Fanpuck33 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 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. Get your facts straight. It was in 1979 under Jimmy Carter when the US began funding and training rebel forces to fight against the invading Russians. Reagan simply maintained Carter's program, as did Bush. The US was wrong to help Iraq gain access to chemical weapons, but France and the Soviet Union were also backing and helping Saddam during the war with Iran. In fact, Iraq started the war using Soviet weapons. It should say something that both the US and Soviet Union were backing Saddam against the revolutionary Iran. My idol? Why would he be my idol? I was four years old when he left office. Have I ever even brought his name up in conversation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 (edited) Most conservatives look to Reagan these days. Just like most conservatives in Canada look to Mulroney Most Liberals want to be like Trudeau NDPers want to channel Tommy Democrats either want to be FDR or Kennedy In todays world politicians can't think of there own ideas so they take ideas of the past. They have no vision of the future. Edited September 11, 2006 by Pierre the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 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. 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. 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. Uh..., you might have missed this, but someone named Colin Powell resigned in the aftermath of the Irag invasion after saying they had solid proof of WMD in Irag. Hezebollah is not a country... the Israellis were after revenge for a kidnapped pilot...what gives them the right to violate Lebanon's sovernity? If any other country did what Israel did the world would condemn it. I love the rhetoric what you refer to as "a horrible job of avoiding collateral damage" I would call the callous massacre of innocent men, women and children. No justification. The Israeliis have become what they abhorred.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 What Israel did to Beruit was criminal and any other country would have gotten economic sanctions levied against them. Israel instead of doing what any other sane country would do (send in secret special ops into the strong hold and rescue the soldiers) decided it had the right to level Beruit blow up infrastructure and send back Lebanon 20 years and try to start another civil war with the christians and muslims in the country again. They're still in Gaza. Israel showing its ugly side again and we in the western world just continue to let it happen and not punish them because it would be 'anti semitic'. I support Israel but I also support a Palestine state, the pull out of all terroritory of the West bank, the opening of the gaza airport and some kind of train connecting gaza to west bank. Oh well I guess that makes me anti israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Iran has repeatedly ignored UN regulations and UN laws and something clearly needs to be done. Is that because only Israel is allowed to repeatedly ignore UN resolutions? How do you expect the region to react when America criticizes Iran's nuclear program but continues to ignore Israel's nuclear program? Are they supposed to respect that hypocrisy? Would you? America is not doing a good job of building trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 (edited) Most conservatives look to Reagan these days. Just like most conservatives in Canada look to Mulroney Most Liberals want to be like Trudeau NDPers want to channel Tommy Democrats either want to be FDR or Kennedy In todays world politicians can't think of there own ideas so they take ideas of the past. They have no vision of the future. Ideas of the past? Ideas of the past are what has made me and you think like we do! No one gets ideas from nowhere they are based on events ideas actions etc...!... you know very well that proverb (even if it isnt the point but) that forgetting the lessons from the past makes us commit the same mistakes time and time and again! ( i havent read your previous posts or else's ... so my apps if I'm commenting out of context (which I am ) I'm just curious to what NEW OWN Ideas u think can be so Unique and lead us out of the past retoric. Edited September 11, 2006 by CoRvInA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Yes I know that reading and studying the past makes us who we are but I'm talking about ideas in general. Young people today don't vote because they feel disinfranchised in general and see the same old same old. Its quite sad. The smart intelligent ones never get into politics because they never would get anywhere because they aren't white, married, straight or religious. No one has any ideas anymore. Thats what I'm getting to. Its like playing the guitar and trying to experiment. Everythings been done so why bother. Thats what modern politics is like. Everything has been tried, thought of etc, now instead of changing the world, parties and people just want to stay in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 You would have been in Iraq if Harper was in Sussex before the invasion so pick your poison. Paul Martin publically wanted to go to Iraq. So did Ignatieff. Chretien happened to be in power at the time. What's your point? In no way am I saying we should have gone to Iraq. Not because we don't support the effort but we didn't have that infrastructure at the time. Our military was in tatters. So, we chose Afghanistan. And now what? PS. I don't think you hate Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 I don't hate Israel. The whole conflict reminds me of the movie Jason and the Argonauts. There's a scene in that movie that involves the gods and Zeus playing Jason and the characters lives in the palm of there hands on some sort of chess board talking about there lives and controlling it. Whenever