Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

CPC has gone full Republican, the P from old PC is officially gone

 

[Azih]

And I'm saying that opposition itself is actually more important than the logical coherency of that opposition. I would rather the opposition oppose on a basis that they do not truly believe in than not oppose at all.

Opposition is inherently democratic.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I have no patience for politicians that don't present a consistent vision and oppose or support the government based on that vision. Without that consistency it's just mindless.

It would be better if there were more parties that reflected the true diversity of Canadian public opinion (PCs and Reform should never have merged) and the more fringe parties could be the voices of the segment of Canadians that won't ever be satsified with anything but I want the bigger parties to be coherent.

 

[gabbo]

CPC has gone full Republican, the P from old PC is officially gone

That P has been gone for a long time now

 

[Pedrito]

The problem with the CPC opposition right now it that pretty much everything they say is just dripping with irony and hypocrisy. It's impossible to take them seriously. Though, it was probably also the case with the Liberals back in 2006.

There's also the problem of offering almost no constructive ideas and being so black and white about everything.

 

[mo60]

NDP being the official opposition would've been 100X better then the current CPC

like stated before the CPC are all over the place with hollow shouting criticism instead of actual real use in the house of commons

Your wish may come true in about four years from now if the CPC continues to fail at the official opposition position. The CPC sadly does not compare to NDP when they were in the official opposition position. The one thing that hurts them is that this is the first time they are in the official opposition position without a strong leader.

Canada is a very regional country with regions within regions and a Federal leader has to find support East to West to be viable.

O'Leary born in Quebec never bothered to learn French and condescends that it doesn't matter because everyone understands English anyway.

Cons had losses in all Provinces last October except for Quebec, the only province where they made net gains. (because of identity politics)

The Cons are pretty mindful of keeping those gains, O'Leary won't be their man

Didn't the Cons technically gain seats in Alberta because of the higher amount of seats in the province now? Even though their share in the amount of seats is lower than 2011 in Alberta they still gained two seats.

 

[SRG01]

The silence from Postmedia is deafening. Infrastructure money for Alberta -- good news -- was just announced, and no PostMedia outlet online has reported extensively on the Notley/Trudeau meeting, nor the subsequent funding announcements.

edit: Here's one small news item: http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/live-expectations-high-as-trudeau-and-notley-meet-in-edmonton

 

[Simon Belmont]

The problem with the CPC opposition right now it that pretty much everything they say is just dripping with irony and hypocrisy. It's impossible to take them seriously. Though, it was probably also the case with the Liberals back in 2006.

There's also the problem of offering almost no constructive ideas and being so black and white about everything.

Eh, not really. The 90s Liberals were corrupt for sure, but they ran the ship of Government well. They had to suck it up and keep quiet on accountability issues, but still had a good enough record of Governing to be taken seriously. It was the leadership hot potato that really took them down.

 

[jstripes]

Another one bites the dust:

Lowe's buys Rona

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/lowe-s-rona-takeover-1.3431463

Yup. It's gonna be the same as Best Buy buying Future Shop.

Future Shop died. So will Rona.

Fuck American businesses buying Canadian businesses.

 

[lupinko]

That P has been gone for a long time now

Yep, that P disappeared when MacKay sold out to Harper during the merger.

 

[Boogie]

I've been looking into getting a firearms license to go to a range and just shoot and have fun.

Due to work I won't be able to do it for a few months, but someone said I should act quick since it's gonna get harder to get a license. But I have also heard. It's getting easier.

Any of you have any correct source on this matter?

I haven't heard of any changes to the PAL process.

Edit: Also, Flagged. ;P

 

[maharg]

Pretty interesting article about the decline of the local newsroom from the last EIC of the Edmonton Journal.

 

[matthewwhatever]

The silence from Postmedia is deafening. Infrastructure money for Alberta -- good news -- was just announced, and no PostMedia outlet online has reported extensively on the Notley/Trudeau meeting, nor the subsequent funding announcements.

edit: Here's one small news item: http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/live-expectations-high-as-trudeau-and-notley-meet-in-edmonton

There were a few other stories about it, but in general, Postmedia seems to be declining at a pretty rapid rate now. There's been a spate of stories lately about how their debt load is killing them, and they seem to be stuck in an ever-worsening downward spiral. You have to figure that something will emerge from its ashes eventually, but I could also foresee a time when our print media is basically the Star and the Globe and Mail.

