Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canada To Launch Airstrikes Against ISIL


Recommended Posts

This latest development deserves its own topic, eh? Time for some serious "Peacekeeping" folks !

Canada announces that it will launch airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.

TORONTO — Canada plans to launch airstrikes against the Islamic State militant group in Iraq following a U.S. request and may extend airstrikes into Syria if invited by President Bashar Assad's government, the prime minister announced Friday.

Stephen Harper said the motion authorizes air strikes in Iraq for up to six months and explicitly states that no ground troops be used in combat operations.

"We will strike ISIL where, and only where, Canada has the clear support of the government of that country. At present, that is only true in Iraq," Harper said, referring to the Islamic State by one of its acronyms. "If it were to become the case in Syria, then we would participate in airstrikes in that country also."

What do you think about Canada's possible contribution to military strike missions in Iraq and Syria? Are they legal ?

Will they be effective ? Seems like old times....bombing stuff with CF-188's....UN resolution or not !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 343
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

“We will strike ISIL where, and only where, Canada has the clear support of the government of that country. At present, that is only true in Iraq,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons today. “If it were to become the case in Syria, then we would participate in airstrikes in that country also.”

Harper certainly didn't rule out the possibility Assad would be the one to give him the nod in his spiel to Canadians today, I wouldn't be surprised if Assad isn't stumbling over himself as we speak to oblige him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This latest development deserves its own topic, eh?

Agreed, why derail the Trudeau bashing thread further.....

What do you think about Canada's possible contribution to military strike missions in Iraq and Syria? Are they legal ?

In Iraq, without a doubt when at the request of the elected Government.........Syria, has yet to openly request such action, so as it stands, it's a safe play.

Will they be effective ?

Without a doubt they will degrade ISIS from putting together conventional force structures, as it will curtail mobility between communities..........overall though, to defeat ISIS will be a fight the Iraqis and Kurds will have to win.

UN resolution or not !

Bah......We've got the Pope on side to lend credence to this Holy Crusade ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has yet mentioned that Harper may be leaving the door open in Syria in case Assad finally steps down - and his predecessor - if it's a good one - asks for the coalition's help. Unlikely - but who knows?

First of all, why do you think Assad will ever step down, and if he does out of old age eventually, don't you think he will have handpicked his successor. Only thing Harper has done is open the door to have himself be beholdin' to a dictator. Good going Mr. Harper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bah......We've got the Pope on side to lend credence to this Holy Crusade ;)

Agreed...what's the political beef here? Canada's Liberal party leadership bombed Serbia for 99 days without any steenking UN or Parliament vote.

Isn't Maher Arar's homeland worth it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has yet mentioned that Harper may be leaving the door open in Syria in case Assad finally steps down - and his predecessor - if it's a good one - asks for the coalition's help. Unlikely - but who knows?

Assad steps down.....haha
Link to post
Share on other sites

After that parliament session with the NDP and Liberals not supporting the Conservatives then this has become "Harpers War". This is not healthy for Canada when a government is split on the idea of getting involved in a war. It is especially unhealthy when the government making that decision was voted in with only about 40% of the voters.

I do not understand why Harper did not just appoint the leaders of the opposition parties to the Privy council. They are sworn to secrecy and could have been given information as to what is happening and come up with some compromise involvement that would not have split the government. You do not send young people into battle representing their country when the group making that decision has support of less than half the population.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how Harper gave the mission 6 months? That would be about Feb. which is about the time a report said he was resign as leader and call a leadership debate. Not saying its going to happen, but would he leave the next leader or PM with a ugly war on their hands???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the NDP are legitimately idiotic peacenicks who would oppose any military action anywhere up to the point someone is actually pointing a gun at their face from five feet away and is counting down from ten (until it's too late, in other words). The Liberals have, as they usually do, made a crass, political decision that they will get more votes from opposing this than supporting it. They're right, as Harper said, that there's rarely votes to be had in committing troops to military action overseas.

The bombing campaign will help the locals push back the fanatics. But fanaticism is an inextricable part of Islam, particularly because Islam is generally more widespread in areas of the world where there are many illiterate and unsophisticated people, and where violence is commonplace anyway. The region will remain unstable, basically for our lifetimes if not beyond, as long as religious fanaticism is still present to such a high degree.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites

After that parliament session with the NDP and Liberals not supporting the Conservatives then this has become "Harpers War". This is not healthy for Canada when a government is split on the idea of getting involved in a war. It is especially unhealthy when the government making that decision was voted in with only about 40% of the voters.

How is it unhealthy? The position of the Government, based upon a recent poll, would indicate air strikes against ISIS are supported by the majority of Canadians, including Canadians that didn't vote for the Conservatives.

I do not understand why Harper did not just appoint the leaders of the opposition parties to the Privy council. They are sworn to secrecy and could have been given information as to what is happening and come up with some compromise involvement that would not have split the government. You do not send young people into battle representing their country when the group making that decision has support of less than half the population.

I fail to see the point. Both the Liberals and NDP made their positions known, prior to the release of the Governments action plan, and prior to Monday's debate in the House. As far as I know, neither parties have indicated their positions could be changed by further information.........As such, the Government has selected to govern.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the NDP are legitimately idiotic peacenicks who would oppose any military action anywhere up to the point someone is actually pointing a gun at their face from five feet away and is counting down from ten (until it's too late, in other words).

I agree, I think their position is consistent and based upon their preconceived, misguided principles.

The Liberals have, as they usually do, made a crass, political decision that they will get more votes from opposing this than supporting it. They're right, as Harper said, that there's rarely votes to be had in committing troops to military action overseas.