the Israeli-Palestinian conflict comes on tv news everyday. I think of this movie. America is Zeus. We are palying this sick game that has to be stopped. We fund the Israeli military and we give money to the PLO which in turns uses the money to buy guns. So in essence we are watching this conflict for our own sick twisted amusement. We are the root of the problem in Israel or Hamas. WE ARE. Nobody has grasped that fact and it sickens me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Uh..., you might have missed this, but someone named Colin Powell resigned in the aftermath of the Irag invasion after saying they had solid proof of WMD in Irag. Hezebollah is not a country... the Israellis were after revenge for a kidnapped pilot...what gives them the right to violate Lebanon's sovernity? If any other country did what Israel did the world would condemn it. I love the rhetoric what you refer to as "a horrible job of avoiding collateral damage" I would call the callous massacre of innocent men, women and children. No justification. The Israeliis have become what they abhorred.... Yes, he regretted going in on bad information. He didn't resign because he knowingly lied. Colin Powell was probably the most well respected member of the Bush administration, and he felt that he had failed in his job, so he stepped down. When did I say Hezbollah was a country? They were in Lebanon, so that's where the Israelis attacked. And I think it is silly to say the Israelis were purposely killing civilians. What they did was prove their military is lousy. Their enemies were hiding out among civilians, so some collateral damage was a given. It was a tragedy that the damage to civilians was higher than it should have been. Is that because only Israel is allowed to repeatedly ignore UN resolutions? How do you expect the region to react when America criticizes Iran's nuclear program but continues to ignore Israel's nuclear program? Are they supposed to respect that hypocrisy? Would you? America is not doing a good job of building trust. I could be wrong, but isn't Israel one of the recognized nuclear countries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 What they did was prove their military is lousy. Alright, I really don't know much about politics or the current situation and I din't even read this thread but this sentence made me wonder. I've heard many times that Israel has one of the strongest armies in the world. Does that mean per number of citizens? Or was that only in the past (they have fought and won several wars, after all)? Just want to enforce my point that I want no part in this debate - just to ask a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 The israel military is funded by Washington. They have a strong military but the Israeli people don't like long conflicts. Just look at there history of war as a nation. Most wars only lasted 2 weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1158011410249 PM leaves much unsaid in praising Afghan role Toronto Star Editorial Thomas Walkom PM leaves much unsaid in praising Afghan role Sep. 12, 2006. 12:52 AM THOMAS WALKOM Faced with growing public unease about Canada's role in the Afghan civil war, Prime Minister Stephen Harper drew on the symbolism of 9/11 yesterday evening to explain and justify his government's decision to keep troops fighting and dying in Kandahar. In the end, the 10-minute address did not answer the real arguments posed by the war's critics. We still do not know how long the Canadian government and its NATO allies plan to keep fighting in Afghanistan, what they will view as success or even — in very practical terms — what they are trying to accomplish. We do not know why Canada's government has chosen to put its troops into the midst of the heaviest fighting while countries such as France and Germany, all of whom are also apparently meeting their NATO obligations, are stationed in safer parts of Afghanistan. We do not know how battling the Taliban in Afghanistan harms Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization, which apparently is safe in Pakistan. Nor do we know what attacks on Afghan villages have to do with stopping the homegrown terrorists who bombed Madrid's train system and London's subway. These are all questions of content that the Prime Minister's speech did not attempt to answer. But as a piece of theatre, Harper's televised address lacked for nothing. With him in front of the cameras were four people who had lost relatives in the 2001 terror attacks on New York. In the audience were four family members of Canadian soldiers now serving in Afghanistan. In effect, their presence was designed to visually underline the Prime Minister's message: A clear line runs from the twin towers of 9/11 to the fighting in southern Afghanistan today; to question the Afghan mission is to dishonour those so brutally killed five years ago. "The menace of terror must be confronted," Harper said. "Real people, Canadian men and women with families and children are courageously putting themselves forward to make that part of the world (Afghanistan) a safer place." The theme of his 10-minute soliloquy was the now-familiar storyline: By giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and others linked to the 9/11 bombings, the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan had declared war on the civilized world. The resultant United Nations-sanctioned invasion was not only just, but justified. Through its military actions today, Canada is securing its own safety and fulfilling its moral obligations to the international community. "We are a country that has always accepted its responsibilities in the world," Harper said. "The horrors of the world will not go away if we turn a blind eye." All of this may be true. Nations do have responsibilities. But it glosses over the fundamental question: Is what we are doing in Afghanistan today useful? Harper says it