Previous  1  2  3

I don't know what country you live in, but in Canada immigrants typically work harder than people who were born here. If there are any immigrants on welfare, it is probably because we have a system designed by asshats that doesn't recognise useful talent simply because it didn't originate in Canada. There are doctors, engineers and IT specialists who cannot get work in their field in this country because they would have to redo their education all over again in order to do so.

   

Your consideration would be wrong too. Canada is a multicultural state and as such, by definition is not a race nor does it contain an homogeneous race of inhabitants that you could easily label.



I'm going to resist the temptation to insert the name of a few our our more enthusiastic atheists and settle with the observation that these individuals are "prejudiced".



Same thing. I suppose you could use bigot as well.



Guess you don't know me. But I am certainly gaining insight into your character with that presumption.



The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I support the state of Israel which probably to your surprise, contains about 25% Arabs.



I suspect you'll be exercising that freedom quite a bit with myself and all others whose opposing views to yours are easily misconstrued by yourself as intolerant.



Gosh...I'd feel a lot worse about my lack of education and intelligence if you weren't able to find the 'humour' in it. Fortunately though, you've shown a tremendous amount of tolerance in your encouragement of my continued posting efforts and I feel much more inspired to press on.

   

I voted no.

   

Try condeming the US for a change. Irans buisness in its own backyard is just that. If they are funding groups in Iraq then thats their right to help out allies who invaded its neighbour.

Would you care if somebody condemned us for helping out the US?

The US invaded and occupied a foreign country. Whatever efforts they do tofree themselves of that travesty are no different the what we would do. They are at fault and all blame belongs to them.

It is not our responsibility to sort out the middle-east and for somebody who takes a dim view on anybody involving themselves in Albertas affairs I expect you to understand this.



Civilians who would not be imperiled if the US wasn't there. Whatever reason Iraqis have or Iranians have is their buisness.

Quite frankly this US/NATO propaganda that see them group togeather 15 countries and invade a foreign nation then complain when that nation gets help is just a joke. Surely you can see the inherent BS behind that.

Again, not our country or region and none of our buisness. Its theirs and unless we want to start listening to the Saudis dictate to us what rules and laws we can enforce in our own country we had better start being a better neighbour.



Compared to the US control established? They certainly couldn't have done it without US help could they?

BTW, a great deal of Iranians have familiar connections to Iraq and/or religious ties. Infinitely more then the US and its their right to help out their neighbour even if we find their reasons dubious or false.

We don't get to make that decision.



Complete bollocks. The absolute travesty of lies and deceit bush used to force a war he planned long before 9/11 cannot be allowed to continue while you blame everybody else for "daring to defend themselves against the US".

The US and its allies must leave. No conditions, no promises.

They leave and they leave that region to itself. You cannot support the US creating the very situation they are using to justify staying.

We fought gulf 1 because saddam invaded kuwait. We cannot justify invading iraq.



A 180 from your stance on the US in Iraq.



No it wasn't. They were a backward band of barely neolithic religious fanatics. They were no threat to Canada or anyone else. Compare them to the Saudis who actually pulled off 9/11 or Russia/USA having territorial aspirations on our northern regions. Threats aren't always military ya know.

Those goat herders where a threat only to deorderant.



Actually they declined for quite awhile until finally sending in troops. They certainly weren't lokking to expand into a desert region with the european theatre at risk.

For your attrition assesment then you should consider then possibility that other countries are just loving that we are wasting so many lives and hundreads of billions of dollars on people who will burn our flag the moment we express freedom of speech and somehow insult their religion.



And? Why is it that we can influence other countries yet cry foul when others do it? You may also find that the taliban and its pakistan influence was supported by the US. Again, so what? Pakistan is "our ally" right?



Judging by Bollywood? India's success is in what? They have plenty of problems. Awhile back Bart even posted that India was a potential invasion threat to Australia but I don't think there is any truth to that.

Regardless, alot of Afghanis have relations and connections to pakistan and their religious ties are strong.



It wasn't care, it was disinterest.

Where was our interest and compassion in Rwanda?



