Open question to Trudeau supporters

a reply to: nightbringr

What to do ,oh what to do ?? how about what not to do . Lets see how France's actions have worked for them shall we .

Consider:

In 2012 - Hollande admits arming Syrian rebels in breach of embargo - book

The French president has admitted delivering weapons to the Syrian rebels during a period of EU embargo, a new book about to be published in France reveals.
The deliveries took place in 2012, before the embargo was canceled in May 2013, according to François Hollande's last year interview with journalist and writer Xavier Panon. "We began when we were certain they would end up in the right hands. For the lethal weapons it was our services who delivered them," Hollande told the writer, ...

Okt 2012 - Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria

WASHINGTON — Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.
Dec 2012 - France funding Syrian rebels in new push to oust Assad

France has emerged as the most prominent backer of Syria's armed opposition and is now directly funding rebel groups around Aleppo as part of a new push to oust the embattled Assad regime.
Large sums of cash have been delivered by French government proxies across the Turkish border to rebel commanders in the past month, diplomatic sources have confirmed. The money has been used to buy weapons inside Syria and to fund armed operations against loyalist forces.

Aug 2014 - France delivered arms to Syrian rebels, Hollande confirms

President Francois Hollande said on Thursday that France had delivered weapons to rebels battling the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad “a few months ago.”
Nov 2015
Murad Gazdiev @MuradoRT
French APILAS rocket launcher supplied to #syria rebels fall into hands of #ISIS. Pics from #Deraa, Southern #Syria
12:09 PM - 6 Nov 2015

Russia has only been involved for a little over a month and they have real results ....but when you have the west looking out for their intrests then you get stuff like this ..

Jun 2014 - 'Thank God for the Saudis': ISIS, Iraq, and the Lessons of Blowback

[T]wo of the most successful factions fighting Assad’s forces are Islamist extremist groups: Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the latter of which is now amassing territory in Iraq and threatening to further destabilize the entire region. And that success is in part due to the support they have received from two Persian Gulf countries: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”

France benefited from its support for the U.S.-Wahhabi regime change project in Syria and Iraq by getting huge orders for military equipment from the medieval Wahhabi regimes:

Apr 2015 - France and Qatar seal $7 billion Rafale fighter jet deal

Qatar has agreed to buy 24 Dassault Aviation-built Rafale fighter jets in a 6.3-billion-euro (4.55 billion pounds) deal, the French government said on Thursday, as the Gulf Arab state looks to boost its military firepower in an increasingly unstable region.
June 2015 - Saudi Arabia and France ink $12bln deal

Saudi Arabia and France agreed Wednesday to sign $12 billion of deals, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubair said during a landmark visit by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to Paris.
Even after it became obvious for everyone that the regime change project in Syria has led to an expansion of terrorism Hollande was still demanding the end of the Syrian state.

Sept 2015 - François Hollande of France Says Assad Must Go

President François Hollande of France told the United Nations General Assembly on Monday that his country would “shoulder its responsibilities” in global efforts to end the fighting in Syria, but that the conflict could be resolved only if President Bashar al-Assad was removed from power.
Can Hollande now change his tune?

www.informationclearinghouse.info... I think JT pulling out and maybe re-thinking the whole thing is the best thing to do aside from helping the refugees but in a way that they can choose to return . ..this is not something that can be done quickly according to the previous Govt .so time will tell .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

And i bet within two days we will see a very different response from France. Mark my words.

Ps. By the way, the whole point of this post was to ask "What would you do"? I assume you have good answers, not just conjecture.

So, what what WOULD you do if you were François Hollande?

a reply to: nightbringr

I agree with all of what you say and there are forces fighting ISIL as we speak. Iran, of all countries, is in it up to their necks. Where are the Saudi's? Where is the Iraqi Army? There's about 5 million soldiers in the ME, but few seem to be fighting ISIS.

Why is that?

We created this problem by taking out the nasty dictators we put in there 'to keep things stable' and, after WWI carved up the ME to suit our thirst for oil.

That's why.

The Shia/Sunni split is behind the war and Saddam's disenfranchised generals are now heading up ISIS. Sometimes I think it would be best to just let them fight it out and deal with the victors.

