[OPP]

Schleihauf Schleihauf:

OPP OPP:

What's the question again?

You're saying the Saudis have better living standards than Afghanistan and my question was, I'll spell it out for you; Do you think that perhaps this could have some connection to Saudi Arabias huge deposites of oil and Afghanistans lack of oil?

I think it has to do more with decades of war and instability.

Yeah, sure it is.

[PENATRATOR]

DerbyX DerbyX:

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Any regime that activily supports terrorist and tolerates their training camps and what not, is a threat to the civilized world, Sweden included.
Not to mention the archaic system they had in place, I am really shocked about how so many lefties here are all about human rights and love ins, yet don't recognize the way people are treated under Taliban rule.

Pretty sentiments but not only was the US fully aware of these conditions they were prepared to ignore them before and after 9/11 in exchange of OBL. In addition you righties laughed at bleeding heart liberals crying about the deplorable conditions in places like afghanistan because it wasn't your problem just like we don't hear any outcries over far worse conditions around the globe.

Where is Canada in places that are far worse off like Africa?

We could help more people with less money without the need to waste billions fighting a useless war diminishing our reputation worldwide and causing rifts within our own country as partisan lines are drawn.

I can only imagine the crying on here had NATO moved on the terrorist sympathisers before THEY ATACKED an NATO allie. Is that what you are condoning? We should have went there without provocation?

[PENATRATOR]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Not to mention the archaic system they had in place, I am really shocked about how so many lefties here are all about human rights and love ins, yet don't recognize the way people are treated under Taliban rule.

Thats fucking bullshit.

These wars have nothing to do with freeing people or ending terrorism.

If the point was to end tyrrany and free people from oppression and snuff out terrorism then the Saudi's would be in big shit.

The Taliban, as you know, are American trained dogs who turned on their masters, just like Saddam. Pakistan will be next even though they have some resembalance of a democratic government there. UNLIKE THE SAUDI'S.

So stuff your "Freeing people from Tyrrany" bullshit in a sack and go sell it to some other suckers.

We are more likely to be attacked by Taliban and other terrorists if we follow Americans into their fucked up messes instead of minding our own.

Earth to Indian, we were attacked by terrorists, maybe it was not our soil but it was our NATO Allie, but we lost citizens in 9/11 also. Recently a Canadian journalist has been kidnapped by Muslim radicals, and let's not forget you buddies in Caledonia and Deseronto, terrorists and thugs.

[Streaker]

Canada was not attacked.

This isn't our fight.

[DerbyX]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

I can only imagine the crying on here had NATO moved on the terrorist sympathisers before THEY ATACKED an NATO allie. Is that what you are condoning? We should have went there without provocation?

The Taliban did not attack anyone nor were they a supporting cast.

Once again, the US were not in the least bit concerned with the plight of the Afghans before or even after 9/11 nor was Canada. The US and the USSR fought a war by proxy that left the region in tatters and the US was more concerned with giving the USSR a lengthy and draining war (likely what others want us to do now) then with humanitrian causes.

Time everybody stopped meddling in their affairs lest somebody start meddling in ours for whatever reason they care to justify.

[DerbyX]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Earth to Indian, we were attacked by terrorists, maybe it was not our soil but it was our NATO Allie, but we lost citizens in 9/11 also. Recently a Canadian journalist has been kidnapped by Muslim radicals, and let's not forget you buddies in Caledonia and Deseronto, terrorists and thugs.

Then you agree that since the US attacked Iraq without provocation or justification the Iraqis are perfectly justified in attacking the US along with anybody who cares to call them an ally?

[bootlegga]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

But they have enough gas to "fight" somalis on a barge with a 30 HP Johnson engine and a lee enfield!

Don't worry, given Harper's callous indifference to the air force and navy, soon, we'll be little more than a third world banana republic, possessing an army with all the latest toys, yet unable to patrol even our own borders.

Like it or not, the Navy provides a vital service your branch of the armed forces is incapable of.

It's sad that you are so selfish and can only look to support your own branch of the CF.

