[goodfriend]

I don't think so .

[sasquatch2]

It is readily apparent that to justify their ideology a certain amount of denial is necessary. The usual suspects declare that the islamofascists do not seek to kill/enslave us! I know thye do because that is what the alleged moderate muslims tell me. That is their stated goal.

[lostalex]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

It is readily apparent that to justify their ideology a certain amount of denial is necessary. The usual suspects declare that the islamofascists do not seek to kill/enslave us! I know thye do because that is what the alleged moderate muslims tell me. That is their stated goal.

exactly. last time i checked it was iran that publically stated they wished to "wipe isreal and america off the map". of course alqueada and hammas, hezbollah etc etc have said exacly the same thing in even more horrific ways.

yet, it's America and the nato allies which are being outreagous and over-reacting!!????

are you f-ing kidding me?? could you imagine the headlines if the US or Isreal ever said something like "we want to wipe iran off the map, we want it to not exist anymore"???? are you f-ing kidding me???

[Bacardi4206]

"Ok, simple grammar error. This isn't what this is about, but I can see how you need to nit pick to try and bolster yourself up. Don't even get me started on your spelling or grammar because it's borderline grade 3 english. Such as forgetting to putting a question mark (?) after a question. Moving on..."

Actually, if you make a mistake with the spelling of something important to my arguement, I think it would be in my best interest to let you know that you spelled it wrong. As you made it state that I said one thing, when I said another. You don't really see why I would correct you there?

Also I don't put a question mark after sentences? As far as I can tell in my previous statement. I never asked a question of you, so why would I need a question mark?

"Again, you show flawed logic. I showed you how in my first post, but that wasn't enough. I guess we should have stayed out of the World Wars as well since we became targets only after joining the war. I guess Hitler would have just stopped his war after conqeuring Europe and the rest of Asia, but hey, at least WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TARGETS!!!!!! How selfish of you. Why help anyone? Those are traits of a coward, not a Canadian."

Why would you even compare the world wars to this? Do you even care for a reason of why your country gets into wars? When Canada entered Afghanistan. Did you even second guess it? or even ask why?

You are such a warmonger, we should have been taking out the terrorist organization. Not fighting a entire Insurgency, bringing country stability to people who obviously don't want it. Oh may I also remind you that NATO is setting up a democracy for them, there country but obviously we get to decide how its run and what system they should use.

This should be a war on terrorism, and that is not what is going on. America got attacked, we should be fighting terrorists. Instead our job is to fight civilians? Endless supply of Civilians. One day they are begging for our help, the next day they are grabbing AK-47's and shooting us the next. As Iraq plunges into complete failure, and Afghanistan shows hardly any signs of success. The only success we have had in this war was fixing some water filters for them, showing them a few things and training there police and army. As for the fight against the Insurgents, they post articles about how many Insurgents they killed. Guess what though, that's not a success story. "Good job Canada, we are ever closer to victory! We just killed 10 Insurgents today, of course there families will get pissed and want to fight us but the more we kill. The better off it is!". Great success line for the Front page of the Canadian Newspapers.

Guess what is in store for Canada for this war? We train the ANA, and AP. Once we think they can handle shit on there own, then we are out. Mission success right? We saved all the people of Afghanistan from certon doom, we setup there government. Setup there police and army and left all the Insurgents still there to be dealt with. We stopped the terrorism!, oh but wait. Wasn't it Iraq that had a government, Police and Army before? But a dictator came to power and shit was even worse then what they got now?

Isn't Pakistan a stable country? With Police and a Army but don't they still have a overload of terrorists that they cannot control?

My point is that, while the intentions of the war are all good but in reality, it's not as simple as just killing the bad guys and it's over with. We may have trained the ANA and AP but as far as terrorism is concerned. We accomplished nothing. Terrorism will still be there in Afghanistan, just like it does in other stable countries with police and army.

Except Canada is now in the History books of the war, we now got beef with them. We are now a valid target for terrorist attacks. Tell me man, what is more wiser?

