Pierre the Great Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 oh well the topic header clearly states strong political views ahead on its title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 oh well the topic header clearly states strong political views ahead on its title. Yes, but the thread is about Afghanistan, not abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Is it ok to take a cyanide pill so that you don't give up any information if captured? We put a dog down who is suffering, but we can't end a human's suffering. We're so much into the preservation of human life that we've somehow forgotten that those lives BELONG to someone. Shouldn't they get the right to decide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted September 8, 2006 Author Share Posted September 8, 2006 Can't 'snap your fingers and quit' mission in Afghanistan: Rae - CBC Thank you Bob. You took the words right out of my mouth. Put that "Jack In The Box" in his place. The NDP have it wrong on this one IMO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zumpano21 Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I've never actually gotten upset about a Canadian party leader before but Jack Layton is really pissing me off lately. Every day it's a new call for a pull out of Afghanistan which is by all accounts a completely noble military endeavour. What a ******' pu**y. You know Jack. This a chance to show the world what we're made of and what we stand for, not an opportunity to tuck your tail and run the moment things get rough. I'm just glad that he doesn't have more power in Parliament because I never want Jackoff speaking for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 (edited) Well he's positioning his party to grab some Bloc votes. Wouldn't shock me to see NDP with a lot more seats next election. At least he's able to use his voice of opinion. Its called a democracy. Unlike here. What the heck happend to my post? okay fixed it. Edited September 10, 2006 by Pierre the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 You know Jack. This a chance to show the world what we're made of and what we stand for... Maybe it's a chance to show Canada doesn't stand with the United States? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 (edited) As an outsider following Canadian culture and politics, I can never understand this must follow Washington rule. People seem to think that if they give Washington the cold shoulder that somehow Washington will leave them or not care about them economically. This idea is completely false. It never seems to grasp me that some political party in Canada wants to be buddy buddy to the point of idoicy. I mean Emerson is calling people anti american. Since when did he care about America? Last time I checked he was Canadian. I know I get pummelled here whenever I bring up Trudeau. But wasn't he the one that started the whole idea of Canada having its 'own' political foriegn policy dictated 'by canadians and the canadian people' and not what some government officals to the south want them to think and do? The way I see it, its like the high school bully. The bully is Washington and the kid losing his lunch everyday is Canada. And yet instead of standing up for him or herself the person being picked on continues to take it instead of standing up. Another thing I see from one perticular demographic/region/party in Canada is a form of Stockholm Syndrome. To me I see myself as the bank robber (America) and the victim is Canada and its people. If you don't know what Stockholm Syndrome it is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage exhibits loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. Edited September 11, 2006 by Pierre the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage exhibits loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. The Harper Syndrome? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zumpano21 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Maybe it's a chance to show Canada doesn't stand with the United States? Exactly. That's why we're not in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Just a question to Canadians: Why is Canada in Afghanistan to begin with? From my american view Canada to me anyway only went into Afghanistan because (Chretien) felt obligated but not knowing the consequences or looking into the history of war and conflict of the place. So to me anyway I want to know why Canada really went into Afghanistan? P.S.: I don't want to here the whole shtick on freeing women from opression because last time I looked Karzai was only the president of Kabul and has no real power outside its city limits. Outside of the city limits its more of the same with war lords controlling everything just like Afghanistan always has had for thousands of years. So I want the real reason why, Canadian government at the time supported Afghanistan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zumpano21 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 My impression was because the Taliban were granting refuge/sponsoring Al Qaeda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Yes but mission wise why is Canada still there? What do they have to gain from staying there (lets face it countries go into wars for personal gain more then some people realize). The taliban are gone from power and from looking a history what you have now in Afghanistan is the best its going to get. This whole lets turn the world into democracy through guns is a twist on a utopian fanatasy some people in the left preach about even though its never going to happen. It took 600 years to get where Europe is at today. Why do you think these countries afghanistan, iraq, iran, syria are going to change through war? Thats idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zumpano21 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Well... yes the Taliban are out of official power but they're still around. If Canada was to cut and run at this moment, all the sacrifice that's gone into the mission would be lost because within a few months to years, Afghanistan would be right back where it was before we invaded. And who's to say that we're not gaining anything from our excursion there. We went in to oust Al Qaeda and the Taliban (who are US enemies #1 and #2, despite what the current US admin. would have you believe). Our being there strengthens our relationship with ol' Yankee Doodle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Again strengthening ties with the U.S. the ties are stronger then both sides would like you to believe a Canada doesn't need to show its support of the U.S., the ties are already strong so why the sucking up. Canada wouldn't leave afghanistan they'd just do what they orginally set out to do. Infrastructure, peacekeeping and logistics. The taliban will not come back just because Canada leaves southern afghanistan. lol. Again you are confirming my previous post about seeming to be the son and US being the father and doing what the father tells you and be a good little boy or else you'll get a spanking. