David’s assessment of Canadian opinion on the Iraq war is an accurate one.
With regards to Afghanistan Canadians run the gamit from those (like myself) who feel we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place to those who believe we should stay as long as the americans do.
I think the majority of Canadians are likely of simmilar opinion to both David and Myself that regardless of whether or not we SHOULD have gone there (I say no, he says yes) it is now time to leave again.
And almost no educated Canadian blames the Canadian Armed Forces for Afghanistan. They did not make the decision, that one was made by our politicians. For those of us who do oppose the Canadian presence in Afghanistan it is towards the latter and not the former that our vitriol is directed.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;925270]Boulderdawg, you need to stick to subjects you can actually comment on. If you are willfully ignorant, it’s not a good idea to go off about that. Canada does not support Bushes war and in fact we outright refused to join in the attack on Iraq. As a nation, we consider it as best questionable and at worst illegal.[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t matter. They weren’t in Afghanistan before 9/11. Would they have been there had not Bush sent American troop to Afghanistan?
The fact that you are catching grief now from the Neos just goes to show, as Bush said, “You’re either with us or against us”. Because Canada refuses to fight in Iraq they are against the US no matter how many troops are in Afghanistan.
Or it shows that Fox News is staffed entirely by ignorant tools whose entire purpose is to appeal to the stupid and reactionary in a cash hungry grab for ratings in a competitive news market.
It is so entirely irrelevant that most of us here north of the border entirely disregard the entire network.
[QUOTE=SimonM;925277]Or it shows that Fox News is staffed entirely by ignorant tools whose entire purpose is to appeal to the stupid and reactionary in a cash hungry grab for ratings in a competitive news market.
It is so entirely irrelevant that most of us here north of the border entirely disregard the entire network.[/QUOTE]
If this stupidity is an example of their “NEWS BROADCASTING”, how can aanyone take them seriously?
One of the people on the panel didn’t even know Canada was in Afghanistan !
How bad a journalist do you have to be to NOT KNOW the facts withing a story that you are commenting on ??
[QUOTE=BoulderDawg;925274]Doesn’t matter. They weren’t in Afghanistan before 9/11. Would they have been there had not Bush sent American troop to Afghanistan?
The fact that you are catching grief now from the Neos just goes to show, as Bush said, “You’re either with us or against us”. Because Canada refuses to fight in Iraq they are against the US no matter how many troops are in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
The UN sanctioned the sending of troops to afghanistan vis a vis NATO and UN policy.
Afghanistan wasn’t Bush sending troops in and everybody following, it was NATO sending in troops under UN sanctions in order to:
a) Capture Osama Bin Laden and members of al qaida
b) end the Taliban regime which was committing crimes against the afghan people
It is a totally separate issue from Iraq. You really need to educate yourself more thoroughly about this as you seem to be quoting from snippets of rhetoric you might have heard.
You are getting it all wrong and it’s painful to watch.
spend less time getting angry with people who are calling you stupid for your remarks and spend more time learning about the subject before remarking.
opinions are fine and all, but uneducated lump statements are stupid no matter how you slice em.
To implement a stable regime willing to enter into good-faith negotiations with UNOCAL.
(Ok so I’m doing a bit of sh!t disturbing but it’s true that the crimes of the Taliban suddenly became an issue when the pipeline deal fell through. The Taliban had previously offered on more than one occasion to furnish OBL - who has since been lost and who is most likely either in a grave or in Pakistan today - so that is largely a non-issue.)
To implement a stable regime willing to enter into good-faith negotiations with UNOCAL.
(Ok so I’m doing a bit of sh!t disturbing but it’s true that the crimes of the Taliban suddenly became an issue when the pipeline deal fell through. The Taliban had previously offered on more than one occasion to furnish OBL - who has since been lost and who is most likely either in a grave or in Pakistan today - so that is largely a non-issue.)[/QUOTE]
The problems with the Taliban came to the attention of the world when they destroyed the ancient buddhas. After that, it was about the killings of afghan peoples in public venues, then the honor killings, the opium dealing and yes, the pipeline is part of it.
I ain’t so naive to think that we wouldn’t even be there if not for our own interests. It is convenient that the Taliban wrote the play book on how to be evil.
so, we stamp them out and get the oil. at least we pay them for it.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;925285]The UN sanctioned the sending of troops to afghanistan vis a vis NATO and UN policy.
Afghanistan wasn’t Bush sending troops in and everybody following, it was NATO sending in troops under UN sanctions in order to:
a) Capture Osama Bin Laden and members of al qaida
b) end the Taliban regime which was committing crimes against the afghan people
[/QUOTE]
So lets see if I have this right:
Canada is in Afghanistan to end the Taliban regima and capture BL?