The problem with the CPC opposition right now it that pretty much everything they say is just dripping with irony and hypocrisy. It's impossible to take them seriously. Though, it was probably also the case with the Liberals back in 2006.

There's also the problem of offering almost no constructive ideas and being so black and white about everything.

I don't usually like Rick Mercer, but I thought this rant from yesterday captured the Conservatives' problem pretty well. They have zero credibility on virtually every issue, and until they have a new permanent leader they won't be able to make many (if any) effective arguments. Not that being effective in QP matters all that much, of course -- if it did, they'd be putting their questions to a Prime Minister Mulcair, and Trudeau may not have even won the Liberal Party leadership.


Speaking of QP, did anyone else notice that they had their first experiment with a Senate-based Question Period? Apparently it went really well. Hopefully it sticks, because that's exactly the sort of role I think the Senate should be playing, and it makes Senators a part of the process, rather than shunting them off to the side.

 

[gutter_trash]

NDP reveals their dumbassery

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-liberals-electoral-reform-1.3434297

As outlined by NDP critic Nathan Cullen on Thursday, the committee should comprise 12 MPs, with party membership divided approximately proportional to October's popular vote: five Liberals (including the committee chair, who does not vote), three Conservatives, two New Democrats, one Bloc Québécois MP and one Green MP.

 

[Azih]

Canadians voted for the Bloc. The Bloc gets representation. Not sure what the problem is?

 

[matthewwhatever]

Maybe he's referring to the fact that the NDP proposal would make the Liberals a minority on the committee? (Though the fact he only bolded the Bloc part makes me think he just doesn't want BQ MPs doing the work they were elected to do.)

I actually kind of like that idea, both in this case and in a broader sense. I remember working for an environmental lawyer back in the early '00s who spent a lot of time working with the environment committee, and I got to see first-hand how well committees can work when you give the opposition some power. It was a Liberal-majority committee, but you had a chair who was a staunch environmentalist who didn't care what his Party wanted, plus a couple of backbench Liberal MPs who shared that viewpoint. That meant they were constantly collaborating with the NDP, the PCs and the Reformers to rewrite legislation to make it stronger and more effective. I think it could turn out pretty well if they tried to enshrine that.

 

[Azih]

Maybe he's referring to the fact that the NDP proposal would make the Liberals a minority on the committee? (Though the fact he only bolded the Bloc part makes me think he just doesn't want BQ MPs doing the work they were elected to do.)

I actually kind of like that idea, both in this case and in a broader sense. I remember working for an environmental lawyer back in the early '00s who spent a lot of time working with the environment committee, and I got to see first-hand how well committees can work when you give the opposition some power. It was a Liberal-majority committee, but you had a chair who was a staunch environmentalist who didn't care what his Party wanted, plus a couple of backbench Liberal MPs who shared that viewpoint. That meant they were constantly collaborating with the NDP, the PCs and the Reformers to rewrite legislation to make it stronger and more effective. I think it could turn out pretty well if they tried to enshrine that.

Needing to cooperate pretty effectively breaks the complete hold a PM has over his or her backbenchers. You can't be accused of not being a good loyal party member if the party can't push through whatever it desires. It's a good idea from Cullen.

The issue always is that when you have good decent person as PM then the need to check and balance the PM obviously goes down like it is right now. The point of the checks and balances is that they are there when somebody who is not a good person gets the reigns of power.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Needing to cooperate pretty effectively breaks the complete hold a PM has over his or her backbenchers. You can't be accused of not being a good loyal party member if the party can't push through whatever it desires. It's a good idea from Cullen.

The issue always is that when you have good decent person as PM then the need to check and balance the PM obviously goes down like it is right now. The point of the checks and balances is that they are there when somebody who is not a good person gets the reigns of power.

Agreed completely. I know that you and I don't see eye to eye on the value of majority governments, but I still fully see the value in having constraints on the PM's power, regardless of who the PM is. (It's why I also want the Senate to properly fulfill its role as a place for sober second thought, rather than having it serve as a dumping ground for party hacks.)

Of course, the downside to all of this is that when a "bad" person gets in, they can just rewrite these rules to suit their needs -- even if Martin/Chretien had been the most progressive, inclusive people ever, I have no doubt that Harper would've done his own thing anyway.