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zumpano21 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 That's nothing short of condescending PTG. Friendship and loyalty to an ally should not be dismissed so readily. And besides, if we were really playing the part of the blind faithful we'd be sending bodies home from Iraq (like the UK, Poland, and Costa Rica if I remember correctly). Afghanistan and Iraq are two entirely different entities that should not be painted with the same broad stroke - even if George W gave the go ahead for both of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 You would have been in Iraq if Harper was in Sussex before the invasion so pick your poison. (Granted you'd also be in Iraq if front runner Ignatieff was PM for the Liberals as well) The world is friendly with Norway isn't it? I don't see the US saying there friendship with the Norweigns is over because they aren't in wars with the US. Lets change countries. Do you think if Canada started a conflict a war if you will the U.S. would immediately come to your aid? Depends. Depends on which party is in power mind you but over all census if you polled the country would be 'let the Canadians handle there own problems'. Now I don't see that from some segments of the population in Canada. Its America first. I've brought this up before I think in this thread about Anti American feelings. I said its the only thing that brings Canadians together (mainly english Canada because Quebec and Acadia have the french language) because they slowly see the giant elephant in the room (America) slowly taking over there daily lives. (just turn on the tele) And yet those feelings continue to get stronger because some people in one party want to bow down and kiss Washingtons feet. Again Canada is not a state of the US. When I go to Mexico I don't see this feeling of lets be the wife to America (except on the pro washington parties which only represent the rich). Again this plague that affects Canada is just fascinating because nowhere in the world is there a country that really cares if it hurts the country next to its feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Emerson is calling people anti american. Since when did he care about America? Last time I checked he was Canadian. How ironic. You criticise Emerson (a Canadian) for caring about America, while you (an American) care so much about Canada. Yes but mission wise why is Canada still there? What do they have to gain from staying there (lets face it countries go into wars for personal gain more then some people realize). The taliban are gone from power and from looking a history what you have now in Afghanistan is the best its going to get. You, yourself have said small groups of rebels are still dominating politics in the rural areas. The Taliban is officially out of power, but they are still around. Leaving now would just give them more opportunity to try and get their power back. Until they have a stable government setup and a means of enforcing laws totally by themselves, the ally forces can't just leave. Plus, Osama is still out there somewhere. This whole lets turn the world into democracy through guns is a twist on a utopian fanatasy some people in the left preach about even though its never going to happen. It took 600 years to get where Europe is at today. Why do you think these countries afghanistan, iraq, iran, syria are going to change through war? Thats idiotic. And during those 600 years there were wars going on pretty much the entire time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 You've just answered my question Fanpuck: Endless War. Afghanistan will always have tribes and war lords you are not getting rid of them. There like organized crime. They aren't going away ever. Bushes whole idea was just get rid of the bad guys and people will convert. LOL. You answered my question it took centuries to get where North America, Japan and Europe got to. Read a history book. Rome wasn't built in a day as they say... Yes. You got me on the whole Canadian American thing. But, I can move to Canada and become a citzen of the great land and I'm not a government offical of CANADA. If I was saying this if I was the vice president or president or a cabinet secretary in Washington people would be calling for my head and calling me a traitor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Well... yes the Taliban are out of official power but they're still around. If Canada was to cut and run at this moment, all the sacrifice that's gone into the mission would be lost because within a few months to years, Afghanistan would be right back where it was before we invaded. We went in to oust Al Qaeda and the Taliban (who are US enemies #1 and #2, despite what the current US admin. would have you believe). Not sure what you mean by that, everyone knows Al Qaeda is public enemy numero uno. We didn't go into Iraq because they all of a sudden topped the list, it was just next on the checklist. Saddam repeatedly got away with breaking UN regulations, openly supported terrorist acts, and he wasn't exactly the USA's biggest fan. That's a combination that just screams "Big threat!" Of course, we all know bad intelligence was used as further justification and that the strategy for the war was lousy. Hindsight is 20-20. I don't really care that his ties to Al-Qaeda were never proven or that no WMDs were found. Saddam had the power, influence, motive, and opportunity to help fund an attack on the US. The fact that he was a brutal dictator guilty of attempted genocide only helps the case against him. You've just answered my question Fanpuck: Endless War. Afghanistan will always have tribes and war lords you are not getting rid of them. There like organized crime. They aren't going away ever. Probably true, but at this point, the official government does not yet have the means to do anything about the warlords. Training their own forces while keeping their laws takes time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Not sure what you mean by that, everyone knows Al Qaeda is public enemy numero uno. We didn't go into Iraq because they all of a sudden topped the list, it was just next on the checklist. Saddam repeatedly got away with breaking UN regulations, openly supported terrorist acts, and he wasn't exactly