Re: RE: 6th British soldier d
Karzai was never a Unocal advisor, you can't even get your conspiracy theories straight.
aeon said:
Karzai was never a Unocal advisor, you can't even get your conspiracy theories straight.
6th British soldier dies in Afghanistan.
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
RE: 6th British soldier d
So you're saying we should just let the fact that 24 Canadian citzens were killed go? Would you be taking that same stance if a member of your family was among the 24 Jon? You can sit there in your moms basement and claim that we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan, but what you utterly fail to realize is that if we didn't go now, in fact lets say no one went, how long would it be before more aircraft were hijacked and flown in to buildings? Are you aware of the term "failed state"? Afghanistan was a shinning example. A Nation ruled by an oppressive, religiously radical regime, that not only turned a blind eye to terrorist training camps in their own territory, but also FUNDED said camps. We deployed to Afghanistan to stop an organization that predicated the attacks on American that in the process claimed 24 Canadian lives.
But lets put Afghanistan aside for a moment. You somehow deem that we don't know how to mind our own business? Like sitting around while Germany tried to flatten Europe during World War I was in our best interests Jon? Just sit back and let Europe self-destruct? Or better yet, NAZI oppression of World War II. We should have just stayed out of it? As for all those other missions I mentioned; most were U.N. Peacekeeping. You're saying that we shouldn't have deployed to Cyprus to stop the Turks and Greeks from killing eachother? Or Haiti to stop the ethnic warfare? Or Bosnia, should we have just watched from the sidelines whilst the Balkans obliterated itself? Isolationism is the quickest way to self-anihilation Jon. Something the Americans found out at Pearl Harbour. No, we're in a postion (due to our wealth and highly trained military) to make a difference in the World. We've been begged to deploy by dozens of Nations for decades. Afghanistan is just the latest example. NATO begged us to go, and the new Afghan government has begged us to stay. We make the choices we make based on the merits of the Operation. Note that we never deployed to Iraq.
So you're saying we should just let the fact that 24 Canadian citzens were killed go? Would you be taking that same stance if a member of your family was among the 24 Jon? You can sit there in your moms basement and claim that we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan, but what you utterly fail to realize is that if we didn't go now, in fact lets say no one went, how long would it be before more aircraft were hijacked and flown in to buildings? Are you aware of the term "failed state"? Afghanistan was a shinning example. A Nation ruled by an oppressive, religiously radical regime, that not only turned a blind eye to terrorist training camps in their own territory, but also FUNDED said camps. We deployed to Afghanistan to stop an organization that predicated the attacks on American that in the process claimed 24 Canadian lives.
But lets put Afghanistan aside for a moment. You somehow deem that we don't know how to mind our own business? Like sitting around while Germany tried to flatten Europe during World War I was in our best interests Jon? Just sit back and let Europe self-destruct? Or better yet, NAZI oppression of World War II. We should have just stayed out of it? As for all those other missions I mentioned; most were U.N. Peacekeeping. You're saying that we shouldn't have deployed to Cyprus to stop the Turks and Greeks from killing eachother? Or Haiti to stop the ethnic warfare? Or Bosnia, should we have just watched from the sidelines whilst the Balkans obliterated itself? Isolationism is the quickest way to self-anihilation Jon. Something the Americans found out at Pearl Harbour. No, we're in a postion (due to our wealth and highly trained military) to make a difference in the World. We've been begged to deploy by dozens of Nations for decades. Afghanistan is just the latest example. NATO begged us to go, and the new Afghan government has begged us to stay. We make the choices we make based on the merits of the Operation. Note that we never deployed to Iraq.
Re: RE: 6th British soldier d
Yes, we should let the fact that 24 Canadians died go. It was awful and I feel bad for the families of the victims, but it wasn't our place to go to Afghanistan. And yes, I would be sad if one of my family members was a victim in 9/11, but I wouldn't want our troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.
We don't need to invade Afghanistan. There are measures we can take here at home to prevent terrorist attacks.
Why are there failed states? Why can't other countries get their acts together? If they can't do that, then too bad.
