[RUEZ]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

As for reality, Canada sent JTF2 into Afghanistan before the Americans or anyone else sent troops anywhere. After 9/11 our troops were first.

You are saying Canadian troops were in Afghanistan before American troops? Are you sure about that?

[DerbyX]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

As for reality, Canada sent JTF2 into Afghanistan before the Americans or anyone else sent troops anywhere. After 9/11 our troops were first.

You are saying Canadian troops were in Afghanistan before American troops? Are you sure about that?

Did you question yetiboy on his obviously incorrect statement when he said that Canada didn't deploy anybody to the 'Stan until after Iraq?

Why pick on Winnipegger, a very fair debating, and not attack yetiboy? He is the poster child for retarded moronic partisan hackery.

Hell, he isn't even right on anything.

[RUEZ]

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

As for reality, Canada sent JTF2 into Afghanistan before the Americans or anyone else sent troops anywhere. After 9/11 our troops were first.

You are saying Canadian troops were in Afghanistan before American troops? Are you sure about that?

Did you question yetiboy on his obviously incorrect statement when he said that Canada didn't deploy anybody to the 'Stan until after Iraq?

Why pick on Winnipegger, a very fair debating, and not attack yetiboy? He is the poster child for retarded moronic partisan hackery.

Hell, he isn't even right on anything.

Who are you the forum police? I'll ask a question of whoever I want, it's up to them to answer or not. Since when is asking someone a question picking on them? I didn't even do what you do and start insulting him.

[DerbyX]

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

As for reality, Canada sent JTF2 into Afghanistan before the Americans or anyone else sent troops anywhere. After 9/11 our troops were first.

You are saying Canadian troops were in Afghanistan before American troops? Are you sure about that?

Did you question yetiboy on his obviously incorrect statement when he said that Canada didn't deploy anybody to the 'Stan until after Iraq?

Why pick on Winnipegger, a very fair debating, and not attack yetiboy? He is the poster child for retarded moronic partisan hackery.

Hell, he isn't even right on anything.

Who are you the forum police? I'll ask a question of whoever I want, it's up to them to answer or not. Since when is asking someone a question picking on them? I didn't even do what you do and start insulting him.

A bit touchy eh?

Who the fuck are you to attack Tricks you prick?

Who are you to accuse me of anything?

Who the fuck are you to do any of the crybaby pedantic whinging about everybody else when you are not honest enough to accept even slight comments directed towards your deplorable behaviour?



It must suck when that pathetic holier than thou attitude you threw at Tricks gets trust on you.

In the end you haven't bothered to even answer the quite friendly questions I pose to you with regards to CON hypocracy.

Surprised? I'm not.

[Winnipegger]

Perhaps I should explain something else. Factions in the Middle East do not work with their allies the way Western or European countries do. Each faction wants to achieve unilateral power, but they don't have enough military resources to achieve that goal by themselves. So they form alliances to take out a common enemy. However, a faction that currently rules their respective country will want all foreign troops off their soil, and no foreign influence over their government or their people. So they will expect their ally to leave as soon as the common enemy is defeated. If the ally doesn't leave immediately, the ally quickly becomes the next enemy. Then they look for another ally, someone quarrelling with their new enemy. That way their new ally may be a faction they just had a simmering disagreement with, perhaps not the faction they just warred with but one that was previously on their bad list because it was an enemy of a then-ally. These fickle alliances are constantly shifting.

To make matters more complicated, governments of countries are not formed by elections, they're formed by civil war. To win a war each faction tries to rally support for their cause, convincing their members they have to fight in combat in order to show true support. Citizens often throw their support behind whoever appears to be strongest, so this because a slippery game of attempting to retain strength and undermine their opponent's strength, while playing shadow games to make themselves appear stronger than they are, and their opponent appear weaker then they really are. These factions often try to assert influence across the Middle East, crossing national boundaries, threatening not only rival factions within their own countries but the government (current ruling faction) of neighbouring countries. Of course this really pisses off their neighbours, causing more wars.