the USA's biggest fan. That's a combination that just screams "Big threat!" Of course, we all know bad intelligence was used as further justification and that the strategy for the war was lousy. Hindsight is 20-20. I don't really care that his ties to Al-Qaeda were never proven or that no WMDs were found. Saddam had the power, influence, motive, and opportunity to help fund an attack on the US. The fact that he was a brutal dictator guilty of attempted genocide only helps the case against him. The fact that you dont care that Bush et al lied to start an unjustified war in Iraq scares me. The war in Iraq ruined the USA's reputation in the ME and it is the best propoganda/ recruiting tool that Osama could have wished for. It plays right into the extremists hands because it shows that the USA will attack a Muslim country-- and former ally-- with impunity and lie about it. The recent debacle in Lebanon just feeds into the general feeling in the Muslim world that the US will always side against them. Lots of countries: Iran, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea ecetera are run by brutal dictatorships with a tendency to genocide and the influence, motive and opportunity to attack the US. Should you invade them all? Face it Fanpuck, Bushie jr invaded Irag to one-up his daddy and give his cronies preferred access to Iraq's oil money: security and Bin Laden were just a convenient excuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Bush never cared about getting the people who caused 9/11 to justice or he would have picked Osama out of the many caves that we connected and built for him. Why? Because then Bush would loose a terror card he likes to throw at the sheep of this country and make them scared. Bush is a sick human being that will do anything to help is rich friends and continue his 'crusade'. (he called the war on terrorism yesterday at ground zero: "A crusade") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 The fact that you dont care that Bush et al lied to start an unjustified war in Iraq scares me. I never said such a thing. If I felt the administration had purposely lied in order to justify going into Iraq, I would have been very upset about it. I think they were given bad information and they went in thinking they really did have just cause. I do not believe they manipulated information and whatnot just to given them an excuse. If that were true, there would be no way they could have gotten away with it. Somebody would have gotten scared and talked. Someone would have seen how badly things have gone and admitted wrong doing. Unless somebody can prove the administration manipulated the information to suit their needs, I will continue to believe that the intelligence community is at fault, not the Bush administration. The recent debacle in Lebanon just feeds into the general feeling in the Muslim world that the US will always side against them. How can anyone justify siding with Hezbollah in that situation? They deliberately targeted civilians and are a known terrorist organization. I'll admit that Israel did a horrible job of avoiding collateral damage, but they were fully justified to fight back against Hezbollah. Lots of countries: Iran, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea ecetera are run by brutal dictatorships with a tendency to genocide and the influence, motive and opportunity to attack the US. Should you invade them all? If the UN does nothing about Iran, I will lose what little faith I have left in that organization. Iran has repeatedly ignored UN regulations and UN laws and something clearly needs to be done. Their president has publicly said he wants to make nukes so he can obliterate Israel. The UN cannot allow such a person to be in control of a country. He is very comparable to Hitler. Bush never cared about getting the people who caused 9/11 to justice or he would have picked Osama out of the many caves that we connected and built for him. Why? Because then Bush would loose a terror card he likes to throw at the sheep of this country and make them scared. Bush is a sick human being that will do anything to help is rich friends and continue his 'crusade'. (he called the war on terrorism yesterday at ground zero: "A crusade") If you really want to blame someone for what Osama did, look no further than Bill Clinton. Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 1994 WTC bombing and also the deaths of 224 people at a US embassy in Africa. Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States, making him perhaps the most wanted man of the American government. Towards the end of Clinton's presidency, spy planes over Afghanistan were tracking Al-Qaeda groups and with a high probability had found bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission says the videos taken showed a man in flowing white robes, surrounded by shorter, heavily armed men. bin Laden is a tall man, so he would likely tower over his body guards and the video was taken within a few miles of his known hideout. Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey admits a big reason that Clinton decided not to act on this information was because his support in Congress had been weakened by the sex scandal, and he didn't feel he would get the needed support to go after bin Laden. If you thought his affair didn't affect his ability to run this country, then you are sorely mistaken. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ Also, starting in around 1996, the government of Sudan repeatedly tried to share information on terrorists in as a show of good faith that they were not harboring terrorists. The Clinton administration refused to open talks about the information, citing the suspected harboring of terrorists. However, no real effort was made the check whether or not the allegations of Sudan harboring terrorists were true until May of 2000. After over a year of investigation, the country was found to be innocent of the accusations. By this time, the information the Bush adminstration recieved was too late to help prevent bin Laden from carrying out the 9-11 attack. Had the Clinton adminstration not waited 4 years to investigate Sudan, we could have had a wealth of information well in advance of 9-11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 The drones didn't have missiles on them like they do now. Oh typical right wingers response blame Clinton when the real blame is on Reagan. Reagan sided with anyone who was anti Soviet Union or anti Iran. Gave chemical weapons to Saddam Built caves and gave guns to Osama. If you really want to blame someone you are going to have to look straight at your idol Ronald Reagan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.