More Liberal hypocrisy

[dieseluphammerdown]

The Trudeau government is now presiding over the exact same type of mission as the Conservatives before them, they insist Canadians are not engaged in combat.

The fact the Liberals have followed the Conservatives in also using the term “non-combat,” even though Canadian soldiers are doing exactly the same thing as before, has emerged as a political headache for the government after it promised during the election to end combat operations.

But the government and Vance insist the mission is non-combat. Vance rejected suggestions Friday that he was tailoring the definition of combat to suit the Liberal government’s needs, saying he was the “expert on what is combat,” and telling those who don’t like his definition: “Too bad.”

http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-top-trudeau-adviser-blasted-harper-%E2%80%98tinkering%E2%80%99-definiti

I find it funny that the liberals are now guilty of doing something they condoned when Harper and the conservatives were doing it, but justifying it now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.!

[Ka-El]

Got another email did ya.

[dieseluphammerdown]

Got another email did ya.

No it wasn't an email, it was just another liberal hypocrisy and out right lie news story in the seemingly never ending list they so readily supply.

[flamingfingers]

Yeah, it was an email.. from good buddy Ezra....

[MAPearce]

Nah.... The Liberal plan failed so it's back to plan B.. You know , the one that worked .

AKA , Harpers Conservative plan without the jets.

[hobbyguy]

The Harperites just can't seem to stomach that they lost.

Get over it. There is a panoply of ideas and approaches.

The Conservative party will move on when Harper finally does the right thing and quits, and when they come up with a new leader who is NOT a reform party zealot. That new leader will take the party to a more nuanced and less dictatorial position, or the party will suffer more losses.

Everybody knows that campaigning and governing are two different things. Just like I kinda laugh at Bernie Sanders campaigning on the promise of a single payer health care system - as if he can get THAT past the Teapublican Congress lol. (It does make sense, but reality is reality.)

Meanwhile, most of us have already forgotten about the campaign promises and are watching to see if the new government makes pragmatic choices, and ones that will make Canada better - because if they don't, out they go! Next election IF there is a reasonable alternative. (Harperism does not qualify).

[Ka-El]

Meanwhile, most of us have already forgotten about the campaign promises and are watching to see if the new government makes pragmatic choices, and ones that will make Canada better - because if they don't, out they go! Next election IF there is a reasonable alternative. (Harperism does not qualify).

If the partisan Harper Conservatives can not get over the crying they lost and try to figure out why that was and how to address it, the four years following the next election are going to be even longer for them than this four is going to be.

[FreeRights]

Nah.... The Liberal plan failed so it's back to plan B.. You know , the one that worked .

AKA , Harpers Conservative plan without the jets.

Please explain to me how Harper's military strategy worked.

Had it, we wouldn't be significantly increasing our training personnel.

[Smurf]

J believe it worked to slow and or help control the problem. The tactics are now gaining some headway as they are allowing local troops to gain back ground and some are apparently even returning home. If you are asking if the bombing got rid of ISIS, no it did not. No one ever said it would. I believe it is achieving what most thought it would and should be kept up to continue to aid in the control of the advance of ISIS. I liked it because it kept our fighters out of harms way much more than increasing troops on the front line does. Leave the front lines to the locals. They need to fight some of their own battles instead of running away and leaving it up to everyone else.

[hobbyguy]

The initial bombing, and the support for it, was based on halting the advance of ISIS into new territory. I have no problem with that.

The problem with bombing is that you can NOT avoid collateral damage. And in and of itself, you can not win with bombing. The collateral damage only serves to further the ISIS narrative. On top of that, ISIS adapts quickly to the change of the battlefield scenario http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29423776 with bombers, and quickly makes them less effective.

So ground forces have to come in, and the can NOT be western forces - because that creates resentment and furthers the ISIS narrative.

The folks in the region have to root them out. Not an easy task, because we know they will hide behind civilians and collateral damage is inevitable. And it gets more complicated with all the regional/religious/tribal stuff that goes on there - which the local forces understand, and at best we can only begin to imagine.

Any time you put our folks in with fighting forces (as advisers or trainers) they are at risk. Heck, just being in IRAQ carries risk.

[Rwede]

Any time you put our folks in with fighting forces (as advisers or trainers) they are at risk. Heck, just being in IRAQ carries risk.

Even greater risk to Canadians occurs as Justin brings boatloads of war to Canadian soil. That's just plain stupid, but what do you expect from a spoiled child looking for friends, any friends, to play with?

I'd rather we continue on with the advice from our allies and continue to make advances in enhancing security for the Middle East, and freeing repressed people from dictatorships in war-ravaged countries. However, we've abandoned that for selfies and appearances on ladies' talk shows.