Correction. When a couple of british female bleeding heart liberals made behind the veil the public still didn't care. Various things they did got press but then we went back to whatever celebrity scandal was hot.

We didn't try to help. We certainly didn't send oodles of money and again we didn't care much later in rwanda.



Actually it does. They set a legal precedent by recognizing them as such. Hell, they didn't even "have him". We can't even control the country with vastly more resources and training.



You are dangerously reaching tin foil status. Their is no threat of the CIA bugging your fillings and there is even less of a threat from them.



Of course hypocracy permeates humanity. This is a specific example of using the UN dishonestly though.



Go in hard? WTF does that mean?

They make many bad choices yes. So did you when you were younger. We all did. Thats how you learn. Our society took multiple decades to sort through equality, democracy, sexual revolution, etc. We try and force it on them in 15 minutes.

We can't. They must do it for themselves and we will simply have to accept that they may be as violent as we were.



He was an advisor on Rambo 3.



Nope. These warlords were nearly eradicated by the religious extremists taliban. Its very convienient that we say they go against their hard fast religious principles on drugs but say they adhere to them to much on others.

I already posted the lies of this. Our side controls the heroin. If they did then production would have gone down post-invasion and not skyrocketing up.



It didn't work in Vietnam either. We can't get them to fight their own people and they have little will to do so on their own. They certainly show piss and vinegar when they need to burn dutch flags though becasue its more important that "their allies" respect their extremist religious views then anything else.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Then we have the whole "we have absolutely no right to do this".



Yes they were wrong. We don't belong there at all. Quite frankly the desire to 'support our allies" coupled with 'revenge for 9/11 against any muslim" fueled the fire.

then there was also the reality that the military wanted a chance to ply its trade.

How you call this a just war is beyond me considering you think its not our place to use the military like that.



Well then our plan for Afghanistan will be a few years of peace ofter we leave followed by a near genocidal war between various factions. As long as a couple of tribes live relatively peaceful it will be a success.



Nope. I'm saying they are all like that and they will have to achieve peace on their own because if they don't really want it then they won't ever get it.



They were not a threat. Its pretty sad when we are so hard up that we have to compare a bunch of religious goat herders to a true threat like a 5 million strong fully equiped German army.

The taliban was never ever a threat to Canada or anyone but themselves.



Simplistic. i don't oppose war at all costs. I supported gulf 1 and initially supported Afghanistan until I had more facts. Iraq was wrong righ tfrom the git go.

bush invaded becasue he wanted to avenge his daddy. Why the other countries did it is unique unto them.

Afghanistan was a NATO operation and treaty obligations came into affect. With Iraq....?

I think it is very like the group of bullies that picks on the loner kid. The lead bully is the catalyst and he gets even the kids who secretly hate themselves for doing it to go along.

On a related note Bart posted a book illustrating how nazi horrors were perpetrated by normal moral people.

This is the same idea on a larger scale.



Saddam was no threat to us. He never ever was. I find it rather sick that we are so willing to spread violence and destruction to so many other countries to protect us from alleged threats.

Who is being the bigger threat? What will you say when we are attacked becasue we have become a threat to somebody else?

That CN tower attack may be righteous retribution for our attacks on people who never said boo about Canada.



That doesn't work when we become the despots who use military force to assert our will and then justify our actions.

They justify their actions too.



Actually if you read more closely you will see I was saying that if the military isn't free to oppose the gov't over a war they fell is unjust then it doubly falls on us civilians to oppose the gov't over unjust wars for the military.

Throughout all this you have based your entire premise on the alleged threat to Canada.

Please provide evidence that Canada was threatened by the taliban.

Hell, provide evidence the US was.

Now reconcille the righteousness of any attack by anybody against us because of the threat, or perceived threat, we represent to them.

Thats enough for me tonight.

Watch Extras from the BBC. Its very clever and quite good.

   

DerbyX, WTF

Are you trying to get a book published or something?

The length of your post(s) are somewhat a little long. At least a little too long for an idiot like me.