is. Yesterday he spoke of children going to school in Afghanistan, and of women gaining new rights. But many closer to the action say the strategy is not working. The Times of London reports that a former British officer just returned from Afghanistan says NATO's heavy-handed efforts in the south are succeeding only in turning the population against the West. According to one press report from Afghanistan, Canadian troops are burning crops and destroying homes in the south as part of their effort to liberate the population. Meanwhile, Canada's nominal ally, Pakistan, has made what is in effect a separate peace with Taliban insurgents, giving them free reign to launch attacks against NATO forces from sanctuaries inside that country. As for the progress in Afghanistan that Harper speaks of, Canadian journalist and Afghanistan veteran Kathy Gannon notes that much of it is illusory. Schools may have been built but they stand empty; corruption within the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai is rampant. Women in many parts of the country are as badly off today as they were under the Taliban. Harper did not talk about any of this last night. Nor did he want to. What he wanted to do was take the pervasive imagery of a five-year-old tragedy and tie it, however imperfectly, to what his government is doing in Afghanistan today. "The Taliban is on the run," he said. That too, isn't exactly true. Additional articles by Thomas Walkom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Canadian-led offensive may have killed 1,500 Taliban fighters Last Updated Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:07:40 EDT CBC News The U.S. general who heads all NATO military forces says a two-week campaign that cost five Canadian lives in southern Afghanistan may have wiped out half of the "hard-core" Taliban fighters in the country. Gen. James Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander, says Canadian forces did 'an absolutely superb job' in the latest offensive. (CBC) Gen. James Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander, says Canadian forces did 'an absolutely superb job' in the latest offensive. (CBC) The Canadian-led push, Operation Medusa, ended on Sept. 15 when Taliban forces stopped fighting and slipped away, Gen. James L. Jones said on Wednesday. The Taliban "suffered a tactical defeat in the area where they chose to stand and fight" and got "a very powerful message … that they have no chance of winning militarily," he told reporters at the Pentagon. NATO estimates that "somewhere in the neighbourhood of around 1,000" Taliban fighters were killed, and the number could be higher, he said. "If you said 1,500 it wouldn't surprise me." Half of Taliban force may be dead He said he thought there were 3,000 to 4,000 regular Taliban fighters before Operation Medusa. In response to a question, he agreed that he was saying that one-third to one-half of them may have been killed. Most of the combat units in Canada's Afghanistan contingent took part in the operation. Four Canadians were killed in the fighting and one died when U.S. jets mistakenly strafed Canadian troops. On Monday, four more Canadians died in an attack by a suicide bomber on a bicycle. They were on patrol in the Panjwaii district of Kandahar province, where the Taliban had ostensibly been defeated the previous week. The bombing brought Canada's death toll in Afghanistan since 2002 to 36 soldiers and one diplomat. Canada currently has more than 2,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Jones said it is unclear how quickly the Taliban dead will be replaced with fresh fighters. He stressed that he was not counting casual, short-term recruits. "They bring along a lot of other weekend warriors if they can pay for them. [They] say, 'Do you want to make 200 euros or $200?' Actually, they pay dollars." Nor are Taliban forces the only problem, he added. "There's also the al-Qaeda remnant, which is considerably less. Then there's the [opium] cartels with their own armies for security of their convoys, and this is a problem. Then you have the corruption, the criminal elements, the tribal fighting that goes on. So it's a lot of disparate groups." High praise for Canada He praised the countries that contributed troops to Operation Medusa. "I think the governments have been very strong, particularly Canada. Canadian leadership has been very, very strong in this. Canadian forces did an absolutely superb job, augmented by their British colleagues, a Dutch company that came in and two companies from the U.S." But he said he was not claiming total victory over the Taliban. "We have disturbed the hornets' nest and the hornets are swarming.… It remains to be seen how much more capacity they have for this kind of fight." http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...fghan060920.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Canadian presence in Afghanistan will cost $3.5 billion in 2009 1 hour, 11 minutes ago OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's presence in Afghanistan will cost taxpayers more than $3.5 billion by February 2009, says the federal government. The extension of Canada's military commitment alone to 2009 will cost $1.25 billion, according to a government response to a question by the NDP. The government has already spent $2.3 billion for the mission between September 2001 and May 2006. A total of $466 million of that amount was used for development aid, the rest for military activities. In 2003, the Foreign Affairs Department also spent $29 million to open and maintain a temporary embassy in Kabul. A permanent facility will cost $41 million, plus $9.2 million annually for operations. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/21092006/2/nati...llion-2009.