Justin Trudeau: PM 'hasn't even tried' to make case for expanded Iraq role
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The Cons did some good, but seem to be doing a little trimming lately, and the after care ain't good enough either.
I'm still on the fence about what should be done. I'm leaning towards letting ISIS do what it wants and we can barter for oil afterwards. I don't see the lives of people half a world away, who don't seem to care for human life in the same context we do, worth the lives of my buddies.
A nobility of of combat is the dumbest thing that could be said. War is not pleasant
Secondly there is more votes from women if one does not rattle too many sabres.
Actually he is being very cleaver in this regard. I do support doing something in this
troubled part of the world what that something is yet I am not convinced either. As
for Trudeau his positioning I question the difference is right now if an election were
held I'd support Mulcair over Trudeau, but I still have not made up my mind. I won't
vote for Harper under any circumstance and I would never vote Green. Their attitude
of forcing people to change is more rigid conservatism in a different package.
For me the jury is out though.
Secondly there is more votes from women if one does not rattle too many sabres.
Actually he is being very cleaver in this regard. I do support doing something in this
troubled part of the world what that something is yet I am not convinced either. As
for Trudeau his positioning I question the difference is right now if an election were
held I'd support Mulcair over Trudeau, but I still have not made up my mind. I won't
vote for Harper under any circumstance and I would never vote Green. Their attitude
of forcing people to change is more rigid conservatism in a different package.
For me the jury is out though.
Says you.
There are only two good ways to die, giving your life to save another, or die in just combat.
Says me.
And Layton was caught in a rub-n-tug, and old Maggie was a drug smuggling ****, and good-ole PET was a fascist and a ****.
But some very stupid people can't handle it when someone calls it like it is about their heroes.
So far, Justin Trudeau looks more intelligent than those who would call him an idiot or a moron when they know that he is not. Just spouting the Conservative party line that J.T. is an imbecile or a moron no longer works. Most people are smarter than that. Unfortunately, most Conservatives are not.
The word barbaric, to harsh
Whip em out
Ladies only fundraiser
Chinese dictatorship
Making Sasha an advisor
Nuff said.
It isn't just the Conservative party line. That's just what some very stupid people like to label it, so they can excuse JT's idiocy.
By most people being smarter than that, you obviously aren't referring to the cult members that follow and defend JT's idiocy, with no platform, countless immature gaffes and zero real cred on the world stage.
You're right, most conservatives are swayed by the pretty haired cult leader. They'll leave that task to those whose heads whistle a tune in a cross wind.
Have you actually LISTENED to the idiot????
And it ain't the Conservative Party line....it is MY line.
OMG!!!
ISIS mission reveals Liberal divide: Party’s grandees express support for ‘robust Canadian mission’
When Justin Trudeau leads the Liberal Party of Canada Monday in opposing a Canadian military mission against ISIS in Iraq, he will do so against the better judgment of many of his party’s grandees, who between them have influenced Canada’s military response to global conflicts, from Rwanda and Kosovo to Afghanistan and previous wars in Iraq.
The genocidal jihadists, including Canadians and other Westerners, who fight under the banner of ISIS “have to be whacked, and whacked good,” Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign affairs minister who aimed to put “human security” at the heart of foreign affairs, said on CTV last week.
“If you really want to stop them, you’re going to have to give a full-court press.”
He was not alone in supporting the action Mr. Trudeau has vowed to reject, or in undermining the leader’s rhetoric before he used it. Former interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, for example, rejected the comparison, later made by Mr. Trudeau, to the “fiasco” of the 2003 Iraq War. Former Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire dismissed a campaign of air strikes without ground troops as pointless, and former Liberal cabinet minister Ujjal Dosanjh calling for “robust” Canadian military action.
All these comments were made before Mr. Trudeau vowed to oppose the government motion for the ISIS mission. But by accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of using “overheated and moralistic rhetoric … to justify a war,” Mr. Trudeau has chosen a strategy that is likely to colour his political fortunes for months to come.
