LOL Canada: Trudeau to stop bombing ISIS

[Crowe Diddly]

I'm trying to understand the points being made here by my political critics.

What should we be doing about ISIS, if bombing them is "irresponsible"?

The problem is that we're bombing all sorts of people, far from just ISIS. Bombing targets is fine when you have the intelligence to identify the correct targets, but we routinely kill 10 when we aim for 1, we destroy homes and cities and yes, hospitals, and maim and kill innocents at a staggering pace, and at the end of the day, we get no further intelligence out of any of this, because we're blowing shit up from the air and have no real idea what's going on on the ground.


You can't fight groups like these without people on the ground, and we're not gonna put people on the ground. So we bomb, kill some of who we want, but also devastate entire families and communities and create many more enemies than we ever create friends.

Bombing is irresponsible, because its not enough to win, and if it doesn't lead to a win, it only makes things worse.

Did you read the Drones report, druff? You should. So should everyone.

[Dan Druff]

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans weren't nation building interventionists. 4d is the last hold out.

Why should a country attack ISIS if they have no designs on attacking them? Canada, and certain other countries.. ahem...cough..., should let Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Kurds etc. bomb ISIS.

This isn't nation building. That accusation held merit for the Iraq invasion, but not for bombing missions against terrorist groups.

If we let the countries listed above handle ISIS, nothing will get done. This isn't a matter of getting involved in other nations' affairs. ISIS is a sworn enemy of the United States. We don't need to wait for another 9/11-sized disaster (or worse) before taking them seriously.

[Dan Druff]

I'm trying to understand the points being made here by my political critics.

What should we be doing about ISIS, if bombing them is "irresponsible"?

The problem is that we're bombing all sorts of people, far from just ISIS. Bombing targets is fine when you have the intelligence to identify the correct targets, but we routinely kill 10 when we aim for 1, we destroy homes and cities and yes, hospitals, and maim and kill innocents at a staggering pace, and at the end of the day, we get no further intelligence out of any of this, because we're blowing shit up from the air and have no real idea what's going on on the ground.


You can't fight groups like these without people on the ground, and we're not gonna put people on the ground. So we bomb, kill some of who we want, but also devastate entire families and communities and create many more enemies than we ever create friends.

Bombing is irresponsible, because its not enough to win, and if it doesn't lead to a win, it only makes things worse.

Did you read the Drones report, druff? You should. So should everyone.

I will read it later.

Bombing is not about creating friends.

Terrorists are unfortunately notorious for using human shields. We cannot just throw up our hands when they do this and say, "Okay, never mind... we won't hurt you!"

Ground missions cost a lot of lives, as well. We will be replacing collateral damage deaths with deaths of American soldiers. These missions are incredibly difficult, and also very slow. If you get reliable intelligence about the whereabouts of an ISIS leader, a drone can get to him quickly. If you're doing it with boots on the ground, it takes time, and the potential for escape is much higher.

Without reading your drone report link yet, I will say that perhaps we need to set a higher bar for what passes for reliable intelligence, but that doesn't mean we should end bombing or become obsessed with avoiding collateral damage/deaths. Those deaths are sad, but in reality, inaction regarding groups like ISIS will kill far more people than our bombing missions do.

[Jayjami]

B

It's not about money.

It's about a crippling fear of collateral damage, so they are backing off of the bombing and letting other countries take the blame if anything bad happens (while still reaping the benefits if the other countries manage to weaken ISIS via these bombings).

This strategy was used in the 1990s against Osama bin Laden -- basically to ignore him and engage him very minimally, and hope he'll go away. You see how that worked out.

This!

+ Obama IS a member of the muslim brotherhood...

God, please let Paul Ryan be elected Speaker of the House today and please remind thespartan that he promised never to post his asinine political comments on PFA again if it happens.

[Jayjami]

I'm trying to understand the points being made here by my political critics.

What should we be doing about ISIS, if bombing them is "irresponsible"?

You can't fight groups like these without people on the ground, and we're not gonna put people on the ground. So we bomb, kill some of who we want, but also devastate entire families and communities and create many more enemies than we ever create friends.

Bombing is irresponsible, because its not enough to win, and if it doesn't lead to a win, it only makes things worse.

Remember when dropping napalm on Vietnam endeared us to the local population? Totally justied because America was protecting them from the evil Communists? That worked out well.