It wasn't our place to invade those countries. We let thousands of Canadians die for absolutely no reason. If Canada is so interested in making a difference, they should make it here at home.
JonB2004 said:
Mogz said:
Yes, we should let the fact that 24 Canadians died go. It was awful and I feel bad for the families of the victims, but it wasn't our place to go to Afghanistan. And yes, I would be sad if one of my family members was a victim in 9/11, but I wouldn't want our troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Mogz said:
We don't need to invade Afghanistan. There are measures we can take here at home to prevent terrorist attacks.
Mogz said:
Why are there failed states? Why can't other countries get their acts together? If they can't do that, then too bad.
Mogz said:
It wasn't our place to invade those countries. We let thousands of Canadians die for absolutely no reason. If Canada is so interested in making a difference, they should make it here at home.
Jon, why don't you just say you're an isolationist and the rest of the world can go to hell, that way we know how to address you in future posts.
I think that would be a fair summary, I think not.
I remember one thread in the past, in particular, where the above member suggested that a Canadian purchasing a Big Mac should take precedence over using the same amount of money to save a few lives in another nation.
I remember one thread in the past, in particular, where the above member suggested that a Canadian purchasing a Big Mac should take precedence over using the same amount of money to save a few lives in another nation.
Oh. Oh, dear.
Think of how much fatter we all could have been.
Thank God for Afghanistan, I say.
Think of how much fatter we all could have been.
Thank God for Afghanistan, I say.
Jon forget the junk food and get serious. The world needs cooperation not isolation.
P.S. Five your avatar rocks.
P.S. Five your avatar rocks.
RE: 6th British soldier d
You're honestly ok with people MURDERING Canadian citizens? What kind of poor excuse for a Canadian are you? You are the epitome of what's wrong with our society. You sit there, in your comfy computer chair, and decree that we should "let the fact that 24 Canadians died go", when in reality, we as a society, cannot just "get over it". An organization, planned, executed, and murdered Canadian citizens. That constitutes an act of war Jon, and frankly, your cowardly stance of isolationism would be more harmful in the long run than us deploying to Afghanistan. I mentioned earlier about the U.S., isolationism, and Pearl Harbour. America took that same stance that you'd have Canada take today. Pre-World War II, they deemed anything that didn't happen inside of their own borders was of no issues to them. As a result, Japan was able to place itself on a war footing and utterly catch the United States with their pants down. That attack predicated the War in the Pacific, a War that could have been avoided if the United States would have been more focused (as they are now) on external issues. Some FYI on the War in the Pacific Jon: The United States Navy and Marine Corps reported (in 1945) that 54,537 men had been killed in action with another 16,129 wounded. Do the math on that Jon, 70,666 men and women that became casualties as a result of a War (in the Pacific alone) that COULD have been avoided, or at least capped, if the United States hadn't been isolationist at the time. We live in a global village Jon, and what happens on one end, affects the other. If we left Afghanistan alone, sure you'd still have your $90 (and your welfare checK), but how many more Canadians would be killed while going about their daily lives? That fact that you place $90 ahead of the lives of your fellow Canadians goes to show what a sad excuse for a human you are. I'd gladly pay $90 a year for the rest of my life if it meant that every Canadian could live without fear of attack. Then again, that's the difference between you and me isn't it? You're 16 and have done nothing with your life (except bitch about free money from the Government), while i've contributed to the security of this Nation.
Ok, explain that? How could we utterly secure our borders, and our citizens from terror and/or conventional attack soley in Canada alone? That's like saying we can stop drug dealers without arresting them. So Jon, explain for me and the good people here, how we could prevent this?
