middle East in terms of any funding or purchases or Oil of other products.

My gut sense is that with the different groups in the Middle East and the ancient disputes in the Middle East, if you don't hold some kind of sword over that area that your going to see an unprecedented burst of violence and slaughter that's not only based around groups like IS, but around Nation versus Nation.

If there was no threat of Western Intervention, it wouldn't take Iran very long to go into Iraq for example. Saudi Arabia would probably get attacked as well, there are a lot of ancient disputes both based on Religion and on nationhood that would explode into violence.

Israel would probably freak out if the U.S. said the Middle East was on its own, and there would be little restraint there.

[octothorp]

To me, 'boots on the ground' is a brutal phrase, because it really dehumanizes what the factors are. What we really mean is 'lives in harm's way'. (Which isn't to disregard that anyone who climbs into a fighter jet is putting their life in harm's way, but the risks are totally different on the ground). And this is what the moral argument comes down to: to what extent are we willing to put our own soldiers' lives at risk to prevent what we see as gravely immoral acts abroad? And this is a drastic advantage ISIL has over nearly everyone else involved: a total willingness to put their soldiers in harms way, and a total willingness (even enthusiasm) by those soldiers to be in harm's way.

I think CC is totally right that a ground offensive is the only way to stop ISIL. But I don't see that happening.
Because we (the West) have carved up the Middle-East with little regard for existing culture, we've created a situation where there isn't great willingness to put lives in harm's way, because various religious or cultural allegiances supersede national allegiances. Countries like Saudi Arabia may have a relatively advanced, American-provided military, but they seem to have little authority to put lives in harm's way, even for something that is relatively in their back yard. The Iraqi government may have a willingness to put lives in harm's way (and a necessity to do so), but it doesn't seem that their soldiers are universally willing to give up their lives for their country (not suprising, given its history). So even if you had a coalition of middle-eastern countries who were willing to fight these wars, I'm skeptical about whether they could mount a successful campaign against an enemy as motivated as ISIL.

I think the West really missed the boat in not encouraging and advancing Kurdish independence. Obviously it was not done because western allies in the region (Iraq and Turkey) opposed it. But a better-organized and funded Kurdish army would have paid off enormously right now.

All that said, I'm in favour of Canada providing air support to the mission, because the risk to Canadian forces is relatively low (though still present), and because it can actually help the mission (although the best way that it helps is probably in creating the optics of a broader coalition that will allow the American government to better sell their own, major involvement to their people). But at this point, the airstrike campaign is going to be about limiting the spread of ISIL far more than affecting what they do within the territory that they already control.

[Daradon]

Love that first part of your post Octo. I feel the same way.

[FLAMESRULE]

Very interesting article on the gutting of the federal government by Harper. A "lobotomy" to be more accurate. (not sure if posted). And i realize its a couple years old: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09...n_1871658.html

[killer_carlson]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...tum_hbert.html

Good article by Chantal Hebert who documents a moving trend of "Anyone But Harper' amongst voters. The support Trudeau lost in his bungling of the ISIS matter went to the NDP and Greens, and not the Conservatives.

[rubecube]

For me, this (the cuts to research and muzzling of scientists) and OMNIBUS are the biggest issues I have with the Harper government. Pretty embarrassing that it's come to this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fo...uffer&cmp=fbtl

Hundreds of scientists around the world are asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to end "burdensome restrictions on scientific communication and collaboration faced by Canadian government scientists."

The letter was signed by more than 800 scientists outside Canada from 32 countries, at institutions ranging from Harvard Medical School in the U.S. to the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

The letter says "a rapid decline in freedoms and funding" for Canadian government scientists is making it more difficult for them to conduct research, communicate scientific information and expertise and collaborate internationally.

"Canada's leadership in basic research, environmental, health and other public science is in jeopardy," the letter says. "We urge you to restore government science funding and the freedom and opportunities to communicate these findings internationally."