[limitles]

Druff I think you're taking Trudeau's quote out of context. We already discussed this in the election thread.

Canada will do so in a responsible way, IE not spending m/billions of dollars.

We will sit back and let others fight the battle and provide support along the way. This is how Canada should operate, we are not a military power by any means.

"... in a responsible way" seems to mean "We will let everyone else spend the money, bear the brunt of civilian death controversies, while we enjoy the same benefits from their efforts as if we were involved."

I think that's bullshit. It's like a class group project where one guy says, "You know, I'll sit this one out, but I support the work you guys are doing, and I'm sure you'll get all of us a good grade!"

It is understandable that Canada doesn't have the military that the US does, but they should at least contribute their fair share, unless they are philosophically opposed to the bombing.

Yeah bombing is effective in some situations but you got a lot going on in the region including a general pubic that gets it from their own G'ovt and now face the stronger warlords. Syrians have been been "emigrating" for years and now droves are fleeing.
So whom or where do you bomb without afflicting yet more terror to the innocent?
Unless bombing can be certain of it's targets it should be used sparingly.

Canada has a good reputation around the world as peace keepers and
there are certainly alternative methods of helping, that
involve more danger to the helpers, compared to the bomb droppers.

[thesparten]

The problem is that we're bombing all sorts of people, far from just ISIS. Bombing targets is fine when you have the intelligence to identify the correct targets, but we routinely kill 10 when we aim for 1, we destroy homes and cities and yes, hospitals, and maim and kill innocents at a staggering pace, and at the end of the day, we get no further intelligence out of any of this, because we're blowing shit up from the air and have no real idea what's going on on the ground.


You can't fight groups like these without people on the ground, and we're not gonna put people on the ground. So we bomb, kill some of who we want, but also devastate entire families and communities and create many more enemies than we ever create friends.

Bombing is irresponsible, because its not enough to win, and if it doesn't lead to a win, it only makes things worse.

Did you read the Drones report, druff? You should. So should everyone.

I will read it later.

Bombing is not about creating friends.

Terrorists are unfortunately notorious for using human shields. We cannot just throw up our hands when they do this and say, "Okay, never mind... we won't hurt you!"

Ground missions cost a lot of lives, as well. We will be replacing collateral damage deaths with deaths of American soldiers. These missions are incredibly difficult, and also very slow. If you get reliable intelligence about the whereabouts of an ISIS leader, a drone can get to him quickly. If you're doing it with boots on the ground, it takes time, and the potential for escape is much higher.

Without reading your drone report link yet, I will say that perhaps we need to set a higher bar for what passes for reliable intelligence, but that doesn't mean we should end bombing or become obsessed with avoiding collateral damage/deaths. Those deaths are sad, but in reality, inaction regarding groups like ISIS will kill far more people than our bombing missions do.

If it wasn't for collateral damage, u would be in a Japanese work camp.or speaking German..

If we dont honestly bomb any infrastructure or population centers they have created alote more americans will die in the long run a whole GENACIDT on coptic christion and rampant modern day barbaric slavery.. it would.be heartless and irrisposable not to bomb them with extreme prejudice..

[thesparten]

You guy talk about drones and Obama has killed the most Muslims...

Thr truth is isil has never stoped growing and has increast in power day after day..

Putin had put.more hurt on them in a month then obama has in a year..

They have functioning oil wells, that we could just.bomb.. but we dont.. rampant slavery and genocide of coptic Christians...

He gives al quida major weapons and doe but the Kurds who would kick ass?? They gota beg for rifles.that they werent given bullets for... the global progressive powers want isil to win, DUH!!!

There just playing it off like there doing something.

Progressive,s dont have a problem with that..

We should do what Clinton did, with no major complaints from the media I might add.

A media blackout. Go.in and whipe everything out and people..

If by "them" you mean "Non-ISIS Syrian rebels", I would agree. Because Putin is using Russian bombing to help Assad's regime fight the rebels. In fact, this was known earlier this month. So, way to cheer for Russia supporting an Iranian ally in the Middle East!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-updates.html

Modern day kahdafi was an effective leader of a functioning state that didnt tolerate al Qaida.