Hmmmmm…I know I’m stupid and all but I thought the Taliban were kicked out years ago. Also, one, maybe a little smarter than I, might think that after 6+ years if you haven’t caught BL he’s either dead or out of the country.
I guess I’ll leave it to the brains here to explain to me why Canada is still there if those were their objectives.
But UNOCAL gets to sell the gas to Pakistan so that works out as a net gain for the USA in the region.
And to be frank nobody in government said boo about the destruction of the Buddhas other than the same bland admonishments that are so commonly used to decry what you have no intention of stopping.
[QUOTE=BoulderDawg;925295]
I guess I’ll leave it to the brains here to explain to me why Canada is still there if those were their objectives.:D[/QUOTE]
Because the conservative government that currently is elected in Canada tended to toady to Bush and although the Iraq war was too grossly unpopular to get involved in the conservatives were able to placate most Canadians with the 2011 withdrawal date based on the assertion that we WOULD be leaving if not right away.
[QUOTE=SimonM;925297]Because the conservative government that currently is elected in Canada tended to toady to Bush and although the Iraq war was too grossly unpopular to get involved in the conservatives were able to placate most Canadians with the 2011 withdrawal date based on the assertion that we WOULD be leaving if not right away.
the objective for Afghanistan was not achieved for america, mainly because bush was a horrible leader. he overextended the millitary instead of concentrating all our efforts on Afghanistan and eradicating the Taliban and al queda, and capturing bin laden. they found saddam in a ****ing whole in west bubble **** iraq and you telling me they cant find bin laden, come the **** on. my father was a marine colonel, he was at the pentagon when the plain crashed into it, even thou people say that there is a strong possibility that that didnt happen, and i wouldnt put it pass my dad to lie to me. but anyway one thing he always taught me and it has suited me is that you always kill an ant with a sledge hammer, that way you know its not coming back.and that should have been the case with al queda and the taliban, instead we are fighting a protracted war on two fronts, with no end in sight. i think obama is being a little to unrealistic about his military withdrawal. more time is needed. a powerful blow has to hit the terrorist we have to cripple them, we cant destroy them completely but we have to hit them in a way where they will be seriously hampered. freezing bank accounts aint gonna do it. these guys deal in cash/gold and diamonds. i spent a year in africa, wondering around the continent with my grand father, and what i saw is that these guys smuggle gold and diamonds at next to nothing prices(i bought a solid gold watch for 300 american and sold it back in the states for close to ten grand) and then sell them at cheaper then jewelry store value and still make a huge profit all in cash, and lets not forget herion and afghan kush. all cash; i remember the first reports of the iraq war was the large cache of cash they found millions of dollars all in cash. anyway i rambled on but this is a serious thorn in the worlds side.
It happens sometimes. Fortunately somebody asked me to name some people I thought did a better job at setting up their respective countries than the USA and I was able to vent a bit with a list of names that contained only one ludicrous entry.
Find the post and see if you can figure out which one.
[QUOTE=BoulderDawg;925267]One other thing: I’ve done some interviewing and hiring in the past. One question that I always ask is "Have you served in the military?’
If the answer is “No” or “Yes I did but I regret it” then you scored high in my book. If you answered “YES! I did all I could to kill as many ho-mo terrorists as I could” then is was “Thank you for your time. We’ll be in touch!:D”[/QUOTE]
Andi f the answer was “Yes. It was where I learned self-discipline, goal setting, team work, and tolrance for people with diverse backgrounds and opions” what goes in your little notebook?
Ive done alot of hiring and interviewing myself. Ive met few kids just out of high school or just out of college for that matter who were mature enough to make many good choices about what path they wanted to take in life. In contrast, Ive met few former soldiers who didnt have a good head on thier shoulders.
[QUOTE=Kansuke;925444]You know that’s a comedy show, right? Not meant, by any stretch, to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]I thought all of Fox was… Or do you mean literally?!
Personally I think if you have the resources and the extra men to cover your military objectives wherever, allowing them to rest up for a year after being in the field of operations is the ideal, and the far more laughable option is stop-loss, ****ty treatment of veterans, poor pensions and welching on insurance and the general complete sweeping under the carpet of psychological problems and other medical issues that seems to accompany the US army every time they go out. Same as anything else: you have to look after your resources, and your army personnel are pretty vital resources.
BD, I’m no unthinking supporter of the military, but your attitude is ****. In fact, I’d go so far as to say, you’re a ****. Who the **** ever gave a moron like a hiring/firing position in the first place? They should get the boot for a start.
