Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Senator Clay Davis]

ISIS is not any more violent or depraved than Mexican drug cartels, but of course Mexican drug cartels don't have slickly produce videos of the disgusting acts they commit. That's why people think ISIS is the worst thing ever, because they've used social media propaganda better than any other group ever has. But there are atrocities committed around the globe that are as bad as ISIS, but again no slick propaganda videos are coming from them.

And those saying there needs to be a plan, that pretty much means committing Canadian troops to the ground over there. Sorry but the West can't solve every single problem there is, particular in the Middle East where meddling usually has a long term negative effect. What Canada should be trying to do is getting more countries from the region to take action. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Egypt all have armed forces that can take down ISIS easily if committed. Why does the West consistently have to sacrifice it's soldiers and money?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

ISIS is much worse than Mexican drug cartels because of the proportion of their impact that directly affects innocents. That in addition to the fact that cartels have a largely economic agenda; ISIS is a group of religious zealots who sincerely believe they are righteous in everything they do.

I'm aware of the practical difficulties in actually achieving anything, much less knowing the results of any intervention effort one could dream up. But that does not change the fact that, given that the West likely could do something to stop what's happening over there, it's hard to stomach just allowing it to continue.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

ISIS is much worse than Mexican drug cartels because of the proportion of their impact that directly affects innocents. That in addition to the fact that cartels have a largely economic agenda; ISIS is a group of religious zealots who sincerely believe they are righteous in everything they do.

I'm aware of the practical difficulties in actually achieving anything, much less knowing the results of any intervention effort one could dream up. But that does not change the fact that, given that the West likely could do something to stop what's happening over there, it's hard to stomach just allowing it to continue.

My point was more that ISIS is doing things that are happening in other parts of the world as well. So is ISIS the only one worth stopping? Or shouldn't we try and stop them all?

There's also the catch: Intervening in the Middle East in any way is likely to be a spectacular failure barring a permanent intervention of establishing bases over there again. As we just saw, when the West leaves it's just gonna go to #### again. We went to Afghanistan to beat the Taliban, and after the yeas and money wasted... the Taliban is likely to be running it again in some form soon. It was a staggering waste of money. , it always is when the West gets involved.

Until countries from the region are leading the fight over there, nothing will ever change. All that going over there would do is set the steps in motion to establish the next Islamic extremist group.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Esoteric

I was 86% Liberal, 85% NDP, 81% Green, 79% Libertarian and 27% conservative.

I hope another vote compass is done this year for the federal election.

Vote Compass is up now for the Canadian federal election. Check your results
http://www.votecompass.com/

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

ISIS is not any more violent or depraved than Mexican drug cartels, but of course Mexican drug cartels don't have slickly produce videos of the disgusting acts they commit. That's why people think ISIS is the worst thing ever, because they've used social media propaganda better than any other group ever has. But there are atrocities committed around the globe that are as bad as ISIS, but again no slick propaganda videos are coming from them.

And those saying there needs to be a plan, that pretty much means committing Canadian troops to the ground over there. Sorry but the West can't solve every single problem there is, particular in the Middle East where meddling usually has a long term negative effect. What Canada should be trying to do is getting more countries from the region to take action. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Egypt all have armed forces that can take down ISIS easily if committed. Why does the West consistently have to sacrifice it's soldiers and money?

Problem is those other countries have their own agendas. Turkey is using the war on terror to fight the Kurds while ignoring ISIS who conveniently is weakening Turkey's enemy Syria. Saudi is almost certainly funding ISIS, if not officially, as a fellow Sunni group. Iran is the most effective force against ISIS (Shi-ite vs Sunni) and in the process is gaining control in Iraq. Egypt is just a mess.

So who do you want to align with?

[KelVarnsen]

Richard Madan @RichardMadan
Harper at Tim Hortons cash register: "tell me what to do, just don't let me handle the cash" #elxn42

He finally tells the truth...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

My point was more that ISIS is doing things that are happening in other parts of the world as well. So is ISIS the only one worth stopping? Or shouldn't we try and stop them all?

I would say it's a cost benefit analysis - where can good be done for the lowest losses. Let's not get into that silly "I can't feasibly donate 100% of my salary to charity so I'll donate none" line of reasoning.

There's also the catch: Intervening in the Middle East in any way is likely to be a spectacular failure barring a permanent intervention of establishing bases over there again. As we just saw, when the West leaves it's just gonna go to #### again. We went to Afghanistan to beat the Taliban, and after the yeas and money wasted... the Taliban is likely to be running it again in some form soon. It was a staggering waste of money. , it always is when the West gets involved.