It's all very unstable and very violent. They've been doing this since before Christ. When the US tried to organize the rural tribes of Afghanistan to form the Mujahideen, some people in the US thought the Mujahideen was their dog, their vassal, their subordinate. What they didn't realize is the Mujahideen were never a single cohesive organization, they were a loose group of tribes who all used the US for military training, weapons, ammunition and supplies. As far as Afghan locals were concerned, the US was just another faction in the ever shifting fickle alliance structure. After the Soviets were out, they wanted the US to get out, and were prepared to treat the US as their next enemy if they didn't. The US, however, thought the Mujahideen was now their vassal. As with all factions in that area, the loose collection of tribes called Mujahideen broke up into two primary groups: Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Taliban wanted to become the government of Afghanistan, but Al Qaeda wanted to eliminate all Western influence in the Middle East. They went their separate ways, but once the Taliban became successful in obtaining power they needed an ally to complete conquering Afghanistan and to hold it. They formed yet another temporary alliance, this time with Al Qaeda.

The Taliban are not loyal to Al Qaeda, but they will work together as long as they have a common enemy. As long as you attack both and treat them as the same, they will continue to fight together. But if you target Al Qaeda and tell the Taliban you will leave them alone as long as they don't protect Al Qaeda, they will abandon Al Qaeda.

The other complication is the citizens of Afghanistan are so used to civil war, they expect the current government to hunt down and kill the previous government. The current government is doing just that, although Canadian Forces are trying to convince them not to. Afghani citizens have stated that if Canadian forces are not willing to hunt down and kill the Taliban, they're useless. They don't understand peacekeeping or how to live in peace along side members of an opposing political party. They really don't have political parties like we understand them, they have factions who kill each other. So they want Canadian Forces to hunt and kill members of the faction that was the previous government. Now Canadian Forces are doing just that. Rather than teaching Afghanis how to live peacefully in a democracy, they're dragging us down to their level; they are indoctrinating us into thinking we need to kill members of the opposite political faction. Rather than teaching them how to live in peace, they are corrupting us.

[RUEZ]

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

As for reality, Canada sent JTF2 into Afghanistan before the Americans or anyone else sent troops anywhere. After 9/11 our troops were first.

You are saying Canadian troops were in Afghanistan before American troops? Are you sure about that?

Did you question yetiboy on his obviously incorrect statement when he said that Canada didn't deploy anybody to the 'Stan until after Iraq?

Why pick on Winnipegger, a very fair debating, and not attack yetiboy? He is the poster child for retarded moronic partisan hackery.

Hell, he isn't even right on anything.

Who are you the forum police? I'll ask a question of whoever I want, it's up to them to answer or not. Since when is asking someone a question picking on them? I didn't even do what you do and start insulting him.

A bit touchy eh?

Who the fuck are you to attack Tricks you prick?

Who are you to accuse me of anything?

Who the fuck are you to do any of the crybaby pedantic whinging about everybody else when you are not honest enough to accept even slight comments directed towards your deplorable behaviour?



It must suck when that pathetic holier than thou attitude you threw at Tricks gets trust on you.

In the end you haven't bothered to even answer the quite friendly questions I pose to you with regards to CON hypocracy.

Surprised? I'm not.

Someone's doing a lot of crying here, don't you even stop for Christmas? Oh sorry xmas for you.

[Winnipegger]

The Canadian media made a big deal at the time of bragging that JTF2 was in while the American military was still staging.

[DerbyX]

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

As for reality, Canada sent JTF2 into Afghanistan before the Americans or anyone else sent troops anywhere. After 9/11 our troops were first.

You are saying Canadian troops were in Afghanistan before American troops? Are you sure about that?

Did you question yetiboy on his obviously incorrect statement when he said that Canada didn't deploy anybody to the 'Stan until after Iraq?

Why pick on Winnipegger, a very fair debating, and not attack yetiboy? He is the poster child for retarded moronic partisan hackery.

Hell, he isn't even right on anything.

Who are you the forum police? I'll ask a question of whoever I want, it's up to them to answer or not. Since when is asking someone a question picking on them? I didn't even do what you do and start insulting him.

A bit touchy eh?

Who the fuck are you to attack Tricks you prick?

Who are you to accuse me of anything?

Who the fuck are you to do any of the crybaby pedantic whinging about everybody else when you are not honest enough to accept even slight comments directed towards your deplorable behaviour?



It must suck when that pathetic holier than thou attitude you threw at Tricks gets trust on you.

In the end you haven't bothered to even answer the quite friendly questions I pose to you with regards to CON hypocracy.

Surprised? I'm not.

