Snort

So Justin's Clown Corp were against it before they were for it?
As for more humanitarian aid, ala Angry Tom, does that include body bags?
Looks like Warthog A-10 territory to me, just sayin'
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-much-maligned-a-10-warthogs-are-deploying-to-1640395280/+laceydonohue
That will deal with the "root causes"
Will Justin in keeping with family history
ride around with a keffiyeh wrapped aroud his precious curls?

Just a bunch of children.

So they're going with the "I support what you're doing even though I don't support what you're doing" position.

Definitely a mental disorder.

Proof the Liberals are playing politics of the the stupid, they think we're all stupid. They're political cowards,straddling both sides of the fence exposes the jackassery they're up to with no obvious leadership beyond a cabal of total twits pulling the strings of front man Justin.

Garneau is proving he's a good fit with the Liberals, he's approving their antics knowing full well the government has a majority and they're voting against it is purely to save some votes from going to their Quebec rivals, the NDP. What a colossal, freaking, sorry lot the LPC has become, a new low a day.

Both the Liberal and now the NDP positions are becoming more confused by the hour. Now the Dippers want to supply arms to the locals. They seem blind to the fact that in the past such supplies have invariably ended up in the hands of people we don't want to have them.

And now Garneau adds to the absurdity by saying that of course they will support the intervention after the vote. Doesn't want to be caught offside not being in support of those going into the hazards of a war, does he?

As regards both and their "non-support", I could have sympathized strongly with the views of JS Woodsworth, founder of the CCF (not agreed with, but sympathized). He was the only member of Parliament in 1939 who voted against the resolution declaring war on Germany. A life-long pacifist, he declared that he could not vote in support of a resolution that embodied the taking of human life. In his remarks to the House, he indicated that he agreed fully that Germany had to be stopped, that the regime was irredeemably evil. But his religious beliefs and his conscience would not permit him to vote for a declaration of war, no matter against whom.

Prime Minister King respected his views, noting before and after that Woodsworth could always be relied on to vote on his conscience and principles regardless of how unpopular or impractical they might be. And let's face it, King was no wuss, regardless of how spineless current Liberal leaders may be.

That was then, this is now. I could have respected the Libs and the Dips if they made a purely principled stand on refusing to take human life. But the Libs vacated that in 2003 when they sent us into Afghanistan. And the Dips have forfeited that pure pacifist principle as well by supporting the shipping of guns for others to do the killing. Both opposition parties are showing not principle but absolute, unvarnished moral cowardice.

Now we'll have the media referring our fight against the evil Islamist murderers as "Harper's war". Where are the media demanding an apology from Trudeau for making his phallic "joke"? Would any other politician feel there was no need to apologize for this utterance and get away with such juvenile crap and go on to lead the country?

Garneau was career military. Sad commentary on the green civil service. The guy has no balls. He was unable to criticize Turdeau during the leadership and at the earliest opportunity quit to support him. Now this commentary?

It's sad to see Garneau forced to such depths of rationalization equating the mission to crossing the Rubicon wondering, how we'll be able to leave (umm, the same way we came, in an aircraft). He fails to explain the slippery slope to Canadian combat troops getting involved.

JT is using weasel words - we support the troops without supporting the mission - to give himself room to take advantage of any misstep that may happen. Our military could be going into a hot zone overhead especially if IS has acquired any SAM capability. Those risks are understood but to withhold full support in order to use casualties for political gain is unconscionable and unbecoming of the LPC, even in its present "progressive" form.

Once again JT has tried to present himself as the thoughtful philosopher king, but has ended up acting rashly, splitting his own party, pleasing no one but himself, thus speeding his delivery to the political ash heap.

His tin eared arrogance and smirking dismissal of important security issues will ensure Canadians will never entrust him with the PMO. Perhaps Canadians have finally noticed his paucity of leadership depth:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/07/support_continues_to_dip_for_federal_liberals.html

As far the the "Official Opposition," typical peacenik crap, nothing new here, move along folks.

So as the old saying goes.

A holy man in a fir coat keeps no one warm but himself.

Welcome to the justin party Mr Garneau

When no means yes.

You know, Garneau always seems like a bit of a space cadet to me.

Rimshot!

Unlike the Afghanistan mission which they opposed after voting for it.

cgh: "That was then, this is now. I could have respected the Libs and the Dips if they made a purely principled stand on refusing to take human life"

Since both parties are whole hearted proponents of abortion on demand, I think their 'principled stand on refusing to take human life' would have collapsed in a nanosecond.

How about the dippers stand? We won't support it but would support sending guns.
Setting aside JT's position, that's about the dumbest thing I've heard today.

So WHY TF is is GARNEAU that is coming out in front of this?! WHERE TF is Trudeau?!

Let's see; we can't buy votes cause we're not the Government of Canada so let's just lie as usual the usual Liberal Voters will understand or as usual not understand. Cheers;

The Liberals in Parliament (and those I know locally) oppose the mission because ..., because ..., well, because ... Stephen Harper!

Honestly, people, this is what it's come to.

"Amongst the soldiers this is muttered,
That here you maintain several factions,
And whilst a field should be dispatch'd and fought,
You are disputing of your generals:
One would have lingering wars with little cost;
Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings;
A third thinks, without expense at all,
By guileful fair words peace may be obtain'd.
Awake, awake, English nobility!
Let not sloth dim your horrors new-begot:"
Shakespeare
Henery VI
Act 1

Lets use the liberal logic. I will vote against trudeau in the next election before I will vote for him.

Not to sound callous, but why did all of these apparently affected christians move into such a dangerous country after the Iraq war?

They basically put themselves into harms way after Saddam was overthrown.

Probably they should have stayed in their own country's at least until the dust settled and the country stabilized, yes?

Typical comments from the Lib/Dip morons in the 'Slop & Fail'. If it was left up to the Liberals they'd send our air-force into an air strike with S.E.5's just the way they sent the army into desert warfare wearing green camo. The Dippers on the other hand love spending other people's money just as much as they like somebody else doing the messy work. A pox on both their houses.

I'd love to see some opposition politician come out with the position that the Canadian Military should be doing MORE!

cgh >

"So it's reasonable to say that they've never had a truly, vicerally hostile government until the emergence of the IS fanatics this year."

I suppose then it's reasonable to assume that if we in the west stopped interfering in the natural order of the areas sociopolitical systems that they would probably make out just fine.

Of course we won't do that, and will keep making a mess of things until it's in our own backyards full time.