Well I recently attended a foreign policy debate here in Halifax and was bombarded by the anti-war crowds pamphlets and objections to the liberal and conservative candidates... Now I have no problem with war protesters in general... I am against the War in Iraq, but quite frankly I'm rather annoyed at the naivette of the protesters, as well as their inability to engage in civilized debate.

But here are a number of their issues... I can't find links for many but I'll try scanning in the pamphlets...


1.) That a Quebec Company sells bullets to the states and thus is "profiteering from the war in iraq"

http://www.yayacanada.com/behrens3.html

http://noii-van.resist.ca/snc

2.) Canada shouldn't be in Haiti, and that Canadian soldiers were a part of the coup. As well it should be the UNs job to administer Haiti... and that we should be ashamed that a Canadian is in charge of UN program to train the police in Haiti.

3.) That canada shouldn't be in afghanistan (and that they are undermining democracy there... )

4.) That Canada is spending too much on its military

5.) And that canada should seek a "peaceful resolution to darfur"

Anyone from http://www.scaw.ca/ or similiar care to even begin to explain these positions? Because quite frankly... all it does is make me more conservative...

   

We've always made bombs and bullets for other countries. During the Vietnam War Canada was the main military supplier outside the US.

   

I don't doubt it for a moment... Of course, I can't imagine that all that high of a percentage of defense contracts come from outside the US

My question is how the people who are putting forward these arguments mean to justify, what is quite frankly, rather absurd positions, without the use of half or partial truths... That or at least they can explain why they feel the need to take it upon themselves to ruin debates through either their rudeness... or their constant grandstanding...

-----------------------------------------------------------

As a side note in the same open floor part of the debate someone accused alexa mcdonough of being a spy for the US Secret Service. I suppose that qualifies as deep cover

   

They do... but the contract, to my knowledge is small caliber ammunition (mainly nato 5.56) due to the increase in training that US troops are undergoing.



I'll admit that I do typically ignore many protester types... but Alexa McDonough was reaching out to some of these people with her responses... =\

   

A Canadian firm makes money? How awful.



Yep, if Canadians teach Haitians how to have a stable government then the Haitians won't need the UN anymore.



The Taliban was a democracy? WTF???



But Communist China spends just the right amount. Uh-huh.



Canada did. But peaceful intents that are not backed up by anything are usually ignored.

It's all typical leftist/anarchist drivel that is completely detached from reality.

It would be nice if you could just sit down and chat with tyrants instead of bombing them into submission...but then they wouldn't be tyrants, now would they?

   

It happens to everyone... I become more liberal, or rather more vocally liberal, when I'm around conservatives