You know, you're starting to sound like aeon. A failed state is defined as "a weak state in which the central government has little practical control over much of its territory." That was (and in some areas still is) Afghanistan to a T. It's easy to sit there and say "why can't they get their act together", but frankly that's like saying to the guy in the wheelchair "why do you need a ramp, get your act together?" Or better yet you, who you claim are so poor, to just get your act together and get a job. The reality (that your pre-pubescent mind is incapable of understanding) is that not every Nation has the good fortune Canada does, in both it's people and Government. Throughout history, weak Nations have required help from the strong. Look at history, especially in the 20th Century, some key Nations who've utterly turned themselves around with Western help; Cyprus, The Former Yugoslavia, Haiti, and Eritrea. Those Nations required a lot of help, but in the end they were sorted out and put on the right track to peace (albeit they have had some hiccups). Lastly, your stance of "too bad", ties in with my above paragraph. Imagine if we'd said about France during 1940/41 "too bad"? Then left Britain to fend for itself? Imagine what the World would look like if NAZI tyranny wasn't stamped out Jon? Or would you be ok with that?
Just where I thought you'd go with this. Ok, so answer this. How were we suppose to stop these following conflicts from home:
World War I
World War II
Cyprus
The Gulf War
The Former Yugoslavia
Tell me here in this post how sitting at home on the sidelines would have solved those conflicts.
You're honestly ok with people MURDERING Canadian citizens? What kind of poor excuse for a Canadian are you? You are the epitome of what's wrong with our society. You sit there, in your comfy computer chair, and decree that we should "let the fact that 24 Canadians died go", when in reality, we as a society, cannot just "get over it". An organization, planned, executed, and murdered Canadian citizens. That constitutes an act of war Jon, and frankly, your cowardly stance of isolationism would be more harmful in the long run than us deploying to Afghanistan. I mentioned earlier about the U.S., isolationism, and Pearl Harbour. America took that same stance that you'd have Canada take today. Pre-World War II, they deemed anything that didn't happen inside of their own borders was of no issues to them. As a result, Japan was able to place itself on a war footing and utterly catch the United States with their pants down. That attack predicated the War in the Pacific, a War that could have been avoided if the United States would have been more focused (as they are now) on external issues. Some FYI on the War in the Pacific Jon: The United States Navy and Marine Corps reported (in 1945) that 54,537 men had been killed in action with another 16,129 wounded. Do the math on that Jon, 70,666 men and women that became casualties as a result of a War (in the Pacific alone) that COULD have been avoided, or at least capped, if the United States hadn't been isolationist at the time. We live in a global village Jon, and what happens on one end, affects the other. If we left Afghanistan alone, sure you'd still have your $90 (and your welfare checK), but how many more Canadians would be killed while going about their daily lives? That fact that you place $90 ahead of the lives of your fellow Canadians goes to show what a sad excuse for a human you are. I'd gladly pay $90 a year for the rest of my life if it meant that every Canadian could live without fear of attack. Then again, that's the difference between you and me isn't it? You're 16 and have done nothing with your life (except bitch about free money from the Government), while i've contributed to the security of this Nation.
Ok, explain that? How could we utterly secure our borders, and our citizens from terror and/or conventional attack soley in Canada alone? That's like saying we can stop drug dealers without arresting them. So Jon, explain for me and the good people here, how we could prevent this?
You know, you're starting to sound like aeon. A failed state is defined as "a weak state in which the central government has little practical control over much of its territory." That was (and in some areas still is) Afghanistan to a T. It's easy to sit there and say "why can't they get their act together", but frankly that's like saying to the guy in the wheelchair "why do you need a ramp, get your act together?" Or better yet you, who you claim are so poor, to just get your act together and get a job. The reality (that your pre-pubescent mind is incapable of understanding) is that not every Nation has the good fortune Canada does, in both it's people and Government. Throughout history, weak Nations have required help from the strong. Look at history, especially in the 20th Century, some key Nations who've utterly turned themselves around with Western help; Cyprus, The Former Yugoslavia, Haiti, and Eritrea. Those Nations required a lot of help, but in the end they were sorted out and put on the right track to peace (albeit they have had some hiccups). Lastly, your stance of "too bad", ties in with my above paragraph. Imagine if we'd said about France during 1940/41 "too bad"? Then left Britain to fend for itself? Imagine what the World would look like if NAZI tyranny wasn't stamped out Jon? Or would you be ok with that?
