10.21.2014 12:20 PM

On ISIS fight, Canadians are with Obama

So sayeth Abacus.  The polling firm didn’t ask, but I suspect that they would have found that Canadians don’t think the President is doing what he’s doing because of his ego, either. Libs, take note.




  1. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    I oppose this war — along with our military contribution because I regard all terrorist-centric operations
    as essentially unwinnable by their very nature. Al-Qaeda is far from crushed or decimated. They will eventually pick their spot and fight again.

    Battles can be won but never terrorist wars. Once again, the futility of it all will be amply demonstrated over a good number of years.

    • Christian says:

      OK, thats fine. No one likes to go to war. BUT what is your alternative? How do you provide humanitarian aid and assist with the building of an active civic society when the area is in control of an organization that is:

      a) Committing vicious and inhumane atrocities such as beheadings, rape, torture and enslavement of women and girls;
      b) Actively recruiting members from western countries;
      c) Has threatened to send some of these recruits home to carry out point a) above on the populations of any western country.

      To quote Private Frost (RIP) from Ailens: “What the hell are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?”

      In this and other situations I’ll listen to experts such as General Romeo Dallaire who in addition to being a former soldier (and has seen his fair share of atrocities) is also a humanitarian. He isn’t a war monger, far from it. But even he has been saying that a military response in the form of both air strikes AND boots on the ground (lack of this is what helped enable the Rwandan genocide)is required.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Good for you, you’re opposed to war, apparently for any reason whatsoever.

      Of course, it’s infinitely easier to be opposed to war sitting on one’s porch here in Canada, along side the greatest military power on the planet, and in the history of mankind, with whom we share essentially the same values, much of the same history and roots going back 800 years and beyond. A power that will reliably cover our asses for us come hell or high water.

      It’s also infinitely easier when someone is not shooting at one specifically, or their neighbors, or, God forbid, their family…forget about cutting their heads off for a game of soccer, or to decorate the picket fence out front.

      I’m sure there will be a special place in heaven for “peacemakers” like yourself. God help the poor sonsovbitches who actually have to pick up a gun and defend their own lives, or their family’s.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        Don’t be obtuse. Re-read what I wrote. I do not oppose all wars — only terrorist ones that can be judged as unwinnable. Iraq and Afghanistan are complete failures. No propaganda will change that.

        Like Warren said some time back, the war of necessity was, and is, Syria. Assad should have been removed by force as soon as he used chemical weapons. As Conservatives would say, full stop.

        • Brine says:

          You still haven’t answered Christian’s question. What would you do?

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            I don’t work in the PMO nor at Foreign Affairs but if you insist, I would bring on economic sanctions against those of our allies who are not only cheerleaders but also financiers to ISIL. ISIL today is largely self-financing but they got their seed money from somewhere. Seek and you shall find the answer but so far, there is no iron clad proof. Make those economies hurt and hurt again. Money talks and concentrates the mind of ally or foe. But the West is gutless when it comes to our so-called allies in the Middle East.

        • Just Askin' says:

          Even if you choose to be a cynic about this particular war, it would not be in our national interest to sit back while our allies are moving forward.

          Trudeau doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to make uncomfortable decisions like standing with our allies in this situation, and I just couldn’t elect someone like him who would rather bloviate about “root causes” than actually lead.

      • Kaspar Juul says:

        Such a tough guy you are al Cranbrooki.

      • smelter rat says:

        When are you enlisting, Al?

  2. Kevin T. says:

    It is just that Harper’s MO and overall behaviour in office makes everything he does suspect and seem somewhat dishonest, even when he is on the right side. Of course, true to form, he then he turns around and uses a tragedy for political points off of an event that had yet been fully released in the news cycle. It’s not the cause, it’s him.

  3. Bill says:

    On Oct 19 JT quoted as saying: “Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says he will impose greater discipline on himself to avoid making off-the-cuff remarks that his opponents can use against him.”

    On Oct 21 JT quoted as saying: “Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s “ego” that led him to send six CF-18s to participate in airstrikes in Iraq, rather than a concern for Canada’s long-term interests.”

    Well that lasted all of 48 hours. Only those Liberals who hate Stephen Harper more than they care for their country could possibly vote for someone so ill equipped to be Prime Minister of Canada. I never voted for Chretien or Martin but I never doubted their competency or intelligence to lead the country. I would prefer Mulcair to Trudeau if forced to make a choice between the two.

    • Kaspar Juul says:

      Get a grip Bill

    • smelter rat says:

      Dislking Harper and caring for the country are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they seem to be complimentary to a majority of Canadians.

      • Bill says:

        I didn’t say they were but I do believe that voting for Trudeau and caring about your country is mutually exclusive. I don’t think there has ever been a leader of the major parties that was less equipped to lead.

  4. Joe says:

    Interesting if meaningless math. If you take the good judgement and acceptable judgement as positives and the poor judgement as negative and add all three of the numbers together all three of the leaders come out as positive. Harper is +31. Mulcair is +20 and Trudeau is +11. Personally I think that Harper is about right at +31, Mulcair is a bit low at +20 and Trudeau is a bit high at +11.

  5. Phil says:

    Jean Chretien agrees with Trudeau, and I agree with Jean.

    • Elisabeth Lindsay says:

      Well put Les. Chretien and Trudeau seem to be very confused about Iraq situation. They seem to fighting G. Bush`s decision to INVADE Iraq instead on focusing on the fact that we are fighting WITH Iraq against ISIL!

  6. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Anybody finally get it yet!


    • Justin says:

      Unfortunately they aren’t Al. They’ve convinced themselves that whatever ISIS does is justified because the Christians did the same thing like 700 years ago. They seem to think there should be some sort of ‘Affimative action’ when it comes to religious violence, that Islam is just going through a ‘teen phase’ right now, and is trying to get all its violence out now. They yell ‘Islamaphobe!’ when you try to make the case that Islam has radical elements which are dangerous to the West but in turn will bash Christianity at every turn they get. I fear for my generation (20-40 year olds) as they will sell out the West to placate their political correct leanings worse then any generation before.

    • patrick says:

      Get what? That there’s a small percentage of mentally ill people (paranoid, delusional, resentful, pathetically grandiose fantasies take your pick, it only takes one to cause a disaster), susceptible to any screed that justifies their rage. Heavy metal music, gothic fashion, left vs right, religion have all been blamed for individual behaviour but it’s all just approving noise for the lunatic and occasional lunatics bent on causing pain. Islam is just the justification of the moment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.