Dude, after a post like that, it would be good for you to have a beer.

Seriously, why is it so wrong for a true Canadian to speak up about immigration? The fact that there are some people coming in Canada with totally opposite values. I don't want to get into that debate, but it's alright to have an open discussion about it. So carry on!!!

   

I'm going for the typewriter medal mark 2.

What are you talking about with regards to immigration? Thats not involved in this thread.

If you mean the ban on muslims then you might find Grainfed and I agree at least in principle. My reason is because of the risk of subversives getting in and to send a message.

It certainly isn't wrong to speak up though.

I'm already drinking dude.

You know me better then that.

   

Actually, you know I was kidding.

But as for the immigration issue, I was responding to the poll that was on this thread.

I only assumed that I could lighten up the mood of this thread a little, that's all.

   

Sorry dude. I was posting in the aids-immigration thread and thought you meant that.

Actually this thread is going about as amicably between us as we could expect.

Cheers.

   

Strange, that's exactly what Saddam Hussein was doing. There were probably far fewer people being killed every day while he was in power than there are now, and Iraqis had some form of health care, along with functioning electricity and water!

   

I don't think you're fully aware of the involvement Iran has in the problems. Regardless, does this ideology extend to Iranian sponsored terrorism in other states such as against Israel?



I am going to ask again:

How is Iran "helping" Iraq by funding and organising state sponsored terrorist attacks against Iraqis civilians?



Let's then break this down locally. This conflict is like the federal government attacking Alberta then the BC government investing money, men and other resources to fund groups of Alberta based BC sympathizers and Independence minded Albertans alike to try and wage a civil war and break the province into two or three entities with the hopes that one of those entities will be a defacto jurisdiction of BC and will send a strong message to Ottawa not to screw with Victoria.



I guess then the US has as much of a right to be involved in the affairs of Iraq as does Iran. There is no accepted rule of proximity that I'm aware of.



Well, the number is actually about 3x plus your guesstimate. Nevertheless, we should be invading any country who supports the enemy and tries to create barriers to the objective of the mission.



I hardly thing waging a war against the US in an attempt to inspire folks like yourself at the expense of Iraqis civilian deaths is appropriate conduct. You may find the Iranians justified in their actions but I really don't believe you understand that part of the situation. I think if you investigated it a little further it wouldn't change your mind about US involvement but I don't think you'd be quite the supporter of the Iranian involvement that you currently are.



Like it or lump it its called "integrity" and the US has a duty to accomplish the mission.



You might as well demand that when the retreat comes all US soldiers have to paint their combat boots pink and wear tutus. In other words, yours is an extreme demand that will likely never be meet.



I disagree because I feel that I understand the Iranian involvement better then you. It is also interesting to note that the vast majority of the Arab states support US involvement in Iraq ostensibly to counter the expansionist position of the Iranians. Considering the Iranians actions in Israel, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, I can see where the concern may arise from.

So does your personal neighbourly support/disapprove theory only extend to Iran or does it include other gulf states?



How so? They thought Iraq was a threat. They eliminated threat. Now they are assisting in reconstruction in order that Iraq does not reemerge as a threat in the future. All objectives clearly stated before the commencement of action.



There are many connections to Afghanistan and 9/11. Further, we do not know the extent that Chretien was given information on Canada being a potential longterm target of extremists. And have to trust that the choice Chretien made was for the security of Canada and its allies as he publicly stated.

Now you know I am no fan of the Liberals or Chretien but I have a hard time believing that Chretien and his caucus were so corrupted or personally despicable that he/they would trade Canadian lives to ensure trade sanctions were not levied against Canada by the US making the Liberals look bad.







That may be true but the Soviets knew they'd get a little payback for Vietnam and that the world was concerned about their expansionism.



I have already stated my original objections to the Gulf War centered on western military involvement playing into the hands of one of the stated Al Qaida goals which is to create a united Muslim state from which to eradicate Israel and convert the West. Drawing the US into conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly what the enemy wants and risks uniting the Muslim Arab world.