Throwing our soldiers into that mess is going to be about as productive as the Afghanistan conflict. I know you're not saying ground troops, but I wonder if that isn't what you're hoping for. A few F18's are not going to turn the tide because it will take boots on the ground to do that. Are you willing to send our men into Syria, Libya and Iraq for some fun firefights?

I dunno if that ME oil is worth the effort.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Maybe the fence will keep the 75,000 the U.S./Obama is taking in from going north....

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think a fence would be a great idea. You can take back all the Walmarts too. They're destroying our small towns,

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: nightbringr

I agree with all of what you say and there are forces fighting ISIL as we speak. Iran, of all countries, is in it up to their necks. Where are the Saudi's? Where is the Iraqi Army? There's about 5 million soldiers in the ME, but few seem to be fighting ISIS.

Why is that?

We created this problem by taking out the nasty dictators we put in there 'to keep things stable' and, after WWI carved up the ME to suit our thirst for oil.

It was the Brits who split up the Ottoman Empire, not the 'west'.

That's why.

The Shia/Sunni split is behind the war and Saddam's disenfranchised generals are now heading up ISIS. Sometimes I think it would be best to just let them fight it out and deal with the victors.


Agreed

Throwing our soldiers into that mess is going to be about as productive as the Afghanistan conflict. I know you're not saying ground troops, but I wonder if that isn't what you're hoping for. A few F18's are not going to turn the tide because it will take boots on the ground to do that. Are you willing to send our men into Syria, Libya and Iraq for some fun firefights?

I dunno if that ME oil is worth the effort.

This side of the pond has no need for their oil. This is an EU addiction, not ours.

a reply to: nwtrucker

We're talking about Canada here, remember? We still get (some of) our oil from the ME.

www.neb-one.gc.ca...

a reply to: masqua

Yep, it's too far for a pipeline from the west. Of course, you might get it from the U.S., refined, it still might be cheaper than the ME.

a reply to: masqua

Of course you never shop at Walmart...cough, cough.

originally posted by: nightbringr
I'm not sure this is the right forum, perhaps Political Madness might be a better fit, but here goes.

After the recent massacre in Paris, how do you Canadians who voted for and support Trudeau feel about his refusal to stand up to ISIS?

I personally feel Trudeau will be to us Canadians what Obama is to the USA. All talk, charisma, and no substance. And the refusal to confront blatant evil.

We all know he is pulling out of the bombing campaign against ISIS. Do people actually think this is wise? He is fast tracking 25,000 Syrians into Canada, with those under 18 years of age having almost no background check done against them.

What, if anything would it take for this man to stand up to tyranny and oppression? Is Trudeau our Neville Chamberlain? What say you, ATS?

Refusal to stand up to ISIS? Why wouldn't he refuse to stand up to something the US government created after they struck down the pipeline? Maybe this sends a message to the evils in the world that should they bomb innocent civilians, thereby creating the evil they are afraid of, that they won't have our help? Could also be that he doesn't want young Canadians coming back in body bags because of an unwinnable war...I know I don't.

Fast tracking 25,000 Syrians into Canada? What are the requirements? I can't imagine that will cause a problem to anyone that cares to understand how it works, besides fear obsessed Americans scared of the evil crossing the border...

and by Neville Chamberlain, do you mean that the public is easily swayed by propaganda meant to discredit someone? lol, the silly memes on Facebook have already proven that correct.

I say give the man a chance and see what he can do before judging him for something that you believe will happen one way or another, before anything happens.

I remember people getting mad at Chretien for making the right decision too. Morally anyways.

a reply to: nightbringr

I think I would re-consider the sanctions on Russia but don't expect he will as he, like many other western leaders are only puppets of the Washington dictates....This whole Military Industrial Complex, every where needs to be brought front and centre and death with .All of this killing machinery and wars for resources needs to stop . The only people that are really benefiting from it is the 1% . Time for the countries of the peoples to benefit ,and I don't mean in a token way but we need schools and other social infrastructure's that the resources can pay for .

a reply to: nightbringr

The problem is that Trudeau has the mindset that the US will protect Canada if anything were to happen, whereas Harper wanted to ramp us Canada's defences. Trudeau will never get involved even if something were to happen on Canadian soil. He's too passive which is why Harper would be better in this situation even though he goes way over the top.

a reply to: nightbringr

After the recent massacre in Paris, how do you Canadians who voted for and support Trudeau feel about his refusal to stand up to ISIS?