Going blindly in a war, without knowing the consiquences or plan it out first?

"
While I couldn't find out how much money we spend with the U.N. and I don't know exactly what budgets cover what, I know we spend approximatley $15 billion in defense of this country. Almost $8 billion on Afghanistan. Now as I said, I don't know what money from our Defense Budget goes to our U.N. commitments or if it is a seperate budget, but I'm sure it isn't over the $8 billion that we have spent on Afghanistan. You would have me believe that over 50% of our defense budget goes towards the U.N.? ***Again, I don't know exactly what budgets cover our U.N. spending, so if someone could provide a link to clear it up, that would be appreciated***"

I don't recall ever saying 50% of our defense budget goes towards the U.N.? You seriously need to stop putting words in my mouth, as you said. "Until then, I can't and won't take you seriously, as I'm sure very few people do."

"I think we can agree the America is the most hated country in the world. Put yourself in a terrorists shoes. He wants to make a point. He has an oppurtunity to strike his most hated enemy (United States), or strike an enemy he's not that fond of (Canada). Who do you chose to make your point? We are their enemies by assosiation, and their enemies directly. "

Doesn't that kind of prove my point? That Terrorists strike at targets that they got beef with and hate and not just because they are a western country? Thanks for proving my point for me .

Though, We are their enemies by assosiation? Tell me then, as you simple just don't answer this question. Why wasn't Canada attacked while America and Britain were. Why wasn't every other country that is assosiated with America attacked either? I think you really need to re-think that statement.

[Bacardi4206]

"Oh, so the "terrorist leader" said it would be ok. I guess we should trust the "terrorist leader" Oh he said it twice now? Now he's really credible. You know what, probably more credible than you at this point."

He is creditable, as hes the leader of a terrorist organization. You know the guy who organizes all the attacks. That is part of what backs up my statement that they just don't attack random countries because they are western. They attack them because they hate them, and got beef with them. Along with the other things. You so far have not backed your statements with anything, you just shout out assumtions left and right about that making Muslims appear as evil satanists, just waiting in line to destroy the world.

"Also, you say terrorists are immoral for "blowing shit up," but at the same time you say they aren't immoral because they have a CAUSE for blowing shit up. Having morals and a cause are pretty much one and the same. You discredit yourself more and more every time you post. I love it."

Again with the putting words in my mouth, READ MY POSTS CORRECTLY. I never said they were moral, jesus man. Learn to read, this is like what the 5th time you put words in my mouth?

"You just watch to much movies, where terrorists are those immoral people whos goals are to just blow up shit. News flash mate, terrorists may be immoral but they don't just go around blowing shit up."

[mikewood86]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

"Ok, simple grammar error. This isn't what this is about, but I can see how you need to nit pick to try and bolster yourself up. Don't even get me started on your spelling or grammar because it's borderline grade 3 english. Such as forgetting to putting a question mark (?) after a question. Moving on..."

Actually, if you make a mistake with the spelling of something important to my arguement, I think it would be in my best interest to let you know that you spelled it wrong. As you made it state that I said one thing, when I said another. You don't really see why I would correct you there?

Also I don't put a question mark after sentences? As far as I can tell in my previous statement. I never asked a question of you, so why would I need a question mark?

"Again, you show flawed logic. I showed you how in my first post, but that wasn't enough. I guess we should have stayed out of the World Wars as well since we became targets only after joining the war. I guess Hitler would have just stopped his war after conqeuring Europe and the rest of Asia, but hey, at least WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TARGETS!!!!!! How selfish of you. Why help anyone? Those are traits of a coward, not a Canadian."

Why would you even compare the world wars to this? Do you even care for a reason of why your country gets into wars? When Canada entered Afghanistan. Did you even second guess it? or even ask why?

You are such a warmonger, we should have been taking out the terrorist organization. Not fighting a entire Insurgency, bringing country stability to people who obviously don't want it. Oh may I also remind you that NATO is setting up a democracy for them, there country but obviously we get to decide how its run and what system they should use.