And by favouring purely humanitarian action over military force, Mr. Trudeau seems to have broken with many of the party’s eminences — if such a rift is already apparent, it could well go deeper.
For NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, as for Mr. Harper, the strategy is less fraught. The one party can be trusted to oppose, the other to support. It is Liberals who, historically, can go either way.
At least, Liberals do not universally share Mr. Trudeau’s preference for a humanitarian non-combat role.
Ujjal Dosanjh, a former Liberal cabinet minister, voiced his support for a “robust Canadian mission,” and said it should be “beyond partisan politics.” With a vote coming Monday in the House of Commons that both the NDP and Liberals have vowed to oppose, however, partisan politics is already a key factor, though not determinative, given the Conservative majority.
Romeo Dallaire, the retired Liberal senator and founder of Child Soldiers Initiative, best known for leading the UN mission in Rwanda, told CBC that a plan of air strikes without ground force is “inappropriate.”
“There is no way that you will destroy that enemy without boots on the ground,” said Mr. Dallaire “There’s no other way around it…. It can’t be advisory. That sounds like Vietnam. It is actual, physical, reinforcement of capabilities on the ground, contain it, and build up capacity to destroy it.”
The six-month mission as outlined so far is for six fighter jets, two surveillance planes, a refuelling plane, and 600 military personnel.
It is not known whether any party will allow its members to freely vote their conscience, and if so, which MPs might dissent from their party line. A request to the Liberal Party for comment on the dissent, and whether it will be a free vote, was not answered by press time Sunday.
Former interim Liberal leader Bob Rae took specific aim at the comparison, embraced by Mr. Trudeau, of this mission with the 2003 American invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, calling it simply “wrong.”
“It is now apparent that the forces of radical violence have metastasized, and that Islamic State represents a clear and present danger to the people over whom it rules, to any minorities around the area, to the region and potentially to the world,” Mr. Rae wrote in a Globe and Mail op-ed.
He rejected comparisons to the earlier U.S.-led Iraq war, noting that the Iraqi government has asked for assistance.
“This is not about “peace” versus “war.” This is about something different — the collective capacity of governments and international institutions to deal effectively with perpetrators of violence,” he wrote.
Quebec Liberal Premier Philippe Couillard, whose son is in the military, gave his support to the mission before knowing the specific details, saying Canada “cannot escape its obligations.”
“This is a significant threat to our society and Canada and Quebec are part of that landscape,” he said. “Let us not be so naive that we think because Quebecers have been fortunate enough to live in peace for centuries that we’re immune to this risk. The risks also exist for us. These murderous movements are mobile, they are imaginative in the worst sense and they won’t hesitate to attack those they consider enemies, which are democratic societies.”
Under the law, the federal cabinet may commit Canadian Forces to action abroad without parliamentary approval or consultation. Parliament plays a key role in approving funds and support, however, and in practice has often been consulted, so much that it has become a tradition, and in the case of this Conservative majority government, a self-imposed prerequisite.
It was not always this way.
In January, 2003, for example, with rumours that Canada might join the American invasion of Iraq, former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien dealt with deep divisions in his caucus, some threatening revolt.
“This is crazy,” Mississauga Centre MP Carolyn Parrish said at the time. “I don’t think we should be helping Americans get away with this. This is just the boys playing with their big toys and, although we can’t stop the Americans, we don’t have to legitimize this… This party is in a pretty shaky state right now, so I’m not looking to lead a parade of 50 of us across the aisle and force an election. But I’m prepared to sit as an Independent.”
Mr. Chrétien later declined to commit Canadian troops, now seen as one of his greatest moments.
International approval is likewise only occasionally sought or required. Kosovo did not have UN approval, and is seen as broadly successful. Rwanda did, and was an abject failure
The Afghanistan mission, Canada’s contribution to the post-9/11 war on terror, was launched by Jean Chretien’s prime ministerial prerogative, and did not go to a parliamentary vote until it came up for extension under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2006, in which 30 Liberals broke with the majority of their party to support it.
