How Canada puts Britain to shame over treatment of fallen soldiers

[Scott Free]

So define free? we are there so it isn't sovereign or free?

A country is not free if it is under occupation. Nor are you free if certain religious or political affiliations are illegal.

As for how do I know, Im ex-military. Seriously, if your that sure that you can form togethor in a group in a hurry and be as effective as someone with a heierchial command structure, be my guest to prove thousands of years of military history wrong.

Um... yeah.... is that why NATO is crying about losing Afghanistan or is that why the "heierchial command structure" of the worlds last remaining super power was able to conquer Iraq so easily? Is that why the worlds largest "heierchial command structure" was able to capture bin Laden and his fellow goat herders so quickly?

Perhaps Israels "heierchial command structure" is what has brought so much peace for itself and to the ME in general?

Really dude..... :roll:

Think about the BS your fed before scarfing it down.

 

[Scott Free]

Oh, and you obviously know nothing about Hitler's goals. The very fact you use the word "white race" says you don't.

Hitler's biggest fear was the formation of a "white race". He wasn't pro-white, his biggest supporters outside of Germany were Arab and Hindu Indians.

The races hitler hated most were Jews, Roma and Slavic peoples , all of whom were white. This is one reason he turned down Ukrainian volunteers and instead ended up fighting Ukranian resitance fighters.

Just because you see race based on skin colour, Hitler didn't , nor did most of Europe. An Irish person was a different race than a Frankish descendant, different than the Germanic (renamed Aryan though not actually Aryan), which was different than the Italian and the Slavic.

Get a history book and read before you really think you understand the past. You are warping the past to try and suit current opinions when actually reading the past might give you a better insight as to why things are the way they are now, what chain of events happened to cause the current state.

LMO... yeah... um.. OK :roll:

You just made my point for me.

 

[Zzarchov]

That you don't know history and throw around Hitler to prove any point even if it doesn't apply?

Hitler did not want the EU.



Now onto your previous post:

1.) We aren't losing Afghanistan..nor Iraq. Both are shinning examples of a strong command system. In 5+ years in two wars the US has lost under 5,000 people. How many has the opposing force lost? Hint, probably closer to 50 or 60 times that.

So there is flaw 1 in your logic.

2.) Defining Sovereign or free.

Prior to us being there, 1/3rd-2/3rds of Afghanistan was under the foreign occupation of foreign taleban militants.

Political and Religious Affliations were banned under their occuption.

Western forces, like it or not, were invited in by the government of the other 1/3rd-2/3rds of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, who were not foreign occupiers (unlike the Taleban).

So by your own words, we are not an occupying power and have in fact ousted an occupying power at the behest of the local domestic governing body.

So thats the 2nd flaw in your Arguement.

 

[Scott Free]

That you don't know history and throw around Hitler to prove any point even if it doesn't apply?

Hitler did not want the EU.

Wrong.

Now onto your previous post:

1.) We aren't losing Afghanistan..nor Iraq. Both are shinning examples of a strong command system. In 5+ years in two wars the US has lost under 5,000 people. How many has the opposing force lost? Hint, probably closer to 50 or 60 times that.

So there is flaw 1 in your logic.

2.) Defining Sovereign or free.

Prior to us being there, 1/3rd-2/3rds of Afghanistan was under the foreign occupation of foreign taleban militants.

Political and Religious Affliations were banned under their occuption.

Western forces, like it or not, were invited in by the government of the other 1/3rd-2/3rds of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, who were not foreign occupiers (unlike the Taleban).

So by your own words, we are not an occupying power and have in fact ousted an occupying power at the behest of the local domestic governing body.

So thats the 2nd flaw in your Arguement.

What the hell are you tripping on?

Flaws in my argument? Your pointless nit picking has nothing to do with my argument!

Really, you should go back to conservative school and brush up on your skills for arguing with insignificance.

 

[Zzarchov]

Wrong.




What the hell are you tripping on?

Flaws in my argument? Your pointless nit picking has nothing to do with my argument!

Really, you should go back to conservative school and brush up on your skills for arguing with insignificance.

As seen above, your arguement boils down to saying "Wrong." with nothing to back it up.

You see, merely saying "Wrong." is not arguing well.

But I guess thats why I need to brush up on "Arguing with insignificance".

You are saying that you are insignifigant and therefore I should argue with you differently?

I try and use logic and fact, rather than trying to label everyone who points out errors in my statements as belonging to some opposing school of thought.

Everyone who disagrees with you and points out the untruths (whether accidental or not) in your posts is not automatically some "Right wing thug" intent on crushing your civil liberties.