I don't see it as he's refusing to stand up to ISIS. What is planned is to reallocate the budget for it differently. Our air strikes only represent 2% of the total air strikes going on as U.S. is doing 95% of them and Russia is now adding to those numbers. So our effort there is meaningless or just about.

Our money will be better spent on helping in humanitarian ways, medical ways and special forces training. So we let the bigger armies do what they do best with the huge arsenal they have.

We are not turning our backs on ISIS, far from it, we are helping in a way that makes more sense with the limitations we have. Makes sense to me : )

a reply to: superman2012
What I'm getting from your post is that is an American made problem, so let them deal with it.

So, you would let the innocents suffer the bombs and bullets simply because 'it's not our problem'?

Does your heart not go out to those crucified, burned alive, thrown off buildings to their death and more? How people can watch this go down and not want to confront it is beyond me. No matter who 'started it'.

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: nightbringr

After the recent massacre in Paris, how do you Canadians who voted for and support Trudeau feel about his refusal to stand up to ISIS?

I don't see it as he's refusing to stand up to ISIS. What is planned is to reallocate the budget for it differently. Our air strikes only represent 2% of the total air strikes going on as U.S. is doing 95% of them and Russia is now adding to those numbers. So our effort there is meaningless or just about.

Our money will be better spent on helping in humanitarian ways, medical ways and special forces training. So we let the bigger armies do what they do best with the huge arsenal they have.

We are not turning our backs on ISIS, far from it, we are helping in a way that makes more sense with the limitations we have. Makes sense to me : )

Maybe you're right. I still feel there is room for more to be done though.

I agree with helping bomb them where we can. If we are only contributing to 2%, so be it. If one of those bombs can take out a bomb making factory, potentially dozens of not hundreds of lives could be saved.

Why is this not an option along with humanitarian aid?

originally posted by: nightbringr
I still feel there is room for more to be done though.

Of course. We could open up conscription and send our youth into Syria, Libya and Iraq. Give them Lee Enfield rifles and pin a suitable medal on their chests if and when they return... something like "For God and Country" with a red maple leaf. Either that or go ahead with the purchase of F-35's and get serious about bombing, bombing and bombing brown people with beards and niqabs. I'm sure it will have the predictable effect of declawing them as it has worked so well in the past.

I agree with helping bomb them where we can. If we are only contributing to 2%, so be it. If one of those bombs can take out a bomb making factory, potentially dozens of not hundreds of lives could be saved.

You do know that bombs can be made in a kitchen with material readily available at your local Walmart, right? I question that there are large, identifiable and dedicated 'factories' and would suggest most are in nondescript homes located in populated suburbs.

Why is this not an option along with humanitarian aid?

Because money doesn't grow on trees. A focus on one effort detracts from the other. We could try to do both, but are you, as a tax payer, willing to shell out for the increased war effort? Maybe a return to War Bonds and government subsidies to arms manufacturers? We are pretty good at producing war materiel.

a reply to: nightbringr

I'm not a Canadian, so I should probably keep my mouth shut, but......I've read through all the comments on this thread and I'd just have to say that I don't see Trudeau as a "Chamberlain".

Frankly, it makes some sense to me that he would abandon the bombing campaign and the direction of monetary resources to that effort. As some have pointed out, (if correct and I assume they are) its reported here that Canada contributes only about 2% to the sorties flown in Syria and that's been eclipsed by the Russian air campaign. So, we all know that Canada's maintaining that contribution to the bombing campaign is, on the one hand very expensive, and on the other a small contribution in terms of the percentage of ordnance delivered.

Those monetary resources could be re-directed to greater effect in the form of both humanitarian aid and delivery of supplies and materials to forces like the Kurdish Pershmega forces who are successfully combating ISIS and rescuing religious minority populations that have become prime targets for ISIS horrors.

The idea that Trudeau is used to having the US defend Canada is patently ludicrous. Canada would have no problem whatsoever defending itself. What I do think Trudeau sees is that putting Canadian resources to play in the unbelievably crowded and complex and dangerous air space over Syria is a poor use of Canadian resources.