This may be true, or there may be better ways of going about it. Suggesting that any intervention, however structured, in an area vaguely continguous to previous interventions will necessarily produce the same results is clearly an oversimplification. I'm not dismissing the possibility that you're right and there's just no military or peacekeeping option there that's worth the cost right now, but I'm not sure that's true and if it is it certainly can't be true forever.

But I didn't claim to have a solution; I just think that in the hypothetical situation where we were confident that we could intervene to some effect, that I'd have a hard time saying, "that's just not our problem".

[peter12]

The collective tolerance for any sustained casualties in a ground intervention with ISIS is about zero. No political will, no money, and no sustained ability to plan or cooperate at any macro level.

Ironically, and I am surprised you don't see this, but ISIS is the result of several other poorly played out Western interventions in the region - Libya probably being the most significant.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I would say it's a cost benefit analysis - where can good be done for the lowest losses. Let's not get into that silly "I can't feasibly donate 100% of my salary to charity so I'll donate none" line of reasoning.

Of course we can't save everyone. But using cost/benefit actually doesn't really work here. We can go there, save their lives and....then what? Hand it back to the Iraqi military to surrender again next time? Sorry to say but the only way to permanently save the lives is to have a never ending presence there. That will obviously severely skew the cost/benefit, rendering the cost almost incalculable. Frankly if you wanted to approach this as cost/benefit, there are likely much better ways to save a lot of lives around the world.

This may be true, or there may be better ways of going about it. Suggesting that any intervention, however structured, in an area vaguely continguous to previous interventions will necessarily produce the same results is clearly an oversimplification. I'm not dismissing the possibility that you're right and there's just no military or peacekeeping option there that's worth the cost right now, but I'm not sure that's true and if it is it certainly can't be true forever.

But I didn't claim to have a solution; I just think that in the hypothetical situation where we were confident that we could intervene to some effect, that I'd have a hard time saying, "that's just not our problem"

The point is no one in thousands of years has found a solution. And every time we seem to try something else, it ends up making the situation even worse. Finding a permanent solution is the only way, and the only way to a permanent solution is either not having Western involvement, or having a permanent presence there, possibly even forever. Good luck selling that to the general public.

The world is a ####ing terrible place. We can't solve every single problem. If we go again, we're essentially telling the Middle East that no matter what, we're going to solve your problems. Isn't it about time they solve their own problems? We lose the lives and money, and get nothing more than a chance to go back and do it again. At some point (like after a cost/benefit analysis...), you just have to accept that it's not worth it.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Of course we can't save everyone. But using cost/benefit actually doesn't really work here. We can go there, save their lives and....then what? Hand it back to the Iraqi military to surrender again next time? Sorry to say but the only way to permanently save the lives is to have a never ending presence there. That will obviously severely skew the cost/benefit, rendering the cost almost incalculable. Frankly if you wanted to approach this as cost/benefit, there are likely much better ways to save a lot of lives around the world.


The point is no one in thousands of years has found a solution. And every time we seem to try something else, it ends up making the situation even worse. Finding a permanent solution is the only way, and the only way to a permanent solution is either not having Western involvement, or having a permanent presence there, possibly even forever. Good luck selling that to the general public.

The world is a ####ing terrible place. We can't solve every single problem. If we go again, we're essentially telling the Middle East that no matter what, we're going to solve your problems. Isn't it about time they solve their own problems? We lose the lives and money, and get nothing more than a chance to go back and do it again. At some point (like after a cost/benefit analysis...), you just have to accept that it's not worth it.

No. If we go in again we're telling ISIS that beheading and torturing opponents, using chemical weapons, raping children, institutionalized pedophilia, and selling women into slavery based upon religious beliefs is not acceptable.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

No. If we go in again we're telling ISIS that beheading and torturing opponents, using chemical weapons, raping children, institutionalized pedophilia, and selling women into slavery based upon religious beliefs is not acceptable.

So I assume after going after ISIS you fully support going after Boko Haram as well? They do virtually all the same things, so I assume you're 100% cool going into Nigeria next?

And again, why is it specifically our (the west) problem?Why can't countries in the region (who in theory are at direct risk to ISIS) do it? You'd think everyone is disgusted by it, so why can't they handle it? Probably because based of the past, they expect the west to handle it. We need to change that cycle and let them handle their own regional problems. Especially since the western presence fuels jihad recruitment.

[saillias]

All this talk about doing more, intervening, what exactly is Canada going to do? Unless the US ramps up their own campaign to include men on the ground Canada has no business having the conversation, really.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So I assume after going after ISIS you fully support going after Boko Haram as well? They do virtually all the same things, so I assume you're 100% cool going into Nigeria next?