Just where I thought you'd go with this. Ok, so answer this. How were we suppose to stop these following conflicts from home:
World War I
World War II
Cyprus
The Gulf War
The Former Yugoslavia
Tell me here in this post how sitting at home on the sidelines would have solved those conflicts.
RE: 6th British soldier d
I'm not OK with people getting murdered, but the what the fuck do you expect me to say? It didn't happen in our fucken country, so in my opinion, its not our fucken problem. Here an example for Afghanistan. Let's say the kid next door hits your brother. Well, its your brother's fucken problem to deal with it. Not you. Get it or are you too fucken dense?
And I don't say I want free fucken money from the government. Canadians pay taxes, well why shouldn't they get that money back. I don't want to sit on my ass all my life, which is what you seem to be suggesting. I want to get a job, and get through university. Quit making assumptions, dumbass.
And as for taking steps to protect Canada. Well first of all, we can ban travel to terrorist-harbouring nations and we can deny immigrants from those kinds of countries from coming into Canada. That would at least be a start.
And all of those conflicts you speak of, they all took place on the other side of the fucken world. Far away from Canada. Let those people work out their own fucken problems.
I'm not OK with people getting murdered, but the what the fuck do you expect me to say? It didn't happen in our fucken country, so in my opinion, its not our fucken problem. Here an example for Afghanistan. Let's say the kid next door hits your brother. Well, its your brother's fucken problem to deal with it. Not you. Get it or are you too fucken dense?
And I don't say I want free fucken money from the government. Canadians pay taxes, well why shouldn't they get that money back. I don't want to sit on my ass all my life, which is what you seem to be suggesting. I want to get a job, and get through university. Quit making assumptions, dumbass.
And as for taking steps to protect Canada. Well first of all, we can ban travel to terrorist-harbouring nations and we can deny immigrants from those kinds of countries from coming into Canada. That would at least be a start.
And all of those conflicts you speak of, they all took place on the other side of the fucken world. Far away from Canada. Let those people work out their own fucken problems.
Jon,
I think you should put your isolation suggestion to a test. Try isolating yourself from the outside world for a period of a week; no TV, no internet, don't talk to anyone, ignore everything and everyone, including your family. If someone asks for help, ignore them, someone wants to include you in something, tell them to go to hell, you get the picture. Come back and tell us how it works out.
I think you should put your isolation suggestion to a test. Try isolating yourself from the outside world for a period of a week; no TV, no internet, don't talk to anyone, ignore everything and everyone, including your family. If someone asks for help, ignore them, someone wants to include you in something, tell them to go to hell, you get the picture. Come back and tell us how it works out.
Well Jon if a single person cannot isolate himself from a few people surrounding himself how do you propose a country of millions surrounded by countries of billions isolate itself? Like it or not we must be involved in events that surround us. Whether you're a country or an individual and whether it is pleasant or not.
RE: 6th British soldier d
I'll be responding to you in a few hours Jon. Right now the girlfriend wants to watch a movie and do the "couple thing". Tune in, in a few hours for my retort. Also it'll give you time to calm down and not risk you having another public tantrum
P.S. Kreskin's "yellowcard" post was a link to the World Cup Jon. Import a sense of humour.
I'll be responding to you in a few hours Jon. Right now the girlfriend wants to watch a movie and do the "couple thing". Tune in, in a few hours for my retort. Also it'll give you time to calm down and not risk you having another public tantrum
P.S. Kreskin's "yellowcard" post was a link to the World Cup Jon. Import a sense of humour.
RE: 6th British soldier d
So if your mother flies to Europe and is murdered by a thief, that isn't any concern of the Department of Foreign Affairs or this Nation in general? Might want to look back through the news and find the issue that arose from a Canadian coupled being murdered in Mexico. Sadly Jon, what happens to our citizens, regardless of where they are at the time, IS a Canadian issue. Come on Jon, take off the social blindfold and realize that in a perfect World, and a perfect World only, each Nation would keep to itself. We live in reality, and the ramifications of what happens in one Nation can have disasterous repercussions in another. As for the whole "kid next door" analogy, actually, if you had a brother (or if you do, were any kind of brother yourself) you'd slap the kid around. I've got a brother 4 years younger than me, and throughout school I beat the crap out of older kids that picked on him. Then again, judging by the way you think, that ideology would be a foreign concept to you. Standing up for your friends and family.