 

[Azih]

I know that you and I don't see eye to eye on the value of majority governments

Well a caveat here (significant one from my view). I have no issue with majority governments. Single party majority governments from a party that hasn't received a majority of voter support is where my issue is. Angela Merkel in Germany for example leads a majority government. It's a majority coalition government though. Leaders like Stephen Harper wouldn't be able to hold any sort of a coalition together while leaders like Merkel and Trudeau definitely would. It's a good way to neutralize divisive and extreme leaders who only play to their base and no one else.

I think that's why Pierre Trudeau wanted PR as well. That and the chronic problem of Liberal voters in Alberta getting underrepresented or unrepresented.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

So Trudeau will prompt discussion on TPP but it's pretty likely that he will sign it. So both him and Obama are for it, but it seems like it's an anti-progressive policy. Is there a reason why a liberal politician would want it so badly?

 

[Azih]

So Trudeau will prompt discussion on TPP but it's pretty likely that he will sign it. So both him and Obama are for it, but it seems like it's an anti-progressive policy. Is there a reason why a liberal politician would want it so badly?

Cause we're in a world where international races to the bottom means that private corporations have significant leverage over elected governments.

By far the biggest problem that governments face is ensuring that their citizens have good jobs. How does a government do that?

 

[Lexxism]

So Trudeau will prompt discussion on TPP but it's pretty likely that he will sign it. So both him and Obama are for it, but it seems like it's an anti-progressive policy. Is there a reason why a liberal politician would want it so badly?

Corporate lapdogs.

 

[gabbo]

So Trudeau will prompt discussion on TPP but it's pretty likely that he will sign it. So both him and Obama are for it, but it seems like it's an anti-progressive policy. Is there a reason why a liberal politician would want it so badly?

Trudeau's Liberals may seem new compared to previous iterations of the party, but some Liberal stances won't change any time soon, and liberalized economics is one of them, no matter how much Trudeau skirts around it.

 

[maharg]

Trudeau's Liberals may seem new compared to previous iterations of the party, but some Liberal stances won't change any time soon, and liberalized economics is one of them, no matter how much Trudeau skirts around it.

Also I'd question the idea that "progressive" as a label doesn't include a general affinity for free trade. Progressivism is definitely in big part about economic progress.

I've come to really despise the word progressive as applied to politics. It seems to lack any concrete meaning, even above and beyond the SNAFUs around the words liberal and conservative.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Also I'd question the idea that "progressive" as a label doesn't include a general affinity for free trade. Progressivism is definitely in big part about economic progress.

I've come to really despise the word progressive as applied to politics. It seems to lack any concrete meaning, even above and beyond the SNAFUs around the words liberal and conservative.

Basically any 1-dimensional label is going to suffer from being unclear from an explanatory point of view when dealing with off-dimensional issue.

Like, if left means union supporter and right means business supporter, then free trade is a right position. But then open immigration policies are a right position and less so a left position. But then things like supporting peasant revolutionary movements in foreign countries are a left position and not a right position. And things like rights for gay couples are not clearly left or right but probably more right than left. So then that initial definition of left and right are wanting because empirically these are not the actual groupings we see.

I think "progressive" as an alias for "left" is more useful than liberal simply because it doesn't have the liberal/Liberal/neoliberal confusion. It still has as confusion about what constitutes the left, but again with any 1D label that's unavoidable. I guess you could just say left/right, but then you run into the fact that those words have maybe been made pejorative for a lot of folks.

 

[SRG01]

Basically any 1-dimensional label is going to suffer from being unclear from an explanatory point of view when dealing with off-dimensional issue.

Like, if left means union supporter and right means business supporter, then free trade is a right position. But then open immigration policies are a right position and less so a left position. But then things like supporting peasant revolutionary movements in foreign countries are a left position and not a right position. And things like rights for gay couples are not clearly left or right but probably more right than left. So then that initial definition of left and right are wanting because empirically these are not the actual groupings we see.

I think "progressive" as an alias for "left" is more useful than liberal simply because it doesn't have the liberal/Liberal/neoliberal confusion. It still has as confusion about what constitutes the left, but again with any 1D label that's unavoidable. I guess you could just say left/right, but then you run into the fact that those words have maybe been made pejorative for a lot of folks.

