Wait I minute now...
You may not have called for "U.S. military intervention using combat forces" in Iraq/Syria to defeat ISIS/ISIL, but you've been very quick to condemn Pres. Obama for not being more aggressive in the military actions he has authorized against them (i.e., air strikes) to date. As such, if you and Rand Paul interpret "U.S. military intervention" as anything other than "combat forces/boots on the ground", then you're both talking out the side of your neck considering that the "military force" currently authorized has been a combination of air strikes and Special Operations and both have been very effective even in their limited capacities.
As to why American posters here seem to be coming down on you over this topic, I'd say it's very obvious: You talk a good talk, but your country doesn't seem to walk the walk. As you've rightly stated, "Canada has traditionally been in a support or peacekeeping role because we've never started or precipitated wars but we've always been there to help our friends and allies." It's as I said previously, "You rest on your laurels while enjoying the very protections America provides".
So, if you're not going to get into the fight and risk taking a bullet in defense against tyranny, again I say, "Get your finger off my nuke button!" You're certainly free to express your opinion concerning the situation is northern Iraq/southern Syria or how ISIS and other Jihadist forces need to be destroyed, but I don't think it's right or fair for you to condemn the actions of another country's leader when your own country has done nothing to push back against ISIS militarily. In short, you don't have a dog in the fight; you really don't get to talk smack about how the fighting is done.