 

[Scott Free]

As seen above, your arguement boils down to saying "Wrong." with nothing to back it up.

You see, merely saying "Wrong." is not arguing well.

When in Rome...

But I guess thats why I need to brush up on "Arguing with insignificance".

You are saying that you are insignifigant and therefore I should argue with you differently?

I try and use logic and fact, rather than trying to label everyone who points out errors in my statements as belonging to some opposing school of thought.

Actually you don't use logic. You try and find a single point where you think I may have made a mistake then harp on it as though my whole argument hinged on that point.

I doubt you even know what the argument is about at this point. :lol:

Everyone who disagrees with you and points out the untruths (whether accidental or not) in your posts is not automatically some "Right wing thug" intent on crushing your civil liberties.

Actually the group your alluding to is no more conservative than the moon is made of blue cheese.

A funny thing has happened recently where the idea of "conservatism" has been replaced with a neocon and neoliberal ideologies steeped heavily in ignorance, ad hominem and FOX news propaganda.

The new conservatives are just outright lunatics and have nothing whatsoever to do with real conservatism.

 

[Zzarchov]

oh, so thats a much better debate stategy,

When you are proven wrong, cry, just say "wrong." in response, then call the other person crazy.

This is not a forum for temper tantrums, its a forum for discussion, saying "Wrong" and then resorting to name calling, is not a discussion.

 

[EagleSmack]

This thread reminds me of an Irish Wake.

 

[Scott Free]

oh, so thats a much better debate stategy,

When you are proven wrong, cry, just say "wrong." in response, then call the other person crazy.

This is not a forum for temper tantrums, its a forum for discussion, saying "Wrong" and then resorting to name calling, is not a discussion.

It's not the best strategy I admit but when dealing with someone who doesn't even know what the topic is, it is the best strategy available - there is no point pretending your capable or reason and logic.

 

[Scott Free]

This thread reminds me of an Irish Wake.

Don't you have a 3rd world country to invade?

 

[I think not]

Don't you have a 3rd world country to invade?

Why bother, we own most of the assets, labor force and natural resources.

 

[EagleSmack]

Don't you have a 3rd world country to invade?

Do you have any maple syrup or furs to trade?

 

[Scott Free]

Why bother, we own most of the assets, labor force and natural resources.

Oh, I realize it's just a sport for you guys. A way to rally political support like the colosseums were for the Romans.

I know you don't care if some slaves die in the sport.

 

[Scott Free]

Do you have any maple syrup or furs to trade?

Sure, we also have oil.

The big question is: do you still have anything worth trading for?

 

[Zzarchov]

It's not the best strategy I admit but when dealing with someone who doesn't even know what the topic is, it is the best strategy available - there is no point pretending your capable or reason and logic.

See, your wrong, you don't have anything to say, so you throw a temper tantrum and resort to name calling.

Please, feel free to do some research and counter anything I say, you just hold your breath and stomp your feet though.

No matter how much you do that, you don't become right.

 

[Scott Free]

See, your wrong, you don't have anything to say, so you throw a temper tantrum and resort to name calling.

Please, feel free to do some research and counter anything I say, you just hold your breath and stomp your feet though.

No matter how much you do that, you don't become right.

I never called you a name!?!?! I was just stating the facts. :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

Sure, we also have oil.

The big question is: do you still have anything worth trading for?

We have oil too.

How about we send back some NHL hockey teams since we have so many down here.

 

[Zzarchov]

Yep, there you go.

"Im not calling you names when I call you a syphallitic hobo, Im just stating the facts as they appear to me while throwing a temper tantrum"

 

[Scott Free]

We have oil too.

Not really. You count our oil as your oil. If you take away Canadian oil from the equation you don't have much at all.

How about we send back some NHL hockey teams since we have so many down here.

Sure, and how about baseball and basketball? We invented those too.

 

[Praxius]

Ah yes, I almost forgot to respond to this:

We hardly have a military, what the hell are you talking about? You can't seriously be postulating that our military has kept us from being invaded? :lol:

Well it sure wasn't your pink underwear with the broken elastic.

The only threat to Canadian sovereignty is from the USA and we're just giving the country to them anyway.

If that were true, our Radarsat 2 would be in their hands as we read this. And if you think the US is the only threat to Canada's sovereignty, I suggest you update yourself with some news.

That isn't how the military is used though, nor is that why people join the military.

By all means, explain why people join the military. Tell me that one reason.... (maybe 2?) reasons you think people join the military. I myself can think of several reasons why I would join and/or what made me go through with it in the past.