Mmmm, I'd definitely say that most "left" words are frequently used as pejoratives these days

 

[maharg]

Basically any 1-dimensional label is going to suffer from being unclear from an explanatory point of view when dealing with off-dimensional issue.

Like, if left means union supporter and right means business supporter, then free trade is a right position. But then open immigration policies are a right position and less so a left position. But then things like supporting peasant revolutionary movements in foreign countries are a left position and not a right position. And things like rights for gay couples are not clearly left or right but probably more right than left. So then that initial definition of left and right are wanting because empirically these are not the actual groupings we see.

I think "progressive" as an alias for "left" is more useful than liberal simply because it doesn't have the liberal/Liberal/neoliberal confusion. It still has as confusion about what constitutes the left, but again with any 1D label that's unavoidable. I guess you could just say left/right, but then you run into the fact that those words have maybe been made pejorative for a lot of folks.

I don't think it really helps that confusion at all. It's just now another word in that mix. Pro- and anti-free trade are both positions of people who self-describe as all of those words (except neoliberal, which no one self-describes as more or less).

To me I would not consider anti-free trade a "progressive" position at all, because the only way it seems to narrow down in Canadian politics is the space between the CPC and the NDP, which is a vast and confusing space also described as centrist. But I know NDP supporters who consider themselves progressive, and Alberta conservatives who consider themselves progressives as well.

All of this is made extra confusing because people think "Progressive" got into the PC name because of some kind of policy basis, when it was actually just a name/power grab.

 

[Sibylus]

So Trudeau will prompt discussion on TPP but it's pretty likely that he will sign it. So both him and Obama are for it, but it seems like it's an anti-progressive policy. Is there a reason why a liberal politician would want it so badly?

From what I understand it's a lesser of two evils situation. It's aimed to improve the trade position of the US and its partners vis-a-vis China's considerably, and our exclusion could have had quite the economic impact if we didn't ratify it yesterday. So now we abide more corporate privileges gone amuck I guess.

 

[killer rin]

From what I understand it's a lesser of two evils situation. It's aimed to improve the trade position of the US and its partners vis-a-vis China's considerably, and our exclusion could have had quite the economic impact if we didn't ratify it yesterday. So now we abide more corporate privileges gone amuck I guess.

Just a note though, we didn't ratify it. We only signed it which is a step to maybe, possibly ratifying it in the future

 

[Sibylus]

Just a note though, we didn't ratify it. We only signed it which is a step to maybe, possibly ratifying it in the future

Woops, thanks for the correction.

 

[Sakura]

Just curious, but if you join a party, how does voting for a leader (or other things)work?
Do they just mail you something and you mail it back? Do you have to be in the country in order to vote?

 

[diaspora]

Just curious, but if you join a party, how does voting for a leader (or other things)work?
Do they just mail you something and you mail it back? Do you have to be in the country in order to vote?

Depends on the party. IIRC as long as you're a Liberal member you can vote online though.

 

[Sakura]

Depends on the party. IIRC as long as you're a Liberal member you can vote online though.

Voting online would be cool. I don't really understand why there isn't more significant information on the website, but I emailed them to ask.

 

[firehawk12]

I thought only the Conservatives have a 1 member = 1 vote policy? Don't the NDP and Lbierals do the whole delegate system for Leadership/Policy conventions?

 

[maharg]

I thought only the Conservatives have a 1 member = 1 vote policy? Don't the NDP and Lbierals do the whole delegate system for Leadership/Policy conventions?

Pretty sure the last ndp leadership convention was a straight vote, with online voting and everything. But it was the first time there weren't union superdelegates of sort.

If it hadn't been for that, Topp would have done much better I expect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party_leadership_election,_2012

 

[Sakura]

I thought only the Conservatives have a 1 member = 1 vote policy? Don't the NDP and Lbierals do the whole delegate system for Leadership/Policy conventions?

According to the Conservative constitution on their website

The election of the Leader shall be by way of a direct vote of members in every electoral
district, as follows.
10.10.1 Each member of the Party will have one vote.
10.10.2 Each electoral district will be allocated 100 points.
10.10.5 Voting will be by preferential vote (single transferable ballot).

Looking at the Liberal constitution, and it looks like it is the same.
Not sure about policy stuff.

As for the NDP I couldn't find the constitution on their website.

