157 Dead Canadian Soldiers Later....
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
No, these business will be required by us regardless of who's involved.
Again, it's a Muslim problem, let these useless xxxxxx deal with it!!
A couple things: first, your statement is not really accurate. Iraq happened well after Afghanistan did, and our level of commitment was already high enough that US Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld knew we wouldn't have anything to contribute, so they didn't ask us to. And again while Harper was in support of the Iraqi invasion, so were prominent members of the Liberal party, such as future leaders Paul Martin and Michael Ignatieff. I'll be honest enough to admit that at the time, I didn't like the idea of the US invading Iraq (for whatever's that worth
) but I thought we should have tried harder to show solidarity with our closest ally, even if we didn't have any assets to send.Secondly the reason I raised the point was in answer to a member of the usual mis-informed hate spewing crew, making accusations against one party (the Conservatives) without acknowledging the situation didn't originate with them. Blame them for what THEY do wrong, not what their opposition did. (and now Liberal supporters, please go on about how Chretien's original mission was so much more noble and was corrupted once Harper came into office...)
How, pray tell, oh wise one, would we access, operate and retain ownership of Canadian investment in a hostile land? Whether we remained on friendly terms with Khadaffi or not, he's got a blind, snapping hate on just like yours ... so he isn't likely to be friendly.
Gonna look for colours ... or people?
This has to be put into perspective a bit. Canada did build schools and other forms of infrastructure as well
The problem was what ever was built was bombed or burned by the Taliban who are not big on education
especially for girls and women. Canadians troops protected the infrastructure achievements and helped
to institution policing and other forms of order in a nation that had been dismantled for a generation.
As a rule I support peace missions and not combat action but in this case I made an exception because we
have to ensure what is built remains, it is how a new society comes into being. Sometimes the only way for
education and societal progress to move ahead, is use boots on the ground.
For Canada it is unusual but I personally believe in the case of Afghanistan it was justified.
There wasn't much point in trying to help create a society instead of tribal associations if we were not prepared
to defend what we nurtured. I think Afghans are better off now than twenty years ago and if we can break the
cycle of ignorance in one country we can slowly make progress against tribal and religious ignorance in other
places more peacefully. We might even achieve a higher level of understanding, education and tolerance at
home sometime in the future.
The problem was what ever was built was bombed or burned by the Taliban who are not big on education
especially for girls and women. Canadians troops protected the infrastructure achievements and helped
to institution policing and other forms of order in a nation that had been dismantled for a generation.
As a rule I support peace missions and not combat action but in this case I made an exception because we
have to ensure what is built remains, it is how a new society comes into being. Sometimes the only way for
education and societal progress to move ahead, is use boots on the ground.
For Canada it is unusual but I personally believe in the case of Afghanistan it was justified.
There wasn't much point in trying to help create a society instead of tribal associations if we were not prepared
to defend what we nurtured. I think Afghans are better off now than twenty years ago and if we can break the
cycle of ignorance in one country we can slowly make progress against tribal and religious ignorance in other
places more peacefully. We might even achieve a higher level of understanding, education and tolerance at
home sometime in the future.
Oh, well allow me to inform you my pilgrim !!
First of all if we were not involved, gadaffi would have no problem with us doing business in his country because he needs the money.
Second, the opposion would have no problem with us either because they would realize it's not our problem, and they would leave us to do our thing because it also makes them money as well.
The madness is over power, it has nothing to do with the out of country people just doing their jobs for all the people of Lybia.
See, it's not so hard to understand. Think about it for awhile, it should soak in after a few hours.
Both people and color!!
A couple things: first, your statement is not really accurate. Iraq happened well after Afghanistan did, and our level of commitment was already high enough that US Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld knew we wouldn't have anything to contribute, so they didn't ask us to. And again while Harper was in support of the Iraqi invasion, so were prominent members of the Liberal party, such as future leaders Paul Martin and Michael Ignatieff. I'll be honest enough to admit that at the time, I didn't like the idea of the US invading Iraq (for whatever's that worth
The Afghan war started in 2001, we were heavily involved in the conflict by 2002 .... Iraq war started in 2003, only one year later.... perhaps even less when one rounds it by the exact date. As I said, neither the Liberals or Conservatives are any better then the other in regards to who wanted to go to war or not.... that's my point.
Claiming that it was the Liberals who sent us into Afghanistan while Harper was Opposition, as if to say Harper's hands were clean and was taking a higher road on the subject over the Liberals is a bit short-sighted. There were some justification for Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, but there was no justification for involvement in Iraq, which Harper supported.
I'm not saying one or the other is better or worse, I'm saying neither are better then the other.
Well I have been looking online to find any information towards if the Conservatives supported or voted in support for Canada's involvement which the Liberals planned.
While the Liberals made the official decision to get involved, who were the ones who extended the mission multiple times?
I believe in each case, the Conservatives put forward the extensions, and the Liberals backed it.
I give props to Harper for actually sticking to what he said towards no more extensions, but I personally feel we shouldn't have extended in the first place, let alone additional times after that.
Ass-kissing bible thumping bastard"?.............Hey, them's my words. WW1 wasn't necessary either. You should get your glasses on straight, and stop trying to read and jack off at the same time...........might make for better comprehension.
8O...........tuck, duck, and roll.
All our little troopies want to thank whashisname ever day Harper wasn't in command back when. We'd be in Iraq, and every other **** hole the Shrub wanted us in.................and probably wouldn't get any free oil either.
We may have a 'volunteer' army but the soldiers do have to go where they are told to go..
Pulled by the nose? You're in charge of the whole thing!
Oh yeah... we're loving all that free oil!
Well, when the Americans let the easterners build their cars for them and they inturn call them bastards and morons, I would call that being hypocritical.
I guess when you grow up in a culture of entitlement, it must be difficult to see the difference between being hypocrital and being appreciative.