Not since Dr. Frankenstein lost control. Anyway, I guess the real question is why is it acceptable to you that one country can try to influence it's neighbours behaviour but other countries cannot interfere?



Whoa now....don't be picking on my Bollywood.



India has been an almost miracle on two main fronts: Economics and democracy. That both could be as successful as they are and achieved almost independently in a mere half century is a true testament to Indian tenacity of spirit. That there are problems with both categories I would never deny, but when you look at what they had to work with and how far they have come in such a short time you've gotta give them credit, especially compared with others who didn't have half their hurdles.



That's very true. By the same extension the citizens of the US have many connections to Canadians. Should the US be allowed to carry on like Pakistan or Iran? I mean, they are even a neighbour.



You are wrong and I believe you know it. There is no way almost every country in the world refused recognition of the Taliban simply because they couldn't be bothered.



I believe that Canada failed the people of Rwanda and our retreat was an embarrassment. Once we had committed forces to the region we should have followed through with the integrity and honour that Canadians before that time were noted of.
I have one buddy that was there who is still all fucked up by the memories of is government mandated impotence.



Which means the MSM didn't care, or felt that the readership would have no interest and failed in properly informing the public.



We shouldn't have tried to support a regime financially whose values were so anathematic to our own. I support the then Liberal government in choosing not to financially support such a brutal and repressive group of thugs.

As for Rwanda, I've made my views known previously and in this post.



They recognised the Taliban as having the power over the hapless citizens in the territory they controlled.



We aren't trying to control them. If we were, we certainly wouldn't be giving them the powers we have.



Tin foil status? That primary is the stated position of the Canadian government and was originally written by the Liberals. If you reject such a simple and well documented concept then I am afraid you are the foiler.



Not in Afghanistan as the UN is not involved.



It means we should control all aspects of the government and instill Canadian values and principles. Those who reject them act out violently should be suppressed using all available military resources. there should be fully endorsement for hunting down the enemy, pro actively disrupting his logisitcs etc.



So then why can't you understand that its going to take more then a few months or years to accomplish the task? You recognise these things don't happen overnight with one hand yet dismiss the progress on the other because massive changes for you takes too long.



We had the benefit of a Christian culture and tradition and for all its short comings, it has a long history of advancing individual rights which played a major role in creating the liberalism of Europe. When compared to Arab/Islam culture, we are seen to be almost obscene in our personal liberties.



No shit?

Of course, I didn't think it was all that accurate of a portrayal but what the hell.



Surely you don't agree with their position on women and homosexuals just to name a couple.



If you really think the military or the Canadian government is actively assisting in the production of poppy crops then you've completely lost your mind.

Why not post the "lies" so I can have a chance to scrutinise them and clear up your misconceptions.



I don't think I've ever heard you say that. I admire you for standing by your convictions and not your party.



Herein lies our fundamental disagreement. I believe we are in Afghanistan to ensure the long term security of the Canadian state. I don't dispute that 9/11 and the bizarre conduct of the people at the Taliban helped wind hearts and minds at home, but never the less the Liberals were right.

(Ya gotta admit - it's just a little weird after all these years of our debates for you to be calling the Liberals "wrong" and me to be defending them as right).



That is complete BS. The Canadian military never actively seeks a campaign. Your perception of the most professional military in the world is ridiculous.



Several years ago I told you that if every single person on earth has to die to preserve the Canadian state then so be it. I place no limits on my country, its interests or its people. If Africans must go without food or Asians without fuel in order that Canadians can have more then they need then so be it.

I extend this to potential threats and Afghanistan was surely one of them and you would be in a definite minority to disagree. Now potential in no way implies guaranteed but there were enough indicators to suggest that an ounce of prevention would certainly be worth the pound of cure.

Coupled with the outright brutality of the Taliban, though I don't think we should be there for just that reason, our presence by extension has drastically improved the lives of the citizens.

In a poll in Iraq, there was obvious frustrations voiced over the presence of coalition forces but conversely, in Afghanistan the people by and large support the efforts of Canada's secondary roles and encourage our continued presence. Why do you pay lip service to this?



