[Winnipegger]

So, yet another thread on the same topic; when will you guys learn to consolidate?

ridenrain ridenrain:

When did it stop being a good, noble thing to do and started to tarnish canada's peace keeping image?

The day when Stephen Harper announced that Canadian Forces will target the Taliban.

I don't see how taking out al-Qaeda in Pakistan is incompatible with ending the combat mission in Afghanistan. The point is we have to put an end to combat quickly. This protracted occupation has to stop. As long as al-Qaeda can cross the Pakistan/Afghanistan border freely we'll never make any progress.

DerbyX DerbyX:

It stopped being noble the moment we decide that since we failed to get OBL we might as well make ourselves at home and force our beliefs on others because we happen to be in the neighbourhood.

[ridenrain]

Please show me when Harper announced that Canada was on the offensive? I can show you where Dion called for taliban prisoners to be sent to Canada, I guess to hang out with the other lberal supporters, Palastinian, Sikh and Tamil terrorists.

You can't stop an insurgency action quickly.
You don't win hearts and minds at the barrel of a gun.

[Winnipegger]

One man's insurgent is another's freedom fighter. No foreign forces have any hope of creating a peaceful democracy as long as a significant proportion of Afghan citizens join or support the "insurgents".

As for Harper announcing Canada was targetting the Taliban (that's the way I worded it), that was a news announcement on CBC. Harper himself said it on camera. You can dig through the CBC website archives just as well as me. I did find this article that has a reference to it at the bottom.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/04/harper060404.html

ridenrain ridenrain:

You don't win hearts and minds at the barrel of a gun.

Uh, that's my point. Why do you say that after arguing against me? Why would you say that while continuing to advocate a prolonged combat role in Afghanistan?

[ridenrain]

$1:

One man's insurgent is another's freedom fighter.

Do you class suicide bombers as freedom fighters?
People who blow up innocent people in a market?
What about the taliban who murdered a teen because he had American money?

That little saying is bantered about but I can't see how someone who terrorizes and murders indescriminately can use the lable freedom.

I'm still not sure that it was Harper who finally started the shooting war. We know Dion wanted to bring Taliban prisoners to Canada, and we finally had the guts to call the taliban "scumbags".

[Winnipegger]

ridenrain ridenrain:

$1:

One man's insurgent is another's freedom fighter.

Do you class suicide bombers as freedom fighters?
People who blow up innocent people in a market?
What about the taliban who murdered a teen because he had American money?

That little saying is bantered about but I can't see how someone who terrorizes and murders indescriminately can use the lable freedom.

I'm still not sure that it was Harper who finally started the shooting war. We know Dion wanted to bring Taliban prisoners to Canada, and we finally had the guts to call the taliban "scumbags".

Many battles have expected casualties; a certain number of your own soldiers will die. A suicide bomber reduces casualties on your side to one. It may be counter to our culture to accept a mission of certain death, but such a mission can reduce casualties. It's the harsh math of war.

The Taliban want to ensure civilians do not support foreign forces, so do what they feel they must to coerce civilians to not gain benefit by using resources acquired from those foreign troops or act as suppliers to foreign troops. So to their eyes anyone with American money is a collaborator for an occupying army. During World War 2 the French often used the same tactic on French civilians who collaborated with Nazis.

As for blowing up innocent people in a market, what were the circumstances? In the eyes of the Taliban, were they innocent? Were they foreigners (non-Afghanis)? If so the Taliban would not see them as innocent, but foreign forces and therefore a legitimate target. Were the collaborators? Again, if so the Taliban would see them as collaborators.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the Taliban. But you have to realize the Taliban see themselves as freedom fighters who are engaging in guerrilla warfare. The United States used guerrilla warfare itself to win the American War of Independence. I'm sure the British government at the time saw them as terrorists. This is why I wanted to target only al-Qaeda, not the Taliban. There is no ambiguity about taking out an enemy who took down the WTC and attacked the London underground.

[PluggyRug]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the Taliban. But you have to realize the Taliban see themselves as freedom fighters who are engaging in guerrilla warfare.

Freedom from what?

[Numure]

I hate the Liberals, always have. But I can't for someone to wake up and pull our troops out of that shit hole. Let them solve their own god forsaken problems.

[Numure]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the Taliban. But you have to realize the Taliban see themselves as freedom fighters who are engaging in guerrilla warfare.

Freedom from what?

Western Values. Not everyone thinks having a McDonalds at every street corner is the way to go, apparently. Kidding aside, they are fighting against Democracy, Liberal ideas, Western Influence of any sort.... The list goes on and on.

If only things could be solved by lining every taliban supporter on a wall and shooting them in the head... Sadly, 5 years later, they are still fighting. And we are paying the price for afghani independance. In the blood of our own, and with the money from our taxes.

I still don't see any advantage for Canada to keep supporting this ridiculous black hole.

[kenmore]

right on Numure....all we are is pissing in the wind.. they do not want western anything.. they dont even want it here... its a bush war ... bring em home.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Face it fella, you lost it.


You say:

DerbyX DerbyX:

At no time did you or anybody who voted for the CPC stand up and say "I support the Liberals and their decision".