Egypt before the arab spring...
Obam actually gave billions to the Muslim brotherhood in egypt and then cut it off when the military had to intervene, lol. The Egyptian military has people of all faiths in there high officers..
The Muslim brotherhood was killing Christions in egypt but Obama said nothing and gave them funds and stoped when the military took over..WOW! Obama isnt a muslim, hes just insane or a racist..

Syria is the good guy in this scenario...

Ect ect ect..

[simpdog]

Druff can we use the analogy of you credit card bonus whoring? Canada is putting in minimum effort but having the same result.

Or we could use your Seven Star Status as the analogy. Canada has 7 Star Status with the USA, so we're just getting free hotels and vacations for our families.

[ToasterOven]

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans weren't nation building interventionists. 4d is the last hold out.

Why should a country attack ISIS if they have no designs on attacking them? Canada, and certain other countries.. ahem...cough..., should let Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Kurds etc. bomb ISIS.

This isn't nation building. That accusation held merit for the Iraq invasion, but not for bombing missions against terrorist groups.

If we let the countries listed above handle ISIS, nothing will get done. This isn't a matter of getting involved in other nations' affairs. ISIS is a sworn enemy of the United States. We don't need to wait for another 9/11-sized disaster (or worse) before taking them seriously.

"nothing will get done" is pretty lol. What happened to Republicans?

What will happen is these groups will kill each other, occupy each others attention and time, and not worry so much about us. Otherwise known as successful foreign policy throughout the history of the USA.

[DJ_Chaps]

Druff I think you're taking Trudeau's quote out of context. We already discussed this in the election thread.

Canada will do so in a responsible way, IE not spending m/billions of dollars.

We will sit back and let others fight the battle and provide support along the way. This is how Canada should operate, we are not a military power by any means.

"... in a responsible way" seems to mean "We will let everyone else spend the money, bear the brunt of civilian death controversies, while we enjoy the same benefits from their efforts as if we were involved."

I think that's bullshit. It's like a class group project where one guy says, "You know, I'll sit this one out, but I support the work you guys are doing, and I'm sure you'll get all of us a good grade!"

It is understandable that Canada doesn't have the military that the US does, but they should at least contribute their fair share, unless they are philosophically opposed to the bombing.

It's called making decisions based on the desires of the people. We don't want our guys over there fighting a bogus fight. You're American so you're not used to politicians actually representing the people that elected them.

[DRK Star]

guys....we are talking Canada here....


their "Air Force" isnt exactly making terrorists tremble in their shoes.


they may as well fly over and dump maple syrup on Isis. Get them to appreciate sugary goodness.

[DJ_Chaps]

guys....we are talking Canada here....


their "Air Force" isnt exactly making terrorists tremble in their shoes.


they may as well fly over and dump maple syrup on Isis. Get them to appreciate sugary goodness.

You realize the RCAF is GOD, right?

[Crowe Diddly]

guys....we are talking Canada here....


their "Air Force" isnt exactly making terrorists tremble in their shoes.


they may as well fly over and dump maple syrup on Isis. Get them to appreciate sugary goodness.

You realize the RCAF is GOD, right?

Canada might be the unsung heroes of the Allied side in WW2. After the D-Day invasion, the entire world looked at Canada differently. Of course our forces are larger, but Christ, those motherfuckers are proven killers as well.

[thesparten]

Canada historically has always had a very smaii military yet very effectuve. They are unsung heroes of ww2. Recently however, for the past decade or soo they have been doing all tthat social engine with.it..

The result being lower standers, less professional and more expensive...

[DRK Star]

guys....we are talking Canada here....


their "Air Force" isnt exactly making terrorists tremble in their shoes.


they may as well fly over and dump maple syrup on Isis. Get them to appreciate sugary goodness.

You realize the RCAF is GOD, right?

Oh........my bad....

[GambleBotsSatire]

Canada whether you like it or not yall niggas with America, so stop acting like tre from boyz n the hood, you get back in this car and ride with yall niggas

[gut]

[herbertstemple]

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans weren't nation building interventionists. 4d is the last hold out.

Why should a country attack ISIS if they have no designs on attacking them? Canada, and certain other countries.. ahem...cough..., should let Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Kurds etc. bomb ISIS.

Oil.

[lol wow]

lol at worthless canadians being like BRO WE HAD THAT ONE GOOD SNIPER BRO canada you are a pussy nation who cant afford fighter pilots but you dine out on like 11 year old afghan stories