Canada set to cease air strikes against Isis as Justin Trudeau says Syrians ‘need our help – not our vengeance’

'The people terrorised by Isil every day don't need our vengeance, they need our help'

Canada is set to cease air strikes against Isis by the end of February but will increase its humanitarian aid contributions to the region instead.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was elected to office in November, said his government will end its bombing missions in the war-torn region by 22 February with six fighter jets being withdrawn. Canada will, however, keep two surveillance planes in the region and triple the number of soldiers training Kurdish troops in northern Iraq.

"In any mission, you need to make choices. We can't do everything. In our decision, we were guided by our desire to do what we could do best to help in the region and to do it in the right way," Mr Trudeau said during a news conference in Ottawa.

"The people terrorised by Isil every day don't need our vengeance, they need our help."

The Conservative opposition leader Rona Ambrose accused the Liberal administration of "taking a shameful step backward" from the fight against "the greatest terror threat in the world." Canadian bombing of the region began in April 2015 while the Canadian Conservatives were in power.

The Liberal leader had pledged during his election campaign last year to end the air strikes against the so-called Islamic State. He described the decision on Monday to cease bombing as being good for achieving “short-term military and territorial gains” but not for “long-term stability for local communities”.

In doing so, however, Mr Trudeau is going against public opinion. Two-thirds of Canadians polled recently supported or wanted to extend its support in the US-led bombing coalition, in the wake of extremist attacks in Jakarta and in Bukina Faso that killed seven Canadians in January.

The Liberal government will also contribute more than $1.6bn over three years to bolster security, stabilization and humanitarian aid to the region, including increasing counterterrorism efforts in neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan.

The Prime Minister added: “We know Canada is stronger, much stronger, than the threat posed by a murderous gang of thugs who are terrorizing some of the most vulnerable people on Earth.

"Call us old-fashioned, but we think that we ought to avoid doing precisely what our enemies want us to do. They want us to elevate them, to give in to fear, to indulge in hatred, to eye one another with suspicion and to take leave of our faculties.”

President Barack Obama "welcomed Canada's current and new contributions to coalition efforts and highlighted Canada's leadership in the coalition," the White House said in a statement

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-set-to-cease-airstrikes-against-isis-as-syrians-need-help-not-vengeance-a6862491.html


Ho-bloody-ray, one leader in the world who sees the truth!

Clueless, I suppose they think they can defeat an enemy with flowers

Oops, wrong thread.

And as seen has no idea on military strategy.

This is the problem today left wing regressive think wars and conflicts can be won without anyone dying. They cannot and we have to accept sadly some die, where already being inactive for over two years in Syria by the west has seen over 200,000 die, hence why the man is an idiot

Didge wrote:And as seen has no idea on military strategy.

This is the problem today left wing regressive think wars and conflicts can be won without anyone dying. They cannot and we have to accept sadly some die, where already being inactive for over two years in Syria by the west has seen over 200,000 die, hence why the man is an idiot

I think you misperceive your opposition. The Left no longer talks about what is necessary to win wars. They have removed the question one or more steps, and are now asking why any conflict is necessary. As it turns out, today's wars are mostly ego, not mission. If wars are frivolous, then people need not die.

It goes back to Carl von Clausewitz, On War (1832): "War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means." So the real question is, what political act are you carrying out? Usually, today, it's revenge or stupidity...certainly nothing of any intelligence.

Thank god for the left. They are finally forcing the world to ask the right questions.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:And as seen has no idea on military strategy.

This is the problem today left wing regressive think wars and conflicts can be won without anyone dying. They cannot and we have to accept sadly some die, where already being inactive for over two years in Syria by the west has seen over 200,000 die, hence why the man is an idiot

I think you misperceive your opposition.  The Left no longer talks about what is necessary to win wars.  They have removed the question one or more steps, and are now asking why any conflict is necessary.  As it turns out, today's wars are mostly ego, not mission.  If wars are frivolous, then people need not die.

It goes back to Carl von Clausewitz, On War (1832): "War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means."  So the real question is, what political act are you carrying out?  Usually, today, it's revenge or stupidity...certainly nothing of any intelligence.

Thank god for the left.  They are finally forcing the world to ask the right questions.

You clearly have never understood Von Clausewitz, in order to defeat the enemy, where you go to far bigger extremes then your enemy where they are already doing this and why you fail to understand strategy. But that is beisdes the point on where air strikes are strategically needed, of which they are. The view to be afraid there might be some civillian casulties, places no sense of confidence in your military capabilities let alone the fact they are needed to starve the enmy of its resources. On top of this we have the insane claim such action to stop any enemy is seen as far worse a henious crime to the ones already being carried out daily by both ISIS and Assad. This really is the most delusional claim from the left where they must racially think arabs are inferior to others who do not in many other conflicts take up arms with the enemy, over the allied help. Its a tad late in the day to have a conscience over civillain casulties when 200,000 are already dead

You say thank a mythical creation for the left? A deity?
Yes that really does sum up the stupidity of the left when it comes to conflicts

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you misperceive your opposition.  The Left no longer talks about what is necessary to win wars.  They have removed the question one or more steps, and are now asking why any conflict is necessary.  As it turns out, today's wars are mostly ego, not mission.  If wars are frivolous, then people need not die.

It goes back to Carl von Clausewitz, On War (1832): "War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means."  So the real question is, what political act are you carrying out?  Usually, today, it's revenge or stupidity...certainly nothing of any intelligence.

Thank god for the left.  They are finally forcing the world to ask the right questions.

You clearly have never understood Von Clausewitz, in order to defeat the enemy, where you go to far bigger extremes then your enemy where they are already doing this and why you fail to understand strategy. But that is beisdes the point on where air strikes are strategically needed, of which they are. The view to be afraid there might be some civillian casulties, places no sense of confidence in your military capabilities let alone the fact they are needed to starve the enmy of its resources. On top of this we have the insane claim such action to stop any enemy is seen as far worse a henious crime to the ones already being carried out daily by both ISIS and Assad. This really is the most delusional claim from the left where they must racially think arabs are inferior to others who do not in many other conflicts take up arms with the enemy, over the allied help. Its a tad late in the day to have a conscience over civillain casulties when 200,000 are already dead

You say thank a mythical creation for the left? A deity?
Yes that really does sum up the stupidity of the left when it comes to conflicts

Didge, don't vent your jealousy on me.  We both know you have never read Clausewitz.

If you don't have an enemy, you don't have any reason for hostility.  And...if you don't have a political purpose, you don't have an enemy.  There is no war.

ISIS and their maniacal band of pick-up truck drivers will never reach the shores of the UK.  Perhaps they will run out of gas.  Or maybe they will blow a head gasket; they are used trucks, just out of Texas, after all.  Who knows?  (I wonder what Clausewitz would have said about waging war in pick-up trucks, anyway?)

So not even a rational reply, just more inane drivel

Did you disprove my views on Von Clausewitz,?

Nope

Or disprove my views on the conflict?

Nope

Are we offically at war with ISIS?

Yes

Can regressives debate?

Clearly not


Have to go now Quill, but offer something better than excuses for your lack of understanding

Thanks