If someone wants to kill me, I will kill them. I won't contact the military!?! I wouldn't even bother with the police. These things are better dealt with in a more subtle way.

Right.... and when you're finished dealing with killing this person in question, the police will be knocking at your door and getting involved regardless. Have fun with that. They'll ask "Why didn't you report this?" and then it all goes from there.

As mentioned previously by someone in this thread, the reason why people join the military must want to kill people and have no problem with it, and therefore that person who claimed that has no respect for them, and then you claim you will kill this person who might be out to kill you, therefore you apparently have no problem making that decision either..... so where is the seperation of difference? A soldier is put into a situation where there is one or more people with guns shooting at them, therefore they will have to defend themselves and shoot back, possibly killing them, such as you claim you would do.

Oh I forgot.... it's that narrowly thin line you made of "Being told to kill someone" and "Killing someone on your own."

Soldiers are not just for killing people without thinking or caring. If the person on the other end wishes to give up or surrender, then their job is done. They are to hold and secure an area and if someone with weapons wishes to attack them, kill them. Sounds like the exact same logic you just defended yourself with. Sorta hypocritical if you ask me.

I agree but again, that isn't the purpose of the military and it certainly isn't how our military is being used in Afghanistan.

The military is about having a bunch of psychopathic children with guns so a country can project its power for political or economic reasons. It is also useful for the elite against against civil unrest.

That's what you think the military is for? Wow.... talk about uneducated. That maybe what some leaders in some countries are doing with their soldiers, but that is not what they are intended for, and that is not what should be done with them. A bunch of psychopathic children with guns you say? No more psychopathic then anybody you'll meet out on the streets where you live.

I mean, I've got plenty to bitch about with certain wars and certain countries, but even I'm not that narrow minded to drop all respect for an organization which has pretty well single handedly given us the life and freedoms we have now.

Granted some would still complain it's not much, but it's far better then what it could have been. Oh, and that's not being patriotic, that's giving thanks and respect where it is due.

It has been a long time since a military has had anything to do with defense.

They are defending the people of Afghanistan at the moment.

Again, you have blood thirsty wannabe killers who join the military. Anyone interested in peace, civil rights and the rights of humanity wouldn't join the military. They just wouldn't.

Yet they do, oh, but because they're in the military to help with their education costs, or help other Canadians in other countries, they must be blood thirsty.

Also, keep in mind, some people just don't have any care towards human life. Some might just think of it as a job like any other out there. Killing another human could be as simple as killing a cow at the slaughter house. Just because they may not have a problem killing someone when it is justified, that doesn't mean they're blood thirsty. Blood thirsty to me is a serial killer who can't get enough and lost all control, and if you think that's the same thing.... once again... un-educated.

In the military you get only certain kinds of people. A type of person that I don't respect.

Well I don't respect ignorant people, so I guess that goes both ways.

And you know this how?

Because I'm a Genius.

Give me a break, you don't know jack about what how or why Canadians are over there except what your fed by the propaganda machine. Get real.

Wern't you the one to tell me to look further into our corperate media to get updated? Who's sucked into the propaganda?

There are several reasons why we are there. Being a part of NATO is one, and since UN sanctioned us to be there... we are there. That's one.

What we do know is that we went in to get bin Laden and his merry troublemakers. The USA let them escape and now we're embroiled there.

No that's why the US went there. Afghans asked for help after the US went in, the UN approved it, NATO was sent. We are a part of NATO and hince, we're there cleaning up.

What we do know is that we are shooting and killing people. We also know that Afghanistan should/would be a sovereign nation except we're over there shooting and killing people.

Wow... and you talked about propaganda?

Sure, you think we're killing "bad guys" but isn't that what Hitler was doing in his gas chambers? Killing his version of "bad guys?"

Yeah well we're all bad guys.

The fact is that we aren't spreading peace or freeing anyone. We are occupying a country and murdering people - murdering people with a certain religious belief in fact. A religious belief we think makes them "bad guys."

Do you even know what war you're talking about here?

The problem with double think is that most people can't escape it.

And some people just never start to think.

You mean strong enough to keep people we don't like from coming to power?

No, I want them to be able to tell us all to piss off and leave them alone. I don't want Canada or the US to have anymore influence there after we are gone. Chances are slim for that, granted.... but that's what I would personally prefer.

You do realize then that, that means, we can't establish a true democracy there, because in a true democracy anyone can come to power?

I'm aware of this, and I don't care if it remains democratic. Democracy clearly isn't going to work in Iraq and as soon as they figure that out, the better.

I'll have to respond to the rest later.....