This should be a war on terrorism, and that is not what is going on. America got attacked, we should be fighting terrorists. Instead our job is to fight civilians? Endless supply of Civilians. One day they are begging for our help, the next day they are grabbing AK-47's and shooting us the next. As Iraq plunges into complete failure, and Afghanistan shows hardly any signs of success. The only success we have had in this war was fixing some water filters for them, showing them a few things and training there police and army. As for the fight against the Insurgents, they post articles about how many Insurgents they killed. Guess what though, that's not a success story. "Good job Canada, we are ever closer to victory! We just killed 10 Insurgents today, of course there families will get pissed and want to fight us but the more we kill. The better off it is!". Great success line for the Front page of the Canadian Newspapers.

Guess what is in store for Canada for this war? We train the ANA, and AP. Once we think they can handle shit on there own, then we are out. Mission success right? We saved all the people of Afghanistan from certon doom, we setup there government. Setup there police and army and left all the Insurgents still there to be dealt with. We stopped the terrorism!, oh but wait. Wasn't it Iraq that had a government, Police and Army before? But a dictator came to power and shit was even worse then what they got now?

Isn't Pakistan a stable country? With Police and a Army but don't they still have a overload of terrorists that they cannot control?

My point is that, while the intentions of the war are all good but in reality, it's not as simple as just killing the bad guys and it's over with. We may have trained the ANA and AP but as far as terrorism is concerned. We accomplished nothing. Terrorism will still be there in Afghanistan, just like it does in other stable countries with police and army.

Except Canada is now in the History books of the war, we now got beef with them. We are now a valid target for terrorist attacks. Tell me man, what is more wiser?

Going blindly in a war, without knowing the consiquences or plan it out first?

"
While I couldn't find out how much money we spend with the U.N. and I don't know exactly what budgets cover what, I know we spend approximatley $15 billion in defense of this country. Almost $8 billion on Afghanistan. Now as I said, I don't know what money from our Defense Budget goes to our U.N. commitments or if it is a seperate budget, but I'm sure it isn't over the $8 billion that we have spent on Afghanistan. You would have me believe that over 50% of our defense budget goes towards the U.N.? ***Again, I don't know exactly what budgets cover our U.N. spending, so if someone could provide a link to clear it up, that would be appreciated***"

I don't recall ever saying 50% of our defense budget goes towards the U.N.? You seriously need to stop putting words in my mouth, as you said. "Until then, I can't and won't take you seriously, as I'm sure very few people do."

"I think we can agree the America is the most hated country in the world. Put yourself in a terrorists shoes. He wants to make a point. He has an oppurtunity to strike his most hated enemy (United States), or strike an enemy he's not that fond of (Canada). Who do you chose to make your point? We are their enemies by assosiation, and their enemies directly. "

Doesn't that kind of prove my point? That Terrorists strike at targets that they got beef with and hate and not just because they are a western country? Thanks for proving my point for me .

Though, We are their enemies by assosiation? Tell me then, as you simple just don't answer this question. Why wasn't Canada attacked while America and Britain were. Why wasn't every other country that is assosiated with America attacked either? I think you really need to re-think that statement.

Ok about the 50% of our defense budget. You said Canada spends more money (with military focus) on the U.N. than anything else. I stated we spent approximatley $8 billion on Afghanistan and approximatley $15 billion on defense. As I clearly wrote, do you think we take more than $8 billion (which is 53% of our defense budget and the amount we spent on Afghanistan) and spend it on the U.N. I don't think so. Please re-read that until it sinks in.

I also did answer why we weren't attacked. America was the better target. Read it again, America was the better target. Remember when I said they are the most hated country on Earth? That given the chance, terrorists would love to hit them the most. End point. I can't make it any clearer. Also, other countries that haven't been attacked, yet are involved in fighting in some way are Australia, Poland, Denmark, France, Italy....Why haven't they been attacked? Could it be that they aren't as good (good as in tactically for terrorists) of a target for them to strike? Could it be that it is difficult to prepare an attack nowadays? Anyways, I'm done solidifying my point, and debunking yours so I won't even respond further to this.