The vote remains to be taken, but with an election looming and his position already undermined by a juvenile joke about the size of warplanes, it is neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition who seems to face the gravest threat to their personal political fortunes as Canada heads to war. It is Mr. Trudeau.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...-express-support-for-robust-canadian-mission/
(my emphasis)
Romeo D'Allaire and Ujjal Dosanjh are the two Liberals I admire most in Canadian politics.........
D'Allaire is a soldier and KNOWS about genocide. He agrees with my urging boots on the ground.
LlOYD AXWORTHY!!! Soft power guy......
And Bob Rae.
Even the Liberals are beginning to realize Trudeau just ain't got it.
When Justin Trudeau leads the Liberal Party of Canada Monday in opposing a Canadian military mission against ISIS in Iraq, he will do so against the better judgment of many of his party’s grandees, who between them have influenced Canada’s military response to global conflicts, from Rwanda and Kosovo to Afghanistan and previous wars in Iraq.
The genocidal jihadists, including Canadians and other Westerners, who fight under the banner of ISIS “have to be whacked, and whacked good,” Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign affairs minister who aimed to put “human security” at the heart of foreign affairs, said on CTV last week.
“If you really want to stop them, you’re going to have to give a full-court press.”
He was not alone in supporting the action Mr. Trudeau has vowed to reject, or in undermining the leader’s rhetoric before he used it. Former interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, for example, rejected the comparison, later made by Mr. Trudeau, to the “fiasco” of the 2003 Iraq War. Former Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire dismissed a campaign of air strikes without ground troops as pointless, and former Liberal cabinet minister Ujjal Dosanjh calling for “robust” Canadian military action.
All these comments were made before Mr. Trudeau vowed to oppose the government motion for the ISIS mission. But by accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of using “overheated and moralistic rhetoric … to justify a war,” Mr. Trudeau has chosen a strategy that is likely to colour his political fortunes for months to come.
And by favouring purely humanitarian action over military force, Mr. Trudeau seems to have broken with many of the party’s eminences — if such a rift is already apparent, it could well go deeper.
For NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, as for Mr. Harper, the strategy is less fraught. The one party can be trusted to oppose, the other to support. It is Liberals who, historically, can go either way.
At least, Liberals do not universally share Mr. Trudeau’s preference for a humanitarian non-combat role.
Ujjal Dosanjh, a former Liberal cabinet minister, voiced his support for a “robust Canadian mission,” and said it should be “beyond partisan politics.” With a vote coming Monday in the House of Commons that both the NDP and Liberals have vowed to oppose, however, partisan politics is already a key factor, though not determinative, given the Conservative majority.
Romeo Dallaire, the retired Liberal senator and founder of Child Soldiers Initiative, best known for leading the UN mission in Rwanda, told CBC that a plan of air strikes without ground force is “inappropriate.”
“There is no way that you will destroy that enemy without boots on the ground,” said Mr. Dallaire “There’s no other way around it…. It can’t be advisory. That sounds like Vietnam. It is actual, physical, reinforcement of capabilities on the ground, contain it, and build up capacity to destroy it.”
The six-month mission as outlined so far is for six fighter jets, two surveillance planes, a refuelling plane, and 600 military personnel.
It is not known whether any party will allow its members to freely vote their conscience, and if so, which MPs might dissent from their party line. A request to the Liberal Party for comment on the dissent, and whether it will be a free vote, was not answered by press time Sunday.
Former interim Liberal leader Bob Rae took specific aim at the comparison, embraced by Mr. Trudeau, of this mission with the 2003 American invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, calling it simply “wrong.”
“It is now apparent that the forces of radical violence have metastasized, and that Islamic State represents a clear and present danger to the people over whom it rules, to any minorities around the area, to the region and potentially to the world,” Mr. Rae wrote in a Globe and Mail op-ed.