 

[firehawk12]

Pretty sure the last ndp leadership convention was a straight vote, with online voting and everything. But it was the first time there weren't union superdelegates of sort.

If it hadn't been for that, Topp would have done much better I expect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_...election,_2012

I wonder if they changed that recently. I just remember considering buying an NDP membership in the early Layton years to vote for him, but realizing that it didn't matter.

According to the Conservative constitution on their website
Looking at the Liberal constitution, and it looks like it is the same.
Not sure about policy stuff.

As for the NDP I couldn't find the constitution on their website.

The Liberals must have changed that too then, because I still remember the Dion/Ignatieff clusterfuck. lol

 

[Vamphuntr]

I'm kinda appreciating Trudeau's stance on the whole Energy East pipeline debacle. Being an arbiter and judging the project is a much better stance to me than being a cheerleader for it. Harper would have agreed to anything to make it happen and would have forced people's hand to do it no matter what the price. This company is showing very little effort in reassuring people. They can't even show a credible contingency plans in case of an emergency spill or situation and are doing very little to meet the people who are going to have their pipeline in their backyard.

The outcry from Saskatchewan and Alberta's politicians when loudmouthed Montréal's mayor Denis Coderre openly lambasted the project was hilarious. It quickly turned to Quebec shaming and bashing. Rona Ambrose piling up on it was simply adding to the carnival of stupid.

You can clearly see there appear to be a power shift and the ones that were on the throne and aren't on it anymore sure aren't happy about it.

 

[Sakura]

The Liberals must have changed that too then, because I still remember the Dion/Ignatieff clusterfuck. lol

You're right. According to the wikipedia article on the 2009 leader election

As well as ratifying Ignatieff's leadership with the support of 97% of delegates, the convention approved an amendment to the party's constitution to institute a One Member One Vote system for the election of future leaders.

 

[Azih]

NDP has a one member one vote system from personal experience.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Voting online would be cool. I don't really understand why there isn't more significant information on the website, but I emailed them to ask.

The NDP tried online voting at their last leadership convention, but it ended up being a bit of a disaster -- they got hit with a DoS attack, and "]apparently turnout ended up being pretty low (which may have been because of the slowness caused by the attack).

I don't remember if the Liberals tried online voting for their last leadership race. I don't think they did, but I also don't remember going anywhere and voting for it (not that that means anything). The interesting thing about their last convention was that it wasn't just one member, one vote, they also opened the process up to registered "supporters", who didn't need to join the party but could vote anyway.


Totally unrelated question: other than Stump, has anyone here done graduate studies in Canadian politics? I'm thinking about going back and getting a Master's, but I'm wondering what it's really like.

 

[Alavard]

Voting online would be cool. I don't really understand why there isn't more significant information on the website, but I emailed them to ask.

As someone who works in the industry of computer security, I have major reservations about going to online voting.

1) DDOS attacks. As has already been pointed out, we've already seen them happen to the NDP during their leadership convention.

2) Confirmation of identity. No way to verify who is really doing the voting.

3) integrity of the data - how can it be proved that the votes that have been tabulated are the same thing as what people entered? Even putting aside malicious tampering, mistakes can be made. As an example, our support system at work had a random bug the other day which caused all support tickets to get switched to the same region, regardless of what was entered. Oops!

4) Who gets to build the system for the voting? Who gets access to the code? Who gets to verify that it actually does what we're told it does?


I'm not saying it's impossible to do well, but these are some of the barriers that need to be overcome before I'd have any confidence in online voting.

 

[Fuzzy]

Markham Ontario has been doing online voting for municipal elections since something like 2003.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Totally unrelated question: other than Stump, has anyone here done graduate studies in Canadian politics? I'm thinking about going back and getting a Master's, but I'm wondering what it's really like.

I had been meaning to write something up about this since a non-trivial number of people have asked me about it. I'm assuming the "other than Stump" is because you already knew I did, not because you want to exclude me from the question?

 

[Earthstrike]

As someone who works in the industry of computer security, I have major reservations about going to online voting.

1) DDOS attacks. As has already been pointed out, we've already seen them happen to the NDP during their leadership convention.

2) Confirmation of identity. No way to verify who is really doing the voting.

