![]() |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by username.exe
(Post 11776575)
I wonder if Warren can be convinced to change her mind.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11776640)
Splendid to see that Canada is pulling out of the fight against terrorism, isn't that greatest news ever!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Now if we could just get everyone else to stop bothering ISIS. However, he said he would keep Canadian military trainers in northern Iraq, the AFP news agency reports." So, no, they are not "pulling out of the fight against terrorism". And, in other news: "David Cameron would be guilty of embarking on a “high-risk and pointless endeavour†if he sought to extend the British bombing mission against Islamic State forces in Iraq to Syria, a senior Tory MP and a former UK ambassador to Syria have warned." British airstrikes against Isis forces in Syria 'high risk and pointless' | World news | The Guardian |
Re: 2016 Election
It's encouraging to see that Trudeau will keep Canada's 70 troops in Iraq. Certainly a major contribution by our peerless ally. Since one of their major tasks was directing Canadian airstrikes against ISIS, we'll have to see what else they will be doing once the strike fighters have bugged out.
Early in the year it was disclosed that some of them had accompanied Iraqi troops they had been training and been engaged in a firefight, which brought heavy criticism from the NDP bench, including Justin. They'll probably be pulled well out of danger and remain there as a marker of Canada's commitment to the War on Terror. The next shoe to drop will be Canada's presence in Afghanistan. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11776663)
It's encouraging to see that Trudeau will keep Canada's 70 troops in Iraq. Certainly a major contribution by our peerless ally. Since one of their major tasks was directing Canadian airstrikes against ISIS, we'll have to see what else they will be doing once the strike fighters have bugged out.
Early in the year it was disclosed that some of them had accompanied Iraqi troops they had been training and been engaged in a firefight, which brought heavy criticism from the NDP bench, including Justin. They'll probably be pulled well out of danger and remain there as a marker of Canada's commitment to the War on Terror. The next shoe to drop will be Canada's presence in Afghanistan. Not sure what this has to do with the '16 election though; maybe you should take it over to the Canada forum. I'm sure people will treat you nicer there. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11776702)
Right, because the bombing campaign against ISIS has been such an unqualified success, it's hard to see any reason why Canada wouldn't continue it :rolleyes:
The Russians are also correct that if Assad falls - atrocious a dictator as he is - ISIS will win and turn Syria into a failed state where they can incubate terrorists to be sent all over the world. Since we don't see the logic of that it's time to bow out. Cameron's critics point out that using the RAF to create a "safe haven" no fly zone on Syrian soil risks tangling with the Russian and Syrian air forces. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11776702)
Not sure what this has to do with the '16 election though; maybe you should take it over to the Canada forum. I'm sure people will treat you nicer there.
I don't really care how people treat me here - my expectations are pretty low anyway. About what you and the RoadWarrior could expect if you ventured onto the Free Republic forum and expressed your views. It's true, though, the Brits on the Canada forum seem more polite - goes with the territory I suppose. :lol: |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11776702)
Right, because the bombing campaign against ISIS has been such an unqualified success, it's hard to see any reason why Canada wouldn't continue it :rolleyes:
Not sure what this has to do with the '16 election though; maybe you should take it over to the Canada forum. I'm sure people will treat you nicer there.
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11776707)
Success, qualified or unqualified, takes more than a few pinpricks from the air. The Russians did 90 missions in one day - equivalent to what the allies did in 3 months. What they're telling us is if you're not serious, go home, and so they are. One interesting tidbit is that the US is sending its 12 A-10 Warthogs to Turkey. If they get involved in the fight against ISIS that could be a game changer. But I don't expect that to happen, it may only be window dressing.
The Russians are also correct that if Assad falls - atrocious a dictator as he is - ISIS will win and turn Syria into a failed state where they can incubate terrorists to be sent all over the world. Since we don't see the logic of that it's time to bow out. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11776729)
While it is true that Assad falling would create a power vacuum perfect for ISIS to step into, I feel that Russia's effort against ISIS is rather token and they are there solely to support Assad. It is producing a very messy situation, it won't be long before a US jet shoots down a Russian one or vice versa. I don't blame the Canadians for wanting to get out.
About the Canadians. If somehow the "deconfliction" doesn't work and we find ourselves in a "situation" with the Russians, it's always comforting to know that our gallant allies are nowhere to be found. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by civilservant
(Post 11776572)
Not election related per se, but I am very impressed with Paul Ryan. A policy wonk who actually seems to want to get out there and show the way (all be it on his terms) - I could easily see him as President in 2024 (assuming a 2 term president in 2016/20)
1. Ryan doesn't want to be speaker, he has much higher aspirations, but he doesn't want to be painted as a complete dick for not having stepped up during the crisis. 2. He's putting himself out there as moderate and reasonable yet in reality he's extremely conservative and right wing. 3. He's giving the GOP a laundry list of things he just won't abide by, that way he has an "out" when any of his requirements aren't met. He knows the Freedom Caucus (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) are going to blow everything up ... he just wants to be sure they're the ones that get the blame. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11776830)
3. He's giving the GOP a laundry list of things he just won't abide by, that way he has an "out" when any of his requirements aren't met. He knows the Freedom Caucus (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) are going to blow everything up ... he just wants to be sure they're the ones that get the blame.
This doesn't look good and if they can't get their act together it doesn't bode well for the Republicans in the general election - not only for the top of the ticket but for their Congressional re-election campaigns as well. We could see a repeat of the 2008 results. In won't be the first time they've snatched defeat... |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11776837)
I think the Freedom Caucus is already painting Ryan as "Boehner Lite" and they won't toe the line if he appears to be reaching across the aisle.
This doesn't look good and if they can't get their act together it doesn't bode well for the Republicans in the general election - not only for the top of the ticket but for their Congressional re-election campaigns as well. We could see a repeat of the 2008 results. In won't be the first time they've snatched defeat... |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11776840)
Yeah, I was just listening to some of the reporting on that. That escalated quickly. The situation is completely untenable as Ryan well knows. The establishment Republicans are the ones that want Ryan in there. The nutjobs don't seem to want anybody in there ... who exactly are they offering up as an alternative? There are two completely different Republican parties operating within the Congress. Why don't they just admit they don't love each other anymore and go ahead and file for divorce?
Daniel Webster (January 18, 1782 – October 24, 1852) was a leading American senator and statesman during the era of the Second Party System. He was the outstanding spokesman for American nationalism with powerful oratory that made him a key Whig leader. He spoke for conservatives, and led the opposition to Democrat Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. He was a spokesman for modernization, banking, and industry, but not for the common people who composed the base of his opponents in Jacksonian Democracy. "He was a thoroughgoing elitist, and he reveled in it," says biographer Robert Remini. |
Re: 2016 Election
Definitely some political savvy from Ryan (or his establishment backers) realizing if someone didn't step up and they went with the freedom caucus candidate the GOP would decend further into the porcelain.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11776879)
Definitely some political savvy from Ryan (or his establishment backers) realizing if someone didn't step up and they went with the freedom caucus candidate the GOP would decend further into the porcelain.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Now that Biden is out, frankly I can't see any candidate from either side being "electable" in a "landslide" sort of way. And for that reason, America's Berlusconi, "the Don" is holding the best hand of all the gangsters in the game.
I reckon it will be yet another choice of "lesser of the evils"... Tough choice, though. They're all pretty much living in a dream world. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 5:21 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.