He rejected comparisons to the earlier U.S.-led Iraq war, noting that the Iraqi government has asked for assistance.
“This is not about “peace” versus “war.” This is about something different — the collective capacity of governments and international institutions to deal effectively with perpetrators of violence,” he wrote.
Quebec Liberal Premier Philippe Couillard, whose son is in the military, gave his support to the mission before knowing the specific details, saying Canada “cannot escape its obligations.”
“This is a significant threat to our society and Canada and Quebec are part of that landscape,” he said. “Let us not be so naive that we think because Quebecers have been fortunate enough to live in peace for centuries that we’re immune to this risk. The risks also exist for us. These murderous movements are mobile, they are imaginative in the worst sense and they won’t hesitate to attack those they consider enemies, which are democratic societies.”
Under the law, the federal cabinet may commit Canadian Forces to action abroad without parliamentary approval or consultation. Parliament plays a key role in approving funds and support, however, and in practice has often been consulted, so much that it has become a tradition, and in the case of this Conservative majority government, a self-imposed prerequisite.
It was not always this way.
In January, 2003, for example, with rumours that Canada might join the American invasion of Iraq, former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien dealt with deep divisions in his caucus, some threatening revolt.
“This is crazy,” Mississauga Centre MP Carolyn Parrish said at the time. “I don’t think we should be helping Americans get away with this. This is just the boys playing with their big toys and, although we can’t stop the Americans, we don’t have to legitimize this… This party is in a pretty shaky state right now, so I’m not looking to lead a parade of 50 of us across the aisle and force an election. But I’m prepared to sit as an Independent.”
Mr. Chrétien later declined to commit Canadian troops, now seen as one of his greatest moments.
International approval is likewise only occasionally sought or required. Kosovo did not have UN approval, and is seen as broadly successful. Rwanda did, and was an abject failure
The Afghanistan mission, Canada’s contribution to the post-9/11 war on terror, was launched by Jean Chretien’s prime ministerial prerogative, and did not go to a parliamentary vote until it came up for extension under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2006, in which 30 Liberals broke with the majority of their party to support it.
The vote remains to be taken, but with an election looming and his position already undermined by a juvenile joke about the size of warplanes, it is neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition who seems to face the gravest threat to their personal political fortunes as Canada heads to war. It is Mr. Trudeau.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...-express-support-for-robust-canadian-mission/
(my emphasis)
Romeo D'Allaire and Ujjal Dosanjh are the two Liberals I admire most in Canadian politics.........
D'Allaire is a soldier and KNOWS about genocide. He agrees with my urging boots on the ground.
LlOYD AXWORTHY!!! Soft power guy......
And Bob Rae.
Even the Liberals are beginning to realize Trudeau just ain't got it.
Last edited:
Other than prohibiting his MPs and therefore their constituents from holding pro-life views and wanting to legalize pot, Justine has said absolutely nothing.
Seems to me that when he opens his pie-hole, serious stupidity spews forward
I'm a huge supporter of legalizing pot. But as a realist and actually considering larger pictures, I just can't get past the rest of the stupidity the moron does, says.
Unlike some people, I base my opinions on big pictures, and real policy, not pretty hair, fascist fathers and stupid gimmicks.
Yeah...
I was surprised when he became a Liberal senator, and that he still supports the UN after they so thoroughly screwed him.
But he IS the man.
Yes he is...
Men who have seen the ugliest of the human animal, and don't break, oft lose their nerve for war. Given his open and honest accounts of the pain that followed him home, I would hazard an arguable guess, that if he says we needs boots on the ground, we need boots on the ground.
He isn't the kind of man to throw men into the fray for bits of territory or plots on a map.
I told you long ago, Layton getting his freak on, was just fine with me. It made him real, much like Fords alcohol and drug use.
I just find it funny how some people are so flip foppity. Shows a real lack of integrity.