Someone's doing a lot of crying here, don't you even stop for Christmas? Oh sorry xmas for you.

Nope. I put togeather a rather friendly post towards you and was rewarded with shite responses.

Aside from your pissy response to tricks, can you bother to at least put togeather a coherent argument to the points I made?

Can you?

About, Xmas. What's your excuse for posting on your hallowed holiday, stolen from the pagans of course?

Bordem?

[RUEZ]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Nope. I put togeather a rather friendly post towards you and was rewarded with shite responses.

Aside from your pissy response to tricks, can you bother to at least put togeather a coherent argument to the points I made?

Can you?

About, Xmas. What's your excuse for posting on your hallowed holiday, stolen from the pagans of course?

Bordem?

It wasn't friendly at all, you challenged who I should ask questions of, even accused me of picking on him. WTF does Tricks have to do with this thread? As for Christmas I don't think there's any rule about not doing anything today. It's usually customary to be nice to your fellow man though. Ya I know damn Christians and there goodwill toward men.

[DerbyX]

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Nope. I put togeather a rather friendly post towards you and was rewarded with shite responses.

Aside from your pissy response to tricks, can you bother to at least put togeather a coherent argument to the points I made?

Can you?

About, Xmas. What's your excuse for posting on your hallowed holiday, stolen from the pagans of course?

Bordem?

It wasn't friendly at all, you challenged who I should ask questions of, even accused me of picking on him. WTF does Tricks have to do with this thread? As for Christmas I don't think there's any rule about not doing anything today. It's usually customary to be nice to your fellow man though. Ya I know damn Christians and there goodwill toward men.

Really? You "attacked me" me becasue you thought I was unfairly attacking yetiboy by blanket condemnation of all cons.

$1:

Posting problems aside,

This is a topic that more then a few have posted similiar opinions and quite frankly they all seem to bend the same politically.

Out of respect to Tricks I won't debate yetiboy as a "conservative" unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

In any case I'm curious to read your response (time permitting) to the other points I mentioned since you seem to represent a relatively non-partisan conservative side of the argument.

I would be appreciative to any response concerning the (what I consider) very hypocritical stance attacking Chretien for both deploying the troops "underequiped" and not deploying the troops at all.

In addition, given the truth that Chretien would have been vilified far worse then on Iraq had he not deployed the troops to the Stan at all (let alone being one if the first) dure to reasons of unreadiness.

Quite frankly if Harper received anywhere near the level of responsibility that "ÿou guys" assign to Chretien/Martin then we might actually see the results "ÿou guys" expected from his gov't.

In terms of military spending, if the Libs were so awful we would have seen an exponential growth rather then one attributed to debt reduction savings and growth.

Fair is fair right?

Was any of that offensive and did you respond to most of it?

No. You have no leg to stand on.

As for Tricks, he has nothning to do with this particular thread on the surface but considering that he is one of the few Cons to attack that asshole yetiboy for his continual librano BS I respect him for that and defend him against your wrongful accusations and biased BS.

You answered nothing I wanted you to despite my amiable presentation and quite frankly I have invested all the time I can tonight.

later, I'm sure.

It would be helpful if one of "you guys" were actually able to answer the hypocracy you seem to toss around so freely.

[RUEZ]

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Nope. I put togeather a rather friendly post towards you and was rewarded with shite responses.

Aside from your pissy response to tricks, can you bother to at least put togeather a coherent argument to the points I made?

Can you?

About, Xmas. What's your excuse for posting on your hallowed holiday, stolen from the pagans of course?

Bordem?

It wasn't friendly at all, you challenged who I should ask questions of, even accused me of picking on him. WTF does Tricks have to do with this thread? As for Christmas I don't think there's any rule about not doing anything today. It's usually customary to be nice to your fellow man though. Ya I know damn Christians and there goodwill toward men.

Really? You "attacked me" me becasue you thought I was unfairly attacking yetiboy by blanket condemnation of all cons.

$1:

Posting problems aside,

This is a topic that more then a few have posted similiar opinions and quite frankly they all seem to bend the same politically.

Out of respect to Tricks I won't debate yetiboy as a "conservative" unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

In any case I'm curious to read your response (time permitting) to the other points I mentioned since you seem to represent a relatively non-partisan conservative side of the argument.