It is hard to plan for an insurgency in a war, but the terroists we are fighting likely make up the majority of the insurgency in some way or form.

Also, it is the Canadian Forces policy to not officially name numbers of those they have killed. While it rarely does get out from time to time, it is usually from other sources. How about you put some research in like you quickly told me to do?

Oh and another time you contradicted yourself is when you so delicatley put it that Pakistan is a stable country but at the same time they have an overload of terrorists that they cannot control. By definition that would be considered an unstable country, would it not? While there has been talks of going into Pakistan, this is a touchy situation. The main reason is their Nuclear Weapons. This is what we call a deterrent. It has deterred us from entering. Strategically, starting another war isn't in NATO or other countries interests. Thats why Hitler lost. Too many fronts to fight. Use your brain once in a while, and not your bleeding heart.

Also, I drew comparison to the World Wars, not because the war is the same, but to show you that if we stayed on the sidelines, eventually, the war comes to us. Wether we are used as a staging base to plan attacks, exploited financially, or directly attacked. I'm sorry, but even if we haven't been attacked (and there has been attempts), I won't have my country used as a base of operations or financially exploited to hurt other countries. Stop being an apoligist for terrorism. It hasn't done you any favours, while this country has given you everything.

Can you please stop comparing Iraq and Afghanistan to support your Afghanistan arguments? We are in one, and not in the other. I am strongly opposed to the Iraq war, but I support what we are doing in Afghanistan. So does the U.N.

And just to finish you off, you state that we are there establishing a democracy and for some reason that isn't good (oh but we're also setting up schools, roads, water canals, training the ANA and ANP, integrating the country into the rest of the world). Then you say it's not as easy as just killing terrorists. So, if we don't set up a working government and start educating them (which a working government will do), or we don't fight terrorists, what would you have us do? I already know. Sit on the sidelines waiting for our turn to get attacked.

I have so many points running through my head, but I'm done wasting my time with you. Just know I won't be respoding to anymore of your nonsense because you aren't worth the effort. You contradict yourself in every argument, and proved with your first post you don't know what you are talking about. I thought I would try, but you can't be taught.

[mikewood86]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

"Oh, so the "terrorist leader" said it would be ok. I guess we should trust the "terrorist leader" Oh he said it twice now? Now he's really credible. You know what, probably more credible than you at this point."

He is creditable, as hes the leader of a terrorist organization. You know the guy who organizes all the attacks. That is part of what backs up my statement that they just don't attack random countries because they are western. They attack them because they hate them, and got beef with them. Along with the other things. You so far have not backed your statements with anything, you just shout out assumtions left and right about that making Muslims appear as evil satanists, just waiting in line to destroy the world.
"Also, you say terrorists are immoral for "blowing shit up," but at the same time you say they aren't immoral because they have a CAUSE for blowing shit up. Having morals and a cause are pretty much one and the same. You discredit yourself more and more every time you post. I love it."

Again with the putting words in my mouth, READ MY POSTS CORRECTLY. I never said they were moral, jesus man. Learn to read, this is like what the 5th time you put words in my mouth?

"You just watch to much movies, where terrorists are those immoral people whos goals are to just blow up shit. News flash mate, terrorists may be immoral but they don't just go around blowing shit up."

Not once did I say that. I have clearly said terrorists. You're the one drawing conclusions that all terrorists are Muslim. What are you really trying to tell us? You're an appoligist for terrorism. You should be ashamed.

[Bodah]

kenmore kenmore:

sure do... talked to them yesterday....

with the help of his magical toaster

[Bacardi4206]

mikewood86 mikewood86:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

"Oh, so the "terrorist leader" said it would be ok. I guess we should trust the "terrorist leader" Oh he said it twice now? Now he's really credible. You know what, probably more credible than you at this point."

