[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

And yet, look at this thread. Conservatives have already decided that Trudeau is worse than Stalin and everything he does is wrong/evil/stupid just because it is. The groupspeak is "Trudeau is soft on ISIS", so now he announces a policy that steps up our military commitment to fighting ISIS, which is exactly what conservatives were screaming for, so now what? We'll have to wait and see how the geniuses will spin this. Likely something like "Well, yeah this is a good idea, but Trudeau will likely turn our military bases into Jihadi training centres" or some other moronic drivel.

Speaking of moronic drivel, pulling out your largest weapons, weapons that protect those on the ground, isn't stepping up our commitment.

It's the typical Canadian Liberal response. A half-assed approach intended to offend as few as possible without taking a stance on anything.

[BRAH]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

And yet, look at this thread. Conservatives have already decided that Trudeau is worse than Stalin and everything he does is wrong/evil/stupid just because it is. The groupspeak is "Trudeau is soft on ISIS", so now he announces a policy that steps up our military commitment to fighting ISIS, which is exactly what conservatives were screaming for, so now what? We'll have to wait and see how the geniuses will spin this. Likely something like "Well, yeah this is a good idea, but Trudeau will likely turn our military bases into Jihadi training centres" or some other moronic drivel.

Speaking of moronic drivel, pulling out your largest weapons, weapons that protect those on the ground, isn't stepping up our commitment.

It's the typical Canadian Liberal response. A half-assed approach intended to offend as few as possible without taking a stance on anything.

Justin did take a position.

[martin14]

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Speaking of moronic drivel, pulling out your largest weapons, weapons that protect those on the ground, isn't stepping up our commitment.

But that's what Trudeau campaigned on and won a majority mandate on. I'm not arguing whether it's the right decision or not, but it was his promise. But the sum total (taking away 6 planes, adding 150 Special Forces), which means more boots on the ground, sure seems like "stepping up our commitment" to me. All the talk from the experts on the media today seem to consider this a bigger commitment than previous. Some are even saying this is going too far, breaking the promise of "no combat troops" by putting more boots on the ground in, potentially, combat situations. I don't know; not my expertise. I'm just listening.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

It's the typical Canadian Liberal response. A half-assed approach intended to offend as few as possible without taking a stance on anything.

Anything our military does will be half-assed, with or without six 30 year-old jets. Our fullest military commitment possible would amount to a drop in the barrel, wouldn't it? And I'm not sure why we should want a bigger commitment to this fight. How many dead kids did our "taking a stance" in Afghanistan cost us for absolutely zero benefit?

[uwish]

he is pulling out a week or two earlier than the original commitment was made by Harper. So he really isn't doing anything. Status quo for the talking head.

[Lemmy]

uwish uwish:

he is pulling out a week or two earlier than the original commitment was made by Harper. So he really isn't doing anything. Status quo for the talking head.

Except for the additional 150 Special Forces and a two year extension on the mission.

[Hmmmm]

Does anyone here have verifiable information on the number of civilian casualties inflicted by the air strikes to date? I don't suppose it's been advertised anywhere

[uwish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

uwish uwish:

he is pulling out a week or two earlier than the original commitment was made by Harper. So he really isn't doing anything. Status quo for the talking head.

Except for the additional 150 Special Forces and a two year extension on the mission.

I am specifically referring to the airstrikes, jets, kind of what the article heading is outlining..

[bootlegga]

uwish uwish:

he is pulling out a week or two earlier than the original commitment was made by Harper. So he really isn't doing anything. Status quo for the talking head.

Careful, you don't want to sound like a socialist, or even worse, a Liberal!

[uwish]

haha

[N_Fiddledog]

So this argument about pulling back from our commitments, because we weren't going to have much of an effect anyway, would that also apply to efforts concerning the battle with the chimera of Global warming our watermelon elite like Butts have gotten us into?

[N_Fiddledog]

There is this though:

With no end in sight, Justin Trudeau has expanded Canada’s war against ISIS: Walkom.

The claim is Justin and Gerald are going to be sending $1.6 billion dollars over there to do something. Apparently the Canadians are going to be teaching the Kurds how to fight, or something.

Are you sure 1.6 billion is enough Justin?

[andyt]

Michael Den Tandt: For better or worse, Trudeau will wear this revamped war in Iraq

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... ar-in-iraq

$1:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s revamped military mission in Iraq — because he wears it now, for good or ill — is neither cowardly appeasement, as the Conservatives allege, or a perilous escalation, as New Democrats would have you believe. But of the two themes, the second is closer to the mark.

As is the custom with Canadian military ventures, clarity and directness vanished or were non-existent from the start. The Conservatives’ soon-to-be-former combat mission, fronted by six Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 fighter-bombers, was never as robust or aggressive as they or their critics let on. The effort unveiled Monday, with its tripling of the special forces contingent from 69 to 207, will be far more combative — that is to say, risky for those who will carry it out — than the PM’s swords-into-ploughshares rhetoric suggests.

The wrinkle and the great risk in this, for Trudeau and his government, is precisely that it is so symbolic. For all the Harper government’s vaunted bellicosity, six CF-18s formed a relatively small hammer, in the context of the broader war, and their pilots were not routinely at risk of being shot at or blown up. This changes now. The risk of casualties has at least tripled. Aid requires transport and protection, all of it vulnerable to attack. That is the news here, not the CF-18s. In a modest but deliberate way, Canada is stepping back to war.

So will the righties here now switch from calling Trudeau a pussy to calling him a chicken hawk?

[N_Fiddledog]

I'll call him wasteful if he actually spends 1.6 billion dollars doing what exactly?

As I recall when those Yazidis were trapped up the mountain he was telling us that we Canadians could help by teaching them how to wear winter jackets or some such nonsense.

The Canadian trainers over there right now have gotten their hands dirty, but that was under the Harper plan. Yes Trudeau had taken power, but he hadn't been around long enough to enact the full might of his jacket-charity strategy yet.

Not to worry Kurdistan. Cheer up. Help is on the way. You might even get another Tim Horton's.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

So will the righties here now switch from calling Trudeau a pussy to calling him a chicken hawk?

That's what I was getting at earlier. This thread began with conservatives outraged that Trudeau shutting down the 6 jets means he's soft on ISIS. But as soon as it was revealed that the new mission is actually getting tougher on ISIS, it suddenly switches to Trudeau being a flip-flopping liar because he said "no combat".

They rip Trudeau for not spending enough money to fight ISIS, but now that Trudeau has committed a bunch of money to fight ISIS, wait for it, they'll be ripping him for pissing away money doing exactly what they wanted him to do in the first place! So yeah, Obama.