Everything i've ever read from you vis-a-vis Afghanistan, has fallen back to (and i'm paraphrasing here), you screaming "where's my money!".
So you're suggesting that we, in essence, begin limiting where our citizens can travel? In other words, impede on their RIGHT to live free? That would be counter to everything this Nation stands for. Secondly, deny immigration from those kinds of countries? Sure fine, we put in to motion an UTTER BAN on a class of people. First off, that goes against everything that is Canadian. Secondly, it wouldn't solve the problem. Ever hear of illegal immigration Jon? That's a huge problem that both Canada and the United States face. Our borders are too large to prevent people from slipping in, and frankly, anyone that would intend to come to this Nation to cause harm, would most likely do so in a covert manner. Lastly, and in my opinion, most importantly, does a terrorist need to be a Canadian citizen to cause harm to Canadians? The answer Jon, is no. A great example is the Bali Bombing of 2002. The attack killed 202 people. People on vacation. Lets say for a second that we utterly close our border to everyone meeting a cetain description (racial profiling), and that we utterly forbid Canadians from travelling to a LENGTHY list of Nations (breaching the very moral core of our society), do you think that'll somehow make us safe? What's to stop a terrorist organization from blowing up Canada House in London? Or sinking a cruise liner full of Canadian vacationers? You'd in a sense have us turtle like cowards instead of solve the problem.
YOu're right, the other side of the World. But what i've been saying all along Jon is that what happens in one Nation, can easily spread to another. A great example is World War II. Do you think, that if we'd just left Europe to itself, the problem would have gone away? I'm not sure if you're fully aware, but in 1941, Germany had Europe at it's knees, and while no one (other than those fully educated) will admit it, Canada saved Europe from total annexation. Post Evacuation of Dunqurque, Canada comprised the only land force capable of defending England against German invasion (the British Army was shattered and had left almost ALL of its equipment behind in France). Furthermore the RCAF put at the RAFs disposal large amounts of trained figher pilots, ground crews, and aircraft. Without our help (and that of the Poles and Free French), Germany would have won the Battle of Britain and launched Operation Sealion (the invasion of England). If Germany were to have succeeded in conquering England (which they would have easily), how would the War have turned out Jon? Where could a force attempting to liberate England stage from? The answer is no where. With the fall of England, Germany would have won. They would have turned their full attention to Russian and utterly conquered them as well. Europe, to this day, would be a German Empire. So your stance of "let those people work their fucking problems out" is highly ignorant. I've said it already in this thread Jon, and i'll say it again; when a Nation is in a position of wealth and military ability, like Canada is, it behooves said Nation to contribute what it can to World stability and prosperity. You speak like the other Nations of the World that aren't as well off as us, or in as great shape should deal with their own problems. To that I pose this question; why do our cities have police officers? If we were to embody your mantra, everyone would deal with their own problem. That young girl being raped would have to fight off her attacker, or be raped because she was just too weak. The old man being mugged should have to combat the thugs for his wallet, or lose it due to weakness. That's what your stance is when put under the microscope Jon; self-reliance. Sadly, that "perfect world" (in your opinion) doesn't exist. Weaker people exist and therefore Police exist. Weaker Nations exist, therefore stronger Nations sacrifice their time, money, and people to help them. We deployed to Cyprus to stop people from killing eachother. We went to Somalia to feed starving people. We have deployed NOW to Afghanistan to stop the oppression of Afghans and prevent the terrorist promoting regime of that Nation from ever re-establishing itself, and thus endangering our way of life and killing more Canadians.