He is creditable, as hes the leader of a terrorist organization. You know the guy who organizes all the attacks. That is part of what backs up my statement that they just don't attack random countries because they are western. They attack them because they hate them, and got beef with them. Along with the other things. You so far have not backed your statements with anything, you just shout out assumtions left and right about that making Muslims appear as evil satanists, just waiting in line to destroy the world.
"Also, you say terrorists are immoral for "blowing shit up," but at the same time you say they aren't immoral because they have a CAUSE for blowing shit up. Having morals and a cause are pretty much one and the same. You discredit yourself more and more every time you post. I love it."

Again with the putting words in my mouth, READ MY POSTS CORRECTLY. I never said they were moral, jesus man. Learn to read, this is like what the 5th time you put words in my mouth?

"You just watch to much movies, where terrorists are those immoral people whos goals are to just blow up shit. News flash mate, terrorists may be immoral but they don't just go around blowing shit up."

Not once did I say that. I have clearly said terrorists. You're the one drawing conclusions that all terrorists are Muslim. What are you really trying to tell us? You're an appoligist for terrorism. You should be ashamed.

Um... this is a topic regarding Afghanistan. Why in the world would I be talking about Terrorists from Ireland, or Scotland? Also you never directly stated that, but what you say is implying it. You stated that all they want to do is blow up western countries without a reason other then they are western.

[Bacardi4206]

"Ok about the 50% of our defense budget. You said Canada spends more money (with military focus) on the U.N. than anything else. I stated we spent approximatley $8 billion on Afghanistan and approximatley $15 billion on defense. As I clearly wrote, do you think we take more than $8 billion (which is 53% of our defense budget and the amount we spent on Afghanistan) and spend it on the U.N. I don't think so. Please re-read that until it sinks in."

Please quote where I stated that, because I did not. I said we focused our military more on UN, then we did wars. This had nothing to with money, so I have no idea where you came up with that?

"I also did answer why we weren't attacked. America was the better target. Read it again, America was the better target. Remember when I said they are the most hated country on Earth? That given the chance, terrorists would love to hit them the most. End point. I can't make it any clearer. Also, other countries that haven't been attacked, yet are involved in fighting in some way are Australia, Poland, Denmark, France, Italy....Why haven't they been attacked? Could it be that they aren't as good (good as in tactically for terrorists) of a target for them to strike? Could it be that it is difficult to prepare an attack nowadays? Anyways, I'm done solidifying my point, and debunking yours so I won't even respond further to this."

Yes you did answer it, and I keep responding to it and making a counter-statement which you continue to not respond to. You keep rambling about the same thing. Also your ramblings including that they attacked people who were associated with America. I stated that if they attack people by that way, how come those who ARE associated with America haven't been attacked? It was only unti'll Canada entered Afghanistan, and long after we entered Afghanistan. (After the Terrorist leaders videos) that there has been apparently failed attempts. Why wasn't Canada attacked during the time of the 9/11 attacks when we were least expecting it?

You realize that terrorists don't have to focus on just one target, they could organize a terrorist attack on multiple targets, or countries. So again, why wasn't those associated with America attacked? Because we are good for the terrorists? Hmm wierd man. The other guy was preaching about how they only wanted to attack western countries, and you were preaching about how they just wanted to attack people associated with America. Tactical or not, wouldn't that imply them attacking Canada? Your logic has some really big holes in it.

"Can you please stop comparing Iraq and Afghanistan to support your Afghanistan arguments? We are in one, and not in the other. I am strongly opposed to the Iraq war, but I support what we are doing in Afghanistan. So does the U.N. "

Dude, you just stated in that post a reference to non Afghanistan Terrorists? Global Terrorists from different countries. That would be a contradiction on your part. Also just as a FYI, we are in Iraq.

Canada is playing a not very well publicized part in Iraq. The CO of our newly formed special operations command now holds a very important allied command-staff position over there, the RCMP is helping to train the IP, and the navy is participating in maritime security operations in the Gulf. It is believed that elements of JTF-2 may be there, as well, advising the IA and IP. Not to mention that there are Canadian exchange personnel in US and UK units; combat units.

I already stated that in a above post.