I would be appreciative to any response concerning the (what I consider) very hypocritical stance attacking Chretien for both deploying the troops "underequiped" and not deploying the troops at all.

In addition, given the truth that Chretien would have been vilified far worse then on Iraq had he not deployed the troops to the Stan at all (let alone being one if the first) dure to reasons of unreadiness.

Quite frankly if Harper received anywhere near the level of responsibility that "ÿou guys" assign to Chretien/Martin then we might actually see the results "ÿou guys" expected from his gov't.

In terms of military spending, if the Libs were so awful we would have seen an exponential growth rather then one attributed to debt reduction savings and growth.

Fair is fair right?

Was any of that offensive and did you respond to most of it?

No. You have no leg to stand on.

As for Tricks, he has nothning to do with this particular thread on the surface but considering that he is one of the few Cons to attack that asshole yetiboy for his continual librano BS I respect him for that and defend him against your wrongful accusations and biased BS.

You answered nothing I wanted you to despite my amiable presentation and quite frankly I have invested all the time I can tonight.

later, I'm sure.

It would be helpful if one of "you guys" were actually able to answer the hypocracy you seem to toss around so freely.

FYI everybody, don't as Derby Questions he'll think you're attacking him. Sleep it off drunky.

[DerbyX]

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Nope. I put togeather a rather friendly post towards you and was rewarded with shite responses.

Aside from your pissy response to tricks, can you bother to at least put togeather a coherent argument to the points I made?

Can you?

About, Xmas. What's your excuse for posting on your hallowed holiday, stolen from the pagans of course?

Bordem?

It wasn't friendly at all, you challenged who I should ask questions of, even accused me of picking on him. WTF does Tricks have to do with this thread? As for Christmas I don't think there's any rule about not doing anything today. It's usually customary to be nice to your fellow man though. Ya I know damn Christians and there goodwill toward men.

Really? You "attacked me" me becasue you thought I was unfairly attacking yetiboy by blanket condemnation of all cons.

$1:

Posting problems aside,

This is a topic that more then a few have posted similiar opinions and quite frankly they all seem to bend the same politically.

Out of respect to Tricks I won't debate yetiboy as a "conservative" unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

In any case I'm curious to read your response (time permitting) to the other points I mentioned since you seem to represent a relatively non-partisan conservative side of the argument.

I would be appreciative to any response concerning the (what I consider) very hypocritical stance attacking Chretien for both deploying the troops "underequiped" and not deploying the troops at all.

In addition, given the truth that Chretien would have been vilified far worse then on Iraq had he not deployed the troops to the Stan at all (let alone being one if the first) dure to reasons of unreadiness.

Quite frankly if Harper received anywhere near the level of responsibility that "ÿou guys" assign to Chretien/Martin then we might actually see the results "ÿou guys" expected from his gov't.

In terms of military spending, if the Libs were so awful we would have seen an exponential growth rather then one attributed to debt reduction savings and growth.

Fair is fair right?

Was any of that offensive and did you respond to most of it?

No. You have no leg to stand on.

As for Tricks, he has nothning to do with this particular thread on the surface but considering that he is one of the few Cons to attack that asshole yetiboy for his continual librano BS I respect him for that and defend him against your wrongful accusations and biased BS.

You answered nothing I wanted you to despite my amiable presentation and quite frankly I have invested all the time I can tonight.

later, I'm sure.

It would be helpful if one of "you guys" were actually able to answer the hypocracy you seem to toss around so freely.

FYI everybody, don't as Derby Questions he'll think you're attacking him. Sleep it off drunky.

Whats the matter Alky? Can't even answer direct questions.

Go back over the whole thread. Judge your responses with the same yard stick you do everybody else.

Were you not asked questions in a very fair manner?

Did you not ignore all those questions in favour of attacking everybody else for infractions you yourself are the worst offender?

You still won't answer.

None of you fucking blind cons ever do. You just trudge along in some never never land where your precious harper didn't actually do everything he actually did.

Suxs to be you.

[RUEZ]

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

RUEZ RUEZ:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Nope. I put togeather a rather friendly post towards you and was rewarded with shite responses.

Aside from your pissy response to tricks, can you bother to at least put togeather a coherent argument to the points I made?

Can you?

About, Xmas. What's your excuse for posting on your hallowed holiday, stolen from the pagans of course?