[PENATRATOR]

OPP OPP:

martin14 martin14:

small price to pay for our security at home.

You're joking, right? The war in afghanistan is supposed to keep Canada safe from what? The talliban? Al Qaida?

The talliban were never a threat to NA and Al qaida was routed out of the area in a few weeks.

martin14 ->

Atlantic is a mighty big ocean was Germany a threat to Canada in 1914 or 1939? Is it ok that we got involved because of all those white people's countries they were invading and attacking, not poor 3rd world Afghanies?

[PENATRATOR]

bootlegga bootlegga:

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

But they have enough gas to "fight" somalis on a barge with a 30 HP Johnson engine and a lee enfield!

Don't worry, given Harper's callous indifference to the air force and navy, soon, we'll be little more than a third world banana republic, possessing an army with all the latest toys, yet unable to patrol even our own borders.

Like it or not, the Navy provides a vital service your branch of the armed forces is incapable of.

It's sad that you are so selfish and can only look to support your own branch of the CF.

You really should not assume so much of somebody you know nothing about Boots!

[bootlegga]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Perhaps a methinks as a military man yourself you seem to be missing or ignoring a few points. Harper was the self appointed champion of the military and the guy that most of you military types proudly stated would put real money back into the military. Afterall he promised so much. Time and again his military promises have been broken in favour of other funding and worse yet he cancelled many already in the works purchases yet all we hear about are "he's got priorities".

So did the Liberals in '93 yet less military support of the Harpers's CPC is expected then of the party that gave us the so called "decade of darkness".

The navy might not be dukeing it out in Afghanistan but of the branches it requires the greatest promise and commitment to long term vision in order to make multi-billion dollar purchases or years from now we'll reap the neglect.

Harper has (or had) the money now. 8.8 billion in pork and now a proven record of funding the war effort far less the the Liberals and yet somehow the equates to him "loving the military" and the Libs "hating them".

It seems to me that if you guys are so satisfied with the minimal effort for the military on Harpers behalf then you weren't being honest about the Liberal lack of support or won't have any reason to bitch about funding when they get back in be it this election or the next.

Quite frankly the way this is shaping up is that Harper will continue his lacklustre economic performance and because he has no money to invest in the military (it all went to pork) the years of regrowth will be nullifyed and he'll hand a deficit and weakened military back over to the Liberals who will then be blamed for the state of the military because they didn't fix everything back in the 90's and early 00's.

The people who should be talking loudly about Harpers lack of support is you guys and if you won't hold him accoutable on the eve of an election then who the hell do you think will?

How you guys can defend Harpers military funding policies when he breaks promises, cancels purchases and now has a record of less actual war funding is beyond me. A lack of proper defence spending certainly won't be the fault of a party villified by the same military who openly supported the very guy damaging it.

[OPP]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

OPP OPP:

martin14 martin14:

small price to pay for our security at home.

You're joking, right? The war in afghanistan is supposed to keep Canada safe from what? The talliban? Al Qaida?

The talliban were never a threat to NA and Al qaida was routed out of the area in a few weeks.

martin14 ->

Atlantic is a mighty big ocean was Germany a threat to Canada in 1914 or 1939? Is it ok that we got involved because of all those white people's countries they were invading and attacking, not poor 3rd world Afghanies?

You're not making any sense?

[Regina]

DerbyX DerbyX:

The Taliban did not attack anyone nor were they a supporting cast.

Once again, the US were not in the least bit concerned with the plight of the Afghans before or even after 9/11 nor was Canada.

Actually that’s not totally accurate. A few years before NATO went in there was a growing US group led by Jay Leno’s wife, who were educating the public and gather political influence to deal with the Taliban in regards to women being slaughtered there.

[PENATRATOR]

DerbyX DerbyX:

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Earth to Indian, we were attacked by terrorists, maybe it was not our soil but it was our NATO Allie, but we lost citizens in 9/11 also. Recently a Canadian journalist has been kidnapped by Muslim radicals, and let's not forget you buddies in Caledonia and Deseronto, terrorists and thugs.