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 (edited) Does anyone have a genie to wish the world was wonderful? Yeeesh. Interesting that I have a number of friends who are NDP and who oppose the party's stance on this issue. Mind you, they can see with clarity that the NDP is trying to gain legitimacy with a "new" issue. They don't disagree with pulling out but they do understand and agree with Rae that there is no quick fix. I think what bothers me about the NDP right now is that this policy is to garner votes and stop any errosion to the Green party. Not because they believe it with true conviction. They should be careful. IMO they are making a strategic mistake. The NDP must be worried. The left wing vote is splitting ever more. The NDP are feeling the squeeze from he gargantuan Liberals and from the Greens. How do they attract Quebec votes? The Bloc are a left wing party too. Edited September 22, 2006 by ATHLÉTIQUE.CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Alright, I really don't know much about politics or the current situation and I din't even read this thread but this sentence made me wonder. I've heard many times that Israel has one of the strongest armies in the world. Does that mean per number of citizens? Or was that only in the past (they have fought and won several wars, after all)? Just want to enforce my point that I want no part in this debate - just to ask a question. I really have no idea. My comment was really just to say that their military did a terrible job of avoiding collateral damage. That's probably more a result of the types of weapons than how well trained their military is or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I've said before the Israeli military is pretty good. Its the best in the Middle East. The next best army would be Iran. The problem with the Israeli army isn't the army its the people. Every citzen of the country once they turn 18 must serve in the army in some capacity. What this does is when Israel goes to war, they only last for a couple of weeks. The Army cannot sustain heavy casualites. The people of Israel won't accept that and the army itself won't. Thats why when you look at all the wars Israel has been have only lasted a couple weeks. They go hard for a couple weeks, inflict damage and then stay and occupy or leave. Thats there m.o. always has been always will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 How do they attract Quebec votes? The Bloc are a left wing party too In their present form, they simply cant. The NDP stands for a bigger federal governement and that's something a vast majority of Quebecers, left wings or not, are against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I've personally never understood this whole idea of smaller government. When I look at my country people elected said they'd make the country smaller. oops. They've made it bigger. Giving more powers to province is fine but then they start acting like little countries especially in a confederation. I mean how small is small? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehjay Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 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? preservation of human life is a bulls**t issue, If it really mattered then more dead people would get into the debate and by the way: WAR WILL NOT WIN PEACE! we as a global community should look at each others differences and give a sincere effort to understand... cross that OVERSTAND them, cuz otherwise we are ALL responsible for propagating ignoramus views, and in wich case stop calling this blue ball earth and just call it ABSURDISTAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehjay Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 (edited) I really have no idea. My comment was really just to say that their military did a terrible job of avoiding collateral damage. That's probably more a result of the types of weapons than how well trained their military is or anything. Can you PLEASE stop using the term collateral damage for civilian death, it offends me to the highest degree. Here I'll give you an example of how: 9\11 was an attack on U.S. financial instiutions the amount of dead PEOPLE was just collateral damage. I held of on saying anything till I saw a second post of yours using this very nasty term. It does not bother me one bit that your views are so far in the 'right' that I can't even see myself playing in the same ball park as you, but dehumanizing tragedy with such grotesk words forces me to take the public transportation of the net to ask kindly to please remember they were people with lives and famely and who knows if one of them knew how to 'solve' this conflict, so please if you don't mind. Edited September 24, 2006 by ehjay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 Can you PLEASE stop using the term collateral damage for civilian death, it offends me to the highest degree. From Webster's Dictionary: collateral damage, noun -injury inflicted on something other than an intended target; specifically : civilian casualties of a military operation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehjay Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 From Webster's Dictionary: collateral damage, noun -injury inflicted on something other than an intended target; specifically : civilian casualties of a military operation I'm not saying that isn't the meaning. I'm saying that it makes the loss of innocent life without worth or if you prefer almost a side issue in the tragedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted September 24, 2006 Author Share Posted September 24, 2006 I've personally never understood this whole idea of smaller government. When I look at my country people elected said they'd make the country smaller. oops. They've made it bigger. Giving more powers to province is fine but then they start acting like little countries especially in a confederation. I mean how small is small? Here is an example of "inflated government" 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.