And again, why is it specifically our (the west) problem?Why can't countries in the region (who in theory are at direct risk to ISIS) do it? You'd think everyone is disgusted by it, so why can't they handle it? Probably because based of the past, they expect the west to handle it. We need to change that cycle and let them handle their own regional problems. Especially since the western presence fuels jihad recruitment.

Saudi Arabia has one of the largest military expenditures in the world (3rd I believe) and are a very wealthy country right in the thick of things. They should be the ones fighting it before anyone else.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So I assume after going after ISIS you fully support going after Boko Haram as well? They do virtually all the same things, so I assume you're 100% cool going into Nigeria next?

And again, why is it specifically our (the west) problem?Why can't countries in the region (who in theory are at direct risk to ISIS) do it? You'd think everyone is disgusted by it, so why can't they handle it? Probably because based of the past, they expect the west to handle it. We need to change that cycle and let them handle their own regional problems. Especially since the western presence fuels jihad recruitment.

It just doesn't feel right to do nothing. I'm no expert on the matter, and I know that intervention gives the extremists further ammunition and recruiting power, but it just doesn't feel right.

It's odd how wealthy nations continually build up their military and arms, spending exorbitant amounts of dollars, yet can't wipe-out what amounts to basically a very large gang of horny men the middle of some ####ing desert.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The only other thing that can be done at this point is putting Canadian troops on the ground over there. Since we know that's pretty much conditional on the US also putting troops there, that's not happening until at least after the 2016 election, and even then it very much depends who wins. Canada is never going alone into this, so it's in many ways not even up to Canada.

The reason the desert #######s can't be wiped out very easily is that they are more motivated and have a lot less to lose. Those are always dangerous things in an opponent.

[Red Slinger]

A thread about the federal election has become a conversation about Canada's potential involvement with a ISIS. In the grand scheme of things ISIS is relatively insignificant to Canada but now it's being discussed thoroughly here instead of what, IMO, should be much more important and pressing issues to Canadians. That's how scare tactics work and why many politicians like to bring up ISIS or other boogeymen. So I guess Harper has succeeded in distracting us a little bit at least.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

A thread about the federal election has become a conversation about Canada's potential involvement with a ISIS. In the grand scheme of things ISIS is relatively insignificant to Canada but now it's being discussed thoroughly here instead of what, IMO, should be much more important and pressing issues to Canadians. That's how scare tactics work and why many politicians like to bring up ISIS or other boogeymen. So I guess Harper has succeeded in distracting us a little bit at least.

To quote a famous general

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency … Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

General Douglas MacArthur, 1957

It's a tactic used a lot by politicians who would much rather focus people's attention external problems so people don't look closer at the internal problems these politicians caused in the first place.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

A thread about the federal election has become a conversation about Canada's potential involvement with a ISIS. In the grand scheme of things ISIS is relatively insignificant to Canada but now it's being discussed thoroughly here instead of what, IMO, should be much more important and pressing issues to Canadians. That's how scare tactics work and why many politicians like to bring up ISIS or other boogeymen. So I guess Harper has succeeded in distracting us a little bit at least.

Pretty much.

ISIS is a big deal, but Canada is a minor player either way. If the US expands their role, I agree with supporting them, but there is only so much we can do.

I do think people don't take the issue seriously enough though. We need to be involved.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

A thread about the federal election has become a conversation about Canada's potential involvement with a ISIS. In the grand scheme of things ISIS is relatively insignificant to Canada but now it's being discussed thoroughly here instead of what, IMO, should be much more important and pressing issues to Canadians. That's how scare tactics work and why many politicians like to bring up ISIS or other boogeymen. So I guess Harper has succeeded in distracting us a little bit at least.

Well you got lots of thanks so I'm sure you are feeling good about yourself but I have to ask the question, Like what?

You have made 3 posts in this thread, none of them discussing "important and pressing issues", all of them bashing Harper. I don't get why you are complaining about what other people are discussing without contributing anything to the conversation yourself?

If you want to talk about something else then by all means talk about something else. Even though I haven't discussed ISIS much it seems to me that it is a legitimate election issue since we are in a combat mission overseas.

[EldrickOnIce]

Whether it's strictly because of CPC policy or otherwise, we have Canadian young people being recruited by ISIS and Canadian soldiers killed on home soil by either those sympathetic to or perhaps actually part of ISIS.

Seems like a couple pages of discussion, of 60+ pages, is pretty reasonable.