We actually haven't fully withdrawn from the region and still maintain a small contingent to ensure elections, judiciary and police are operating within prescribed agreements.



Peace has always come at the barrel of a gun. The reason you don't see Quebec separatist militias sprouting up and shooting or terrorising Englishmen is that they would be forced to encounter stronger government forces who would respond with lethal force.

Let's give Afghanistan the opportunity to get its house in order.



And like the Third Reich, Al Qaida has aspirations to rule the world. The difference being that appeasement in the early 30s lead to all out war with an even more powerful foe by the end of the decade. How many lives would have been spared had the allies occupied Germany at the end of the First World War? Would you have been forced to fight a WWIII against Germany had Canada, US, UK, Soviets etc not occupied Germany until it was no longer a threat?



The Taliban were connected to terrorist acts and most notably 9/11 so it is fair to say that their was a potential for them to be a threat to Canada. To dismiss it is just ignorance.



I never supported Gulf 1 or 2 and did not support Afghanistan until Canada was at war.



Hard to believe that anyone could seriously consider that to be a possibility. I suppose he personally orchestrated 9/11 to give the American people just cause?



I'm well attuned to the atrocities of neighbours killing neighbours and friend killigng friends. I have very little faith in mankind. This is part of the reason I err on the side of caution in supporting the suppression of potential threats to our national welfare.



I am not arguing Saddam was a threat to us but I am glad that he is dead.

So how far would you go to protect the Canadian state? If you were PM what is the magic percentage point of threat probability before you would act to mitigate it?



In case you missed it, we are. The Muslim states see us as a tremendous threat to the existence of Islam through the poor influence of our decadent lifestyle and they also see us as a barrier to the world wide Islamification that is God's will as professed by the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and the duty of all Muslims to carryout His will.



So do you support Muslim terrorists toppling the tower or not? I am not sure of what you're saying here?



I'm telling ya buddy, if you think our actions are that bad, you wouldn't believe what the enemy does/done.



I wish they would just fight amongst themselves but I disagree. It is the duty of all adherents of Islam to conquer the globe as it is God's will. How many centuries this will take I don't know, but I know we have a duty to protect Canada not only for those who are here, but also for those who have yet to be born.



It is not wrong to criticize the government for failing to take military action. It is also not wrong to criticize the government for taking military action after it has been completed. It would be wrong to criticize the government while military action is in progress.

I fully support the concept that troops should not be deployed without the expressed consent of the leader of the opposition.



If I thought it were unjust perhaps I would.

Again these are odd times on the old CKA. You the ubercanuck believes his military is so corrupt it deliberately colluded it's way to war and now runs drugs under the consenting eye of the government while it terrorizes the inhabitants. Meanwhile, I, the supposed anti-Canadian, trusts absolutely in the rationale behind the governments decision, knows your allegations against the military are false and believe that the security of the Canadian state should always override the interests of foreign governments and populations.



A soldiers lot is to do his duty without question. It is not his place to try and evaluate whether his efforts are moral, just or wrong. If he feels he should have a say he is in the wrong line of work.



I have made all these points clear:

1. Chretien was privy to information that you and I will never know. He spent weeks evaluating the information and was advised by his experts and caucus and felt the threat was warranted enough for Canada's participation. If you believe the Liberal party is corrupt, so shallow as to needlessly send Canadian soldiers to their death only to prevent some tariff on car parts, how can you in good conscience still support these guys?

I base my premise that Chretien acted as professionally as possible with his stated security of the Canadian state and its allies being his impetus.

2. Since the attack was ostensibly to thwart attacks on us just for breathing, I challenge that I already ahve reconciled it.

   

Try responding to it

   

.


I see that.

   

Iran has a vested interest in Iraq. The US does not. The US has interferred overtly and covertly and outright invasion more the any other country in the world.

They are wrong in Iraq and wrong in the middle-east.



They are helping their allies repel the invaders. The US isn't helping in the least. They invade and create a situation that they can then point to as a reason to stay.