Bordem?

It wasn't friendly at all, you challenged who I should ask questions of, even accused me of picking on him. WTF does Tricks have to do with this thread? As for Christmas I don't think there's any rule about not doing anything today. It's usually customary to be nice to your fellow man though. Ya I know damn Christians and there goodwill toward men.

Really? You "attacked me" me becasue you thought I was unfairly attacking yetiboy by blanket condemnation of all cons.

$1:

Posting problems aside,

This is a topic that more then a few have posted similiar opinions and quite frankly they all seem to bend the same politically.

Out of respect to Tricks I won't debate yetiboy as a "conservative" unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

In any case I'm curious to read your response (time permitting) to the other points I mentioned since you seem to represent a relatively non-partisan conservative side of the argument.

I would be appreciative to any response concerning the (what I consider) very hypocritical stance attacking Chretien for both deploying the troops "underequiped" and not deploying the troops at all.

In addition, given the truth that Chretien would have been vilified far worse then on Iraq had he not deployed the troops to the Stan at all (let alone being one if the first) dure to reasons of unreadiness.

Quite frankly if Harper received anywhere near the level of responsibility that "ÿou guys" assign to Chretien/Martin then we might actually see the results "ÿou guys" expected from his gov't.

In terms of military spending, if the Libs were so awful we would have seen an exponential growth rather then one attributed to debt reduction savings and growth.

Fair is fair right?

Was any of that offensive and did you respond to most of it?

No. You have no leg to stand on.

As for Tricks, he has nothning to do with this particular thread on the surface but considering that he is one of the few Cons to attack that asshole yetiboy for his continual librano BS I respect him for that and defend him against your wrongful accusations and biased BS.

You answered nothing I wanted you to despite my amiable presentation and quite frankly I have invested all the time I can tonight.

later, I'm sure.

It would be helpful if one of "you guys" were actually able to answer the hypocracy you seem to toss around so freely.

FYI everybody, don't as Derby Questions he'll think you're attacking him. Sleep it off drunky.

Whats the matter Alky? Can't even answer direct questions.

Go back over the whole thread. Judge your responses with the same yard stick you do everybody else.

Were you not asked questions in a very fair manner?

Did you not ignore all those questions in favour of attacking everybody else for infractions you yourself are the worst offender?

You still won't answer.

None of you fucking blind cons ever do. You just trudge along in some never never land where your precious harper didn't actually do everything he actually did.

Suxs to be you.

People like you are funny, you divert attention away from yourself by claiming that I am attacking you by asking you a simple question with no insults at all. Will you be so kind to illustrate where I have attacked you? I don't really expect honesty from you, I haven't forgotten about your last accusation, I'm still waiting for some proof by the way. If you are so thin skinned that a simple question seems like an attack to you, you might want to step away from your computer for awhile. Nice way to end your post, with another attack against the Conservative supporting members. Merry Xmas Derby.

[sasquatch2]

From DerbyX's post

$1:

Although not participating in the opening days of the invasion, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced on October 7 that Canada would contribute forces to the international force being formed to conduct a campaign against terrorism.

Correcting LIBRANO spin or asking the usual suspects a question is....attacking, flamming, etc especially in view that their freudian way of conceeding defeat is a barage of insults and foul language.....real elemetary school yard stuff. Fools like Derby are cases of arrested development.

[DerbyX]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

From DerbyX's post

$1:

Although not participating in the opening days of the invasion, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced on October 7 that Canada would contribute forces to the international force being formed to conduct a campaign against terrorism.

Correcting LIBRANO spin or asking the usual suspects a question is....attacking, flamming, etc especially in view that their freudian way of conceeding defeat is a barage of insults and foul language.....real elemetary school yard stuff. Fools like Derby are cases of arrested development.

Proving CONserveIdiot's wrong is too easy.

You said:

$1:

Canada(Cretin) did not commit CF to Afghanistan until the Iraq thing was well underway. The US administration had no request/wish for Canadian participation in the Iraq matter despite LIBRANO lies to the contrary. There was never any doubt as to Canada's UN/NATO role in Afghanistan other than what it is...in fact Martin elected the CF move to Kandahar.

You were proven wrong. Chretien did indeed commit the CF to Afghanistan long before Iraq.

Facts are like kryptonite to you aren't they.