Then you agree that since the US attacked Iraq without provocation or justification the Iraqis are perfectly justified in attacking the US along with anybody who cares to call them an ally?

I challenge you Derb to find a post on here by me since 03/04 where I EVER said invading Iraq was a good idea. I support the Troops on the ground (those that are not running to Canada that is) as they are doing their job. I still believe they should have dealt with Saddham in 91.
I do agree the world is a better place without old Saddham around. As for Iraq attacking us, not really feasible, though I know you are just stating an example, as we were not in the Iraq war, I don't think they would be all that pissed at us, though any radical muslim will hate us regardless of his postal code.

[DerbyX]

Regina Regina:

DerbyX DerbyX:

The Taliban did not attack anyone nor were they a supporting cast.

Once again, the US were not in the least bit concerned with the plight of the Afghans before or even after 9/11 nor was Canada.

Actually that’s not totally accurate. A few years before NATO went in there was a growing US group led by Jay Leno’s wife, who were educating the public and gather political influence to deal with the Taliban in regards to women being slaughtered there.

Yes, just as there were a few bleeding heart liberals (note lower case) who made the film "behind the veil". Perhaps I should have said that the US govt wasn't the least bit concered with what the Taliban was doing as long as its interests were being served.

In other words we don't care what atrocities others commit as long as they are our allies or at least not openly beligerents.

In my opinion that invalidates any possible argument that we are there to help the people no matter how much foriegn aid we shovel into the region especially when we turn a blind eye to so many others even worse off.

[bootlegga]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

The Army had been neglected for a couple of decades. Unless you count the purchase of LSVW's as a good solid investment. The Navy aquired 10 CPF's in the 90's, I am sure you can google the cost of those much needed ships. I make no change to my comment, if there is only so much to go round, then obviously the guys in need the most are the ones going at it in Afghanistan. The ships painting trips can wait when kit and supplies are needed in SW Asia.

The Army was neglected, yes. Mulroney promised all sorts of things, tanks, Arctic APCs and then turned around and cancelled them after he was elected. Then he helped sell off the Chinooks and started the buy-out plan that saw so many vets retire early, further emasculating the CF. While Chretien was no picnic, he did buy all those lovely LAV IIIs we are using in Afghanistan right now (for the low, low cost of 2 billion or so), for just a little less than the cost of the Halifaxes (they actually built 12, not 10). Then after 9/11, he poured more money in to the Army and bought G-Wagens, Nyalas, M777 Howitzers, etc.

Everyone here bitches that Canada is a nobody on the international scene and that other countries don't respect us. Well, guess how we earn that respect? Things like guarding the Suez Canal during a ceasefire, walking the line in Cyprus, kicking ass in Korea, fighting the Taliban, creating fresh drinking water for Sri Lankans after a tsunami and guarding food ships are some of the ways the CF does that.

As gung ho as you are, the CF is not all about fighting. Yes, the vast majority of its mission profiles include combat. However, simply being there can deter combat in the first place. An excellent example of this was the 40+ years our troops spent in Germany. That didn't involve a lick of combat, but certainly prevented a war didn't it?

Same goes for our naval missions to Haiti, East Timor, Louisana, and other places. All of them may not involve combat but are still important, either in training our sailors for future combat situations or preventing it in the first place. That mission off Africa which you make light off is as important, if not more than Afghanistan, simply because we are helping to see that thousands of people eat today, tomorrow and the next day. Yes, the Navy has missions, which in your eyes seem questionable, but there are similar Army missions where the troops don't see a lick of action and wind up 'training' in bars. Should we cancel all those too? Of course not, because work does get done on those missions too, be it training, liasion with allies, whatever. I suppose you'd be in favour of tying our ships up in port and letting them rust, instead of properly maintaining them? Maybe that's why those trips are important...

Yes, the army needs funding for Afghanistan, but it's not the be all and end all of the CF. With Harper funding less than 29% of Afghanistan's costs, he's actually worse than Chretien, which is mind-boggling!