Yes there is a proximity rule. Its just common sense and the very reason you and others cite "Albertas buisness is nobody elses"

They must leave. End of story.



By your analogy then its no different if Ontario invaded Alberta and then when violence broke out, piously claimed that the violence is the reason they can't leave.

Then they make some BS statement that if the Albertans would just put down their weapons and allow us Ontarians to fix everything it would all be better.

The US must leave. End of story.



1) Thats crap and you know it. When we get invaded then I expect you to accept it as justified becasue we were helping the enemy of some other country.

2) You simply don't understand the situation. The US is the invader. They aren't waging war, they are defending themselves.

3) Nobody who supports the invasion of Iraq has integrity.

Its black letter law.



1) By that analogy then they might as well be wearing swastikas.

2) I think you don't. You have failed to understand that Iran has a right to help its allies as much as you feel we have a right to help the US. You have failed to realize that many war supporters say "better to fight them there rather then here" which justifies Iran just as well. The gulf states are perfectly entitled to help one another or do you think that right only belongs to us?

3) Iraq was never ever a threat to the US. Ever. Bush lied to jusitfy an invasion and you are lapping up the lies.



There were far more to Saudi Arabia and absolutely none to Iraq.

You are neglecting the option that Chretien was lied to.



In other words we are now reaping what we sowed.



Yet you support the war. Without US interferrence there was little chance of them uniting. Good job US.



Thats funny. That seems to be your point. Acceptability is based in part on geography. Just as Alberta doesn't like Ontario telling it what to do.



They are. The US has enormous vested interest in Canada. The interference that Pakistan had with pre 9/11 Afghanistan is far far less then the US has with us.



They didn't recognize the guys we helped overthrow the soviet backed gov't either.

That the Taliban weren't recognized by a bunch of other countries is meaningless. They didn't need it and we aren't the boss of them.



Perhaps you can explain why Dallaire was called such horrible names before by several posters here with a military background because that never made sense to me.



If the public cared it would have stayed hot. Even if the public didn't care or know, the gov'ts did. They made no effort to at least offer money and aid to the Taliban even for humanitarian reasons. They might have still been religious fanatics but at least helping build hospitals and infrastructure would have saved lives and we could have influenced them gradually and worked towards making them more modern thinking. The truth is that once the USSR had withdrawn then there was no need for the US to help because they weren't bleeding the USSR anymore.



Thats all it takes.



Wrong meaning of control but now that you mention it, we are controlling them to a point. We will only aloow them the things we accept. Suppose they decide that drug use is no more illegal or immoral then alcohol use and decide that poppy cultivation is no different then growing barley for beer?



If you believe anything the US cooked up over the wars then you might as well believe that they collapsed the towers on their own too.



Yet people still point to the UN as the authority and justificatio because there is some involvement. Even the UN has more authority then NATO does.



I seriously hope you are joking that we should use military force to install our values and principles on people. Can I use force to install my values and principles on you?

What about the religious fanatics who want to install their values and principles on us in order to "save us from hellfire"?



No, thats not quite right. I dispute the belief that we have to force them to adopt our values and beliefs in a vastly shorter time period then we took to devlop them.
The tings I talk about our personal beliefs. The control over the country I speak of should have heppened long ago if they weren't busy scouring foreign newspapers for insulting cartoons in order to burn flags.



Now you are saying we need to force our religion on them as well. In other words you are admitting that we are indeed using military force to control them and force them to adapt to our way of life.

"we" christians are also the ones who fought 2 world wars and killed far more people and in more horrific ways then the taliban ever did.

yeah us!



Nothing to do with the lie we are now telling that the religiously motivated taliban is going against its religion and growing drugs but to answer your question I don't agree with virtually anything they believe. So what? I'm not the yardstick they need to measure themselves against and its not my place to force them too.



I posted 2 links.

Now, as for assisting, thats a matter of degrees. They are certainly turning a blind eye in order to concentrate on somebody else and Karzais connection has neen established.

Do you honestly believe there is any truth to the propaganda that states that the Taliban grew so little poppy when they controlled the whole country and are now controlling a poppy empire vastly larger now that they control so little of it and are being actively hunted?