And I said:

ridenrain ridenrain:

If this is the actual plan behind the Canadians in A-Stan, then Paul gets my Approval.

I had to quote the Western Standard report because I've never seen the Liberal plan ever printed before. I've repeated that in other places before and just to do it again: I approve of this Liberal plan for Afghanistan. Just to rub it in, I'll even use capitals when I say again: I aprove of Paul Martin's plan for Afghanistan.


Look at that, you partisan hack, I'm approving of something the Liberals did. I've even attacked my beloved Harper for dumb things. That sort of breaks the charactor image you try to paint on me.
Suck it up, buttercup. Just like the Conservative party has raised the bar in Canadian politics, I'm raising the bar for political comentary. You're actually going to have to see the greater good, not just blind party policy.

Sorry to correct you yet again oh grand marshal of the hack parade but your support of the Liberals has been anything but a well after the fact false praise statement.

You can't support them at the same time attacking them for sending them in ill-equiped. You can't suppor tthem at the same time bitch about them at every opportunity when family members of slain soldiers especially when you turn around and attack the family members when Harpers in charge.

You do remember your flip-flop on that one don't you.

You can't say you support them for their decision then use every single death, every possible political angle and every dishonest tactic to attack them for their decisuion all the while putting up a false front proclaiming some BS noble sentiment.

Like I said before, you didn't support the Liberals on Afghanistan becasue you use every opportunity to attack them over it which you then flip-flopped awhile back with your little statement about how people shouldn't be using (the very tactics you used) to attack a gov't during a time of war because it only emboldens the enemy.

You keep trying to paint yourself as some sort of honest political pundit but all you ever do is cry about the Liberals and when you do criticize the CPC you scold them as if they were 10 year old girls giggling to loud during a sleepover.

You do not hold the parties equally accountable as I do.

BTW, as long as you continue to use my words in your sig it only serves to show how much in awe you are of me and that I own you. That and the fact you now know just how wrong you where about the Liberals and they they are indeed the best party but you just can't admit it openly so your guilt drives you to display it.

Makes me smile.

[ridenrain]

You said no one supported them and I proved that I did, but now you're saying that I really don't..
Did you decide all that yourself or did you use the Dion "What he meant to say" machine?

You're not even amusing anymore.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

You said no one supported them and I proved that I did, but now you're saying that I really don't..
Did you decide all that yourself or did you use the Dion "What he meant to say" machine?

You're not even amusing anymore.

No, by your own words you didn't. You simply said you approved of Martins plan but like I have repeatedly shown, you always supplemented your comments with attacks on the Liberals.

Now you want to play word games by attempting to show that Dion wants a war with Pakistan but all you are doing is playing the very partisan politics and lack of solidarity that you said emboldened the enemy.

Its funny how when US top kicks were taking a hardline stance about Pakistan and they were actually musing that perhaps the US should take matters into their own hands if they couldn't you guys were quick to say it was the right message to send. Now another flip-flop.

Its getting too easy showing your hackery.

Always remember.

[ridenrain]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Its funny how when US top kicks were taking a hardline stance about Pakistan and they were actually musing that perhaps the US should take matters into their own hands if they couldn't you guys were quick to say it was the right message to send. Now another flip-flop.

What exactly does that even mean? If the US did make a bonehead comment like Dion made, wouldn't you slag them also, or was it right for Dion but wrong for the US?

Reguardless of who says it, threatening to invade an allie is stupid.

Again, you guys are all twisted to shit over Chretien's war. You're for it, then against it, then you want to pull out and attack our allies. It's not just inconsistant, it's random.
Did you give up on the red book and go with a blackboard instead?

You guys need a real leader.... like Iggy.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Its funny how when US top kicks were taking a hardline stance about Pakistan and they were actually musing that perhaps the US should take matters into their own hands if they couldn't you guys were quick to say it was the right message to send. Now another flip-flop.

What exactly does that even mean? If the US did make a bonehead comment like Dion made, wouldn't you slag them also, or was it right for Dion but wrong for the US?

Reguardless of who says it, threatening to invade an allie is stupid.

Again, you guys are all twisted to shit over Chretien's war. You're for it, then against it, then you want to pull out and attack our allies. It's not just inconsistant, it's random.
Did you give up on the red book and go with a blackboard instead?

You guys need a real leader.... like Iggy.

Perhaps if you came out of your hole to actually look around you might have noticed that US hardliners have been pointing out the porous borders to Pakistan and the lack of will/ability by their gov't to deal with the problem. Its hardly new and considering that Dion made similiar observations after talking to our troops on the ground you should learn a little more about the conflict other then "Canada good, everybody else bad".

As for your BS nonesense that bushs war is somehow Chretiens war, thats just your usual MO of not accepting responsibility as it is now Harpers decision to stay or go.

BTW, If you can't see that Dion didn't mean invade militarily then your english comprehension is simply getting worse and worse.

The fact that you simply don't understand what we actually invaded for wasn't this current mission or the fact that deciding enough is enough isn't cutting and running. Telling the Afghans that they had better start securing their own country and giving them a deadline might actually spur them to solve the crisis rather then us wasting greater and greater resources.

Always remember I own you.

[Scape]

Rain is Derbs bitch... too funny!