Geez Brian, I laid out the historical context for the region, which is, in summary, Western and primarily US, English and French interference for the sake of oil and Israel, and the long standing enmity between sects of islam.

Then I said military intervention is needed to deal with it because dialogue won't do. This is obvious when you see what they are doing to the people they "rule"

Then I said we are "in that time" when opinions and forces are mobilizing. (remind me again of that period when the US was sitting out WWI and WWII while the rest of the world ---including Canada--was at war--nations do not go to full scale war over night.)

All was in response to "how did we get here" and "what should we do"?

To dismiss this as left wing blah blah blah, then to go on and blame Obama and those "who pull the world's economic strings" shows you really don't understand the power of historical forces and seminal events that act as catalysts of upheaval.

ISIS is there and strong, not because of Obama and unseen powers but because of a long range of historical events that allowed unrest to ferment and the Syrian civil war to happen.

Now, could there have been a better response, a quicker reaction? Yup, Monday morning quarterbacking certainly allows us to say that, but here one of your points does raise its ugly head.

The Elephants and Donkeys are far more interested in destroying each other than providing good government...which is why I said elect those who will be able to deal with the situation and create a lasting solution.

AND, as Aaron pointed out, Canada has been there for several months now, flying missions, providing boots on the ground, and training military personnel. The US and other countries, like Jordan, Iran, and tribes such as the Kurds, etc are also there fighting.


If writing ever becomes work I think I'm going to have to stop