I've said the Liberals were wrong on gun control and kyoto too but I understand why their policies are geared towards the beliefs of its core support. Touches the point I made in the other thread.



Our security was never ever threatened by the Taliban. Our security is being threatened now becasue now people have reason to hate us and attack us.

We are also wasting billions that could be better spent on things that actually provide us with more security like an arctic navy, better intelligence, or just more healthcare which will save actual Canadian lives.

Its a bit weird yes.



Unfortunately the truth is sometimes harsh. The very fact that many military members here say we should be in Iraq is them actively seeking a campaign. Do you not think Hillier pushed for Canadas involvement? Do you dispute that Canada pretty much demanded to be in Kandahar. They wanted it. That isn't saying they will fight just for fightings sake but it certainly supports my point.



Then you understand and agree with the muslim position that their religion shall be the only one on earth.

BTW, they love the money and attention. If they find out we print insulting cartoons then they would be burning our flag just as readily as the dutch.



So what? The same thing will happen.



Thats crap. The USSR collapsed without WW3 and Vitenam managed to sort their lives out without the US. For that matter then the Taliban will never give up in their quest to achieve peace through violence as well.

Afghanistan may have taken decades to achieve a society but they have every right to do so on their own.

BTW, we should have thought of that before we helped overthrow the USSR backed gov't. We reaped what we sowed.



You just said you have aspirations to force others to adopt our values.

BTW, if you want to understand what brought the nazis to power then research Barts thread detailing how the conditions we set back in WW1 did that and not appaisement.



No they weren't. They were nothing more then a bunch of backward goat herders who cared nothing for the rest of the world in their quest to live the perfect muslim life. There were terrorists living in Afghanistan though and they were all saudi funded saudis also. All of this ignore that we too have spread terror and violence. We just justify it better.

Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army.



The reason you didn't support them seem to be the same reason I don't support these wars.

If you think that just because we go to war it automatically voids our ability and right to oppose it is like saying that nuremburg was wrong because once germany went to war it was every germans duty to support it.

Its our duty to oppose the gov't doing something wrong.



Yet he still tried to find any reason possible to invade Iraq didn't he?



Thats like killing children who act up to make absolutely certain they don't grow up to be serial killers.



Thats western propaganda. I work with muslims and with a christian Iraqi. He told me that christianity has existed more or less peacefully in Iraq for centuries alongside muslims.

There are certainly muslims who think that way though just as their are christians who think that way.



What I'm saying is that by attacking people for revenge sake or to eliminate a "potential" threat makes us a justifiable target under the same principle.



So what?



They were. Shiites and Shias have been fighting since year dot.

once again its just western propaganda that says all muslims want to convert the world.



So as long as the gov't simply stays in a permenant state of war they can never be questioned or criticized?

Please tell me you are joking.



A strawman argument.



Fine. Then the responsibility to criticize the gov't falls to us civilians.

You seem to be arguing that the war is moral. Hillier is arguing that as are loads of soldiers. Does it only work in one direction?

We aren't hearing alot of "its not my place to question the gov'ts decisions".

We aren't hearing any of that.



To reiterate, Chretien was acting on bushs lies. There was no evidence the Taliban was a threat to anybody but themselves.

If they had handed OBL over on a silver platter we would not have gone in.

Whew.

   

Again you have shown you Isolationists don't give a fuck about anyone else but yourselves. I'm sorry but that photo is the truth of what happened in Afghanistan and what can happen again should Canada Cut & Run if Isolationists like you get your way..

As for the comment of posting pictures of dead children caused by our guys, FUCK YOU!

About Human Rights, frankly most of these so called Human Rights groups are a Fucking Joke and mentioning China is a cop out..

Yes they have a horrible record but not every country has the same solution as Afghanistan does and China is one of them..

So in your World the invassion of Afghanistan should never have happen because the Taliban were good guys who publicly executed women in soccer stadiums and harbored Al Qaeda because it's over there and not over here..

   

Previous  1  2  3