So if your mother flies to Europe and is murdered by a thief, that isn't any concern of the Department of Foreign Affairs or this Nation in general? Might want to look back through the news and find the issue that arose from a Canadian coupled being murdered in Mexico. Sadly Jon, what happens to our citizens, regardless of where they are at the time, IS a Canadian issue. Come on Jon, take off the social blindfold and realize that in a perfect World, and a perfect World only, each Nation would keep to itself. We live in reality, and the ramifications of what happens in one Nation can have disasterous repercussions in another. As for the whole "kid next door" analogy, actually, if you had a brother (or if you do, were any kind of brother yourself) you'd slap the kid around. I've got a brother 4 years younger than me, and throughout school I beat the crap out of older kids that picked on him. Then again, judging by the way you think, that ideology would be a foreign concept to you. Standing up for your friends and family.
Everything i've ever read from you vis-a-vis Afghanistan, has fallen back to (and i'm paraphrasing here), you screaming "where's my money!".
So you're suggesting that we, in essence, begin limiting where our citizens can travel? In other words, impede on their RIGHT to live free? That would be counter to everything this Nation stands for. Secondly, deny immigration from those kinds of countries? Sure fine, we put in to motion an UTTER BAN on a class of people. First off, that goes against everything that is Canadian. Secondly, it wouldn't solve the problem. Ever hear of illegal immigration Jon? That's a huge problem that both Canada and the United States face. Our borders are too large to prevent people from slipping in, and frankly, anyone that would intend to come to this Nation to cause harm, would most likely do so in a covert manner. Lastly, and in my opinion, most importantly, does a terrorist need to be a Canadian citizen to cause harm to Canadians? The answer Jon, is no. A great example is the Bali Bombing of 2002. The attack killed 202 people. People on vacation. Lets say for a second that we utterly close our border to everyone meeting a cetain description (racial profiling), and that we utterly forbid Canadians from travelling to a LENGTHY list of Nations (breaching the very moral core of our society), do you think that'll somehow make us safe? What's to stop a terrorist organization from blowing up Canada House in London? Or sinking a cruise liner full of Canadian vacationers? You'd in a sense have us turtle like cowards instead of solve the problem.
YOu're right, the other side of the World. But what i've been saying all along Jon is that what happens in one Nation, can easily spread to another. A great example is World War II. Do you think, that if we'd just left Europe to itself, the problem would have gone away? I'm not sure if you're fully aware, but in 1941, Germany had Europe at it's knees, and while no one (other than those fully educated) will admit it, Canada saved Europe from total annexation. Post Evacuation of Dunqurque, Canada comprised the only land force capable of defending England against German invasion (the British Army was shattered and had left almost ALL of its equipment behind in France). Furthermore the RCAF put at the RAFs disposal large amounts of trained figher pilots, ground crews, and aircraft. Without our help (and that of the Poles and Free French), Germany would have won the Battle of Britain and launched Operation Sealion (the invasion of England). If Germany were to have succeeded in conquering England (which they would have easily), how would the War have turned out Jon? Where could a force attempting to liberate England stage from? The answer is no where. With the fall of England, Germany would have won. They would have turned their full attention to Russian and utterly conquered them as well. Europe, to this day, would be a German Empire. So your stance of "let those people work their fucking problems out" is highly ignorant. I've said it already in this thread Jon, and i'll say it again; when a Nation is in a position of wealth and military ability, like Canada is, it behooves said Nation to contribute what it can to World stability and prosperity. You speak like the other Nations of the World that aren't as well off as us, or in as great shape should deal with their own problems. To that I pose this question; why do our cities have police officers? If we were to embody your mantra, everyone would deal with their own problem. That young girl being raped would have to fight off her attacker, or be raped because she was just too weak. The old man being mugged should have to combat the thugs for his wallet, or lose it due to weakness. That's what your stance is when put under the microscope Jon; self-reliance. Sadly, that "perfect world" (in your opinion) doesn't exist. Weaker people exist and therefore Police exist. Weaker Nations exist, therefore stronger Nations sacrifice their time, money, and people to help them. We deployed to Cyprus to stop people from killing eachother. We went to Somalia to feed starving people. We have deployed NOW to Afghanistan to stop the oppression of Afghans and prevent the terrorist promoting regime of that Nation from ever re-establishing itself, and thus endangering our way of life and killing more Canadians.