11.22.2015 09:43 AM

Destroy ISIS: do they mean it?

Hope so. We shall see. They are, as Bernard-Henri Lévy said, indisputably the enemy, now. 

“Today we sent a clear, unambiguous message that there will be no respite from our collective efforts to stop, suppress and destroy ISIS. “

16 Comments

  1. DougM says:

    They don’t mean it, just hollow words I’m afraid:

    “This does not constitute an authorization for military action, however, because the resolution is not drafted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which is the only way the United Nations can give a green light to the use of force.”

  2. Tim Sullivan says:

    Isn’t this what Canada’s paltry 2% of bombings was supposed to accomplish? Or is it a “but now we’re serious” take on things?

    I blame the CPC for naively getting into this useless exercise, risking lives and costing money.

  3. Joe says:

    Does that mean that the part time substitute drama teacher will leave Canada’s CF 18s in theatre?

  4. MonteCristo says:

    I don’t see any commitment to a firm number of boots on the ground.

    So how many sign on from Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ?

    Its just lip service.

    The resolution does not authorize military action, kinda difficult to destroy something without the use of military force. All the resolution does is use so vague and fuzzy word-smithing to “urge” U.N. member states “to intensify their efforts to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters in Iraq and Syria and to prevent and suppress the financing on terrorism.”

    in short, it does NADA, bupkis, Ziltch, Zero…..

  5. Matt says:

    It’s the UN, so……

    I’m going to go out on a limb and say no, the don’t mean it.

  6. JH says:

    UN’s a joke and more importantly a corrupt organization, which long ago outlived its usefulness.

  7. Maps Onburt says:

    It would be nice if they did, but frankly we have the same issues with Boko Haran, Somalia, West Africa. There are 12M refugees but people are getting off on bringing 25K to Canada. A white looking kid washes up on the shores and we go nuts. Millions die in Africa and we ignore it. I’m tired of Liberals spending other people’s money to make themselves feel good without regard to whether or not it even makes the most sense. I’ve seen estimates of 15-100K per refugee being spent in the first year. The latest out of the Liberals is that the 2016 cost will be 1.2B for 25K (so that’s 48K/per). What could we do with 48K in the theatre. I bet would support a hell of a lot more than 1 refugee.

    I still think we should bring some refugees to Canada as we actually need people to maintain our population balance and in the end (over the refugee’s lifetime, there is no doubt it will be paid back) but I question whether in light of the urgent needs, it makes sense to redirect most of that money to focusing on the 12M rather than the 25K.

  8. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    IMHO, terrorist groups can never be destroyed by their very nature — small, anonymous cells that do not interact with other ISIS-ISIL units. President Obama is wrong on two fronts: ISIL has not been contained nor has its leadership been decapitated after 150 targeted assassination of its leadership.

    This is at the very least a multi-decade struggle where nation-states will quite necessarily have to give as good as they get. That seems to have escaped the incoming Trudeau government. A major attack on Canada will be positively devastating as to their credibility as it relates to national security.

  9. Derek Pearce says:

    “How I stopped worrying and learned to live with terrorism.” I’m not being flippant, this is the new normal.

  10. Richard says:

    This is going to be a multi-pronged approach, I hope. We’ve seen for years that military strikes alone cannot debilitate or cripple this type of organization. Targeted air strikes that kill a cell leader are widely hailed, and for good reason, but then two weeks later the cell has a new leader or has expanded.

    A key to all of this is politically undermining the legitimacy of Daesh in those states where they are provided haven or, at minimum, able to operate with relative impunity because the state cannot exercise its own sovereignty over its territory. The local populations must be inspired to expel Daesh and demand that their governments rid their country of them. Show that the opportunities they can enjoy without the terrorists are far greater.

    It will be a difficult challenge, but it is more than possible.

  11. Hal near Cranbrook says:

    I guess we should bring this up whenever you rant about the name calling or rudeness of the left.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*