I can't comment on the problem of Canada taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees but my guess would be that Canadian authorities, policing/security resources and humanitarian organizations are more than equal to the task. That number of refugees would soon be easily lost in the US, but my Canadian friends tell me that Canadian communities, city districts and neighborhoods are considerably more tightly knit than they are in the US and keeping track of people is considerably easier in Canada.

Good luck and I'll end by saying that ending Canada's contribution to the bombing campaign doesn't in any way telegraph that Canada will fail to continue its role as an important ally in the fight against extremists.

a reply to: nightbringr
Bombing doesn't work. The west has been bombing ISIS for 2 years now and look what happens. Russia gets involved and starts bombing look what happens to them.

PLease tell me where in the history of war has a sustained bombing campaign resulted in the "enemy" laying down their arms and surrendering ? I mean come on the US bombed the living cr.p out of Vietnam to get precisely nowhere !

Air power in support of a ground offensive is the only time it works.

Although I'm not much of a Liberal supporter myself (always been more of an NDP man), I think a young leader like Trudeau would give the old political establishment here in Canada a good shaking up - for better or for worse - because in my opinion ineffective and stagnant federal politics do not keep pace with the rapidly-evolving global geopolitical landscape; give Parliament Hill a kick in the keister now and then to force our "elected leaders" to actually do some hard thinking to earn their pay.

That being said, I do support our new Prime Minister in wanting to pull our forces and resources out of the fight against ISIS/ISIL for several reasons...

One, this is not a unified front against a commonly-agreed and identifiable enemy. This mishmash of a 'coalition' appears to be identifying and bombing differentiating targets across a vague swath of the Middle East and Africa. It lacks direction, central planning and the wide support of the citizens of the countries currently taking part. This isn't a war by sheer definition.

Two, Canada has benefited from being a non-offensive player on the global scene with relative security and ignorance from terrorist cells. Until very recently, we rarely deployed our soldiers overseas in any offensive capacity. We were known as the nation of peacekeepers, world famous in essay and photograph working with the UN in supportive capacities when called, until Prime Minister Harper desperately wanted us to act like the 51st state, throwing around our military where in my opinion it didn't belong. This has eroded our longstanding protective blanket we have perhaps taken for granted in this country, and potentially brought us under the ire of these terrorist groups. As far as I'm aware there has never been any footage of an AK-toting jihadist yelling "Death to Canada!" in history, but who knows if that might change with us participating in unsanctioned bombing campaigns and troops on the ground?

And three, let us briefly examine how our continued interference as part of the Western society in the affairs of the Middle East has been doing in recent history. Has not our blatantly-misguided, misled, and unfounded principles of "spreading freedom and democracy" and "removing dictators" entirely destabilized the region to begin with, which in turn left the power vacuums in which these terrorist groups have now sprung up from? And we have the stupidity to think along the lines of, "Oh well, fifth time's a charm! We'll get'm this time!" It is said that the definition of madness is repeating the same actions over and over again while expecting a different result. Sorry but I want off this bus, I already know where it's going.

I wholly support Trudeau wanting to pull out. It'll just be another train wreck while continuously fuelling the sentiment in which ISIL needs to burn and to grow. Why further tarnish Canada's international reputation in the process?

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: superman2012
What I'm getting from your post is that is an American made problem, so let them deal with it.

So, you would let the innocents suffer the bombs and bullets simply because 'it's not our problem'?

Does your heart not go out to those crucified, burned alive, thrown off buildings to their death and more? How people can watch this go down and not want to confront it is beyond me. No matter who 'started it'.

So am I to understand that you would trade the killing of innocent allies for the killing of innocent people that are in the "wrong" country?

The Americans should have done a long time ago what Trudeau wants to do now. If it weren't for corporate interests, they wouldn't be there. Closest ally in the ME? Saudi Arabia. What does that say for caring about human rights?

If they were smart, they wouldn't keep interjecting themselves in areas that have nothing to do with them. Killing innocents, creating terrorists by the surviving family members. Training people and abandoning them, creating terrorists by leaving before the promise of a "better brighter future" for these people is attained. You ask if I'm willing to "let the innocents suffer the bombs and bullets simply because 'it's not our problem'?"? No. I'm saying don't keep making the problem worse. It's simple if you think about it.

Edit: I wish I could star the post above me more than once as it is put way more plainly, clearly and eloquently than I ever could get across.