3) integrity of the data - how can it be proved that the votes that have been tabulated are the same thing as what people entered? Even putting aside malicious tampering, mistakes can be made. As an example, our support system at work had a random bug the other day which caused all support tickets to get switched to the same region, regardless of what was entered. Oops!

4) Who gets to build the system for the voting? Who gets access to the code? Who gets to verify that it actually does what we're told it does?


I'm not saying it's impossible to do well, but these are some of the barriers that need to be overcome before I'd have any confidence in online voting.

Not to mention the whole strategic aspect of it. Who has a vested interest in the outcomes of elections? Businesses, other goverments, citizens. A woman's clothing store has no real reason to be hacked aside from typical credit card stealing. Elections are events that would be way more prone to cyber attacks given the number of people that have an interest in the outcame, notwithstanding the the capacity of organizations that do have an interest in the outcome.

 

[maharg]

As someone who works in the industry of computer security, I have major reservations about going to online voting.

1) DDOS attacks. As has already been pointed out, we've already seen them happen to the NDP during their leadership convention.

2) Confirmation of identity. No way to verify who is really doing the voting.

3) integrity of the data - how can it be proved that the votes that have been tabulated are the same thing as what people entered? Even putting aside malicious tampering, mistakes can be made. As an example, our support system at work had a random bug the other day which caused all support tickets to get switched to the same region, regardless of what was entered. Oops!

4) Who gets to build the system for the voting? Who gets access to the code? Who gets to verify that it actually does what we're told it does?


I'm not saying it's impossible to do well, but these are some of the barriers that need to be overcome before I'd have any confidence in online voting.

1) is really the only problem unique to online voting. 2) has always been a problem, and as we move towards digital voting systems (which we do use right now via scantron machines) 3 and 4 are entirely possible problems now.

Honestly a good online voting system can likely have better identity verification, since it would be able to verify that someone only voted once, which isn't really possible right now (since someone could go to another riding and get someone to attest for them there as well and it's pretty unlikely it'd be caught). Likewise, getting a big "YOU ALREADY VOTED" error when you tried to vote would give you a much better idea that someone was using your identity fraudulently than the status quo and that can be resolved.

 

[gutter_trash]

I personally would extend early voting to a full week leading up to Election Day

 

[jstripes]

2) Confirmation of identity. No way to verify who is really doing the voting.

This is one of the biggies.

There's nothing stopping the patriarch of the family, for example, from standing by the computer and making sure the whole family votes as he chooses.

 

[Silexx]

The government has released the details of its new strategy against ISIS.

Within two weeks, Canada's CF-18 fighter jets will be back on home soil, after spending more than a year hitting IS fighting positions, equipment, and buildings throughout Iraq and Syria. The withdrawal will occur "no later than February 22," according to briefing documents.

Under the new plan, Canada will increase the number of Canadian Armed Forces engaged in the mission to 830, up from 650. The majority of those personnel are tasked with maintaining and operating the military aircraft, stationed in Kuwait.

Trudeau announced Monday that his government would triple the number of CSOR operators in the region. Currently, there are about 70 special forces training Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq. Most of those trainers are likely from the elite Joint Task Force 2 unit, which is Canada's equivalent of the Green Berets.

https://news.vice.com/article/canada-sends-in-hundreds-of-special-forces-to-iraq-as-its-fighter-jets-come-home

 

[gutter_trash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-canada-isis-fight-announcement-1.3438279

ISIS airstrikes by Canada to end by Feb. 22, training forces to triple

imo, i have very harsh opinions about the Two Faced nature of some of our''allies'' in quotation marks who are guilty of double-dealing such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia

So, I'm pleased that Canada is no longer involved in a combat role in the region.

IMO, the West should impose sanctions on all countries guilty of funneling aid, money, arms, equipment to ISIS.
Get their bank accounts frozen, cease their assets.

 

[Spl1nter]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-canada-isis-fight-announcement-1.3438279



imo, i have very harsh opinions about the Two Faced nature of some of our''allies'' in quotation marks who are guilty of double-dealing such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia

So, I'm pleased that Canada is no longer involved in a combat role in the region.

IMO, the West should impose sanctions on all countries guilty of funneling aid, money, arms, equipment to ISIS.
Get their bank accounts frozen, cease their assets.

It's a bigger commitment now than before. It sounds like we just sent the rest of JTF2 and their support staff over there.