Though I’m not surprised of the result, I’m surprised that they didn’t rely upon some sort of out, like lack of UN sanction (regardless of prior Liberal Government engaging in military action sans formal UN support) and instead chose to roll over completely to Quebec politics.........This is a result that I'm sure is not a shared throughout the party………For example, I have no doubt that a John Mccallum, Marc Garneau, Scott Brison or Andrew Leslie would favour inaction, nor Trudeau’s smug and insulating referrals to the Canadian Forces.

The bombing campaign will help the locals push back the fanatics. But fanaticism is an inextricable part of Islam, particularly because Islam is generally more widespread in areas of the world where there are many illiterate and unsophisticated people, and where violence is commonplace anyway. The region will remain unstable, basically for our lifetimes if not beyond, as long as religious fanaticism is still present to such a high degree.

I largely agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting thought. It's still possible for the NDP to support the government. They have made their criticisms clear - and most have been aimed at Harper's communication. It's possible that after making further points in the debate - that Mulcair could support "our soldiers" and the country as a whole - sort of wrapping himself in the flag. It would be a calculated move to isolate the Liberals and re-enforce Trudeau's image as someone not ready for Prime Time. It's a gamble in Quebec but I think he's made it clear that he needs all sorts of controls around our involvement. If I were him - I'd take that gamble - because his battle is first with Trudeau who would look amateurish by comparison - and Trudeau cannot backtrack or he'd look worse. It'll be an interesting day on Monday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it unhealthy? The position of the Government, based upon a recent poll, would indicate air strikes against ISIS are supported by the majority of Canadians, including Canadians that didn't vote for the Conservatives.

I fail to see the point. Both the Liberals and NDP made their positions known, prior to the release of the Governments action plan, and prior to Monday's debate in the House. As far as I know, neither parties have indicated their positions could be changed by further information.........As such, the Government has selected to govern.

I believe that when a country goes to war then the whole country goes to war. You get the leadership of all parties together, you share the information available at the time and then make a compromise behind closed doors. You should not make the declaration of war a domestic issue. How can anybody say they would not change their minds if you do not know what information is available?

The vote will take place Monday, that is where the positions will be stated.

As to the results of this Harper decision - only time will tell.

Stay tuned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting thought. It's still possible for the NDP to support the government. They have made their criticisms clear - and most have been aimed at Harper's communication. It's possible that after making further points in the debate - that Mulcair could support "our soldiers" and the country as a whole - sort of wrapping himself in the flag. It would be a calculated move to isolate the Liberals and re-enforce Trudeau's image as someone not ready for Prime Time. It's a gamble in Quebec but I think he's made it clear that he needs all sorts of controls around our involvement. If I were him - I'd take that gamble - because his battle is first with Trudeau who would look amateurish by comparison - and Trudeau cannot backtrack or he'd look worse. It'll be an interesting day on Monday.

That’s an interesting idea…perhaps coupled to an increase in the current humanitarian footprint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that when a country goes to war then the whole country goes to war. You get the leadership of all parties together, you share the information available at the time and then make a compromise behind closed doors. You should not make the declaration of war a domestic issue. How can anybody say they would not change their minds if you do not know what information is available?

By calling it "Harper's Iraqi war"? Or disparaging the ability of the Canadian Forces?

The vote will take place Monday, that is where the positions will be stated.

Have not both the NDP and Liberals made their positions known?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By calling it "Harper's Iraqi war"? Or disparaging the ability of the Canadian Forces?

Have not both the NDP and Liberals made their positions known?

I have no intention of becoming an apologist for any political party. It is the media who have now labelled this "Harpers War". It is you who is referring to a "disparaging the ability of the Canadian Forces" which I know nothing about. A vote is when a political party commits to a position on a bill.

Derek 2.0 appears to support what Harper has done. Good for you. I hope you are right. The next 6 months will prove which one of us was correct.

If you are right and the coalition wipes out ISIS with the help of Canada I hope Canadian firms will be allowed to bid on contracts to rebuild those oil refineries, wells and infrastructure that we will be helping to demolish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of becoming an apologist for any political party. It is the media who have now labelled this "Harpers War". It is you who is referring to a "disparaging the ability of the Canadian Forces" which I know nothing about. A vote is when a political party commits to a position on a bill.

Those are both remarks from the leader of the NDP and Liberals.......reported by the media.

Derek 2.0 appears to support what Harper has done. Good for you. I hope you are right. The next 6 months will prove which one of us was correct.

Though I have no doubt the ability of ISIS will be diminished, I would be very surprised if ISIS were to be erased within 6 months, let alone 6 years or even 6 decades......

If you are right and the coalition wipes out ISIS with the help of Canada I hope Canadian firms will be allowed to bid on contracts to rebuild those oil refineries, wells and infrastructure that we will be helping to demolish.

As do I, but that is putting the cart before the horse at this point...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A decade and a half of war on terror and the result is ISIS. Bomb these countries to try to get at ISIS and the result will be what exactly?

I'm imagining ISIS leaders high-fiving each other when the announcements came. There is no better recruitment incentive than western jets bombing the crap out of a third world country to get at a handful of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....I'm imagining ISIS leaders high-fiving each other when the announcements came. There is no better recruitment incentive than western jets bombing the crap out of a third world country to get at a handful of people.

Good...that will lead to more terrorists to bomb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect Mulcair to announce a new, national Head Replacement Center, based with HQ in Trois Rivieres.

We'll have hordes of young Quebecois delivering humanitarian aid to Iraq and Syria, a blanket for everybody that wants one.

When their idealistic heads get sawed off by ISIL, they can get a new one for free without delay back in TR. The replacement head will be freshly filled with brand new nonsense. It 's a win-win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...