Now I am not even going to bother wasting my time responding to your other comments as you keep making the same statements, that don't even make the bit of sense. Either come up with a detailed response for your comments, or back it up with something. Anything at all, then I will respond to them. I don't feel like playing rind around the rosy with you all day.

"I have so many points running through my head, but I'm done wasting my time with you. Just know I won't be respoding to anymore of your nonsense because you aren't worth the effort. You contradict yourself in every argument, and proved with your first post you don't know what you are talking about. I thought I would try, but you can't be taught."

Though as you stated 'To Finish you off", I would like to point out that you haven't made a single point in either of your posts. Most of your so called points are assumtions, the rest was basic facts that everybody knew that diddn't back up any of your statements.

I however don't see how I contradict myself in EVERY arguement, would you mind showing atleast 3 examples of that? If you don't, I am just going to assume they aren't any. Though I am sure you are right, I have no idea what I am talking about. You obviously do though right? Promising of butterflys and rainbows of the war, get your brain out of your ass as it is suppose to be in your head.

I can be taught however, if you made a valid point backed by evidence or backed by anything. You however have not done that, all you have done is shouted out wild assumtions in all your posts. Sorry for not "being taught" with something like, "They attack countries because they are associated with America"

[2Cdo]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Because Canada spends most of its Military power with UN, instead of what most countries do. Nobody wants Canada dead, or hates Canada. We don't pose as a threat to them either. Before we got involved, no terrorist ever considered Canada as a target so there would be no 'fight over here'.

What a naive and uninformed view of the world. Do you realise that we have not played a big factor in UN missions for over a decade? We don't even rank in the top 20 in contributors to UN missions. Also, to think that nobody hates Canada, even prior to 9/11 is incredibly ignorant of the world at large.

[mikewood86]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

"Ok about the 50% of our defense budget. You said Canada spends more money (with military focus) on the U.N. than anything else. I stated we spent approximatley $8 billion on Afghanistan and approximatley $15 billion on defense. As I clearly wrote, do you think we take more than $8 billion (which is 53% of our defense budget and the amount we spent on Afghanistan) and spend it on the U.N. I don't think so. Please re-read that until it sinks in."

Please quote where I stated that, because I did not. I said we focused our military more on UN, then we did wars. This had nothing to with money, so I have no idea where you came up with that?

Money spent would correlate with how much military power we focus on the UN versus how much we have spent with NATO/Afghanistan. You're stupid if you still can't connect the dots. It's like you need a colouring book and pictures to relate.

"I also did answer why we weren't attacked. America was the better target. Read it again, America was the better target. Remember when I said they are the most hated country on Earth? That given the chance, terrorists would love to hit them the most. End point. I can't make it any clearer. Also, other countries that haven't been attacked, yet are involved in fighting in some way are Australia, Poland, Denmark, France, Italy....Why haven't they been attacked? Could it be that they aren't as good (good as in tactically for terrorists) of a target for them to strike? Could it be that it is difficult to prepare an attack nowadays? Anyways, I'm done solidifying my point, and debunking yours so I won't even respond further to this."

Yes you did answer it, and I keep responding to it and making a counter-statement which you continue to not respond to. You keep rambling about the same thing. Also your ramblings including that they attacked people who were associated with America. I stated that if they attack people by that way, how come those who ARE associated with America haven't been attacked? It was only unti'll Canada entered Afghanistan, and long after we entered Afghanistan. (After the Terrorist leaders videos) that there has been apparently failed attempts. Why wasn't Canada attacked during the time of the 9/11 attacks when we were least expecting it?

Thank you for finally acknowledging.

You realize that terrorists don't have to focus on just one target, they could organize a terrorist attack on multiple targets, or countries. So again, why wasn't those associated with America attacked? Because we are good for the terrorists? Hmm wierd man. The other guy was preaching about how they only wanted to attack western countries, and you were preaching about how they just wanted to attack people associated with America. Tactical or not, wouldn't that imply them attacking Canada? Your logic has some really big holes in it.

So I guess 9/11 didn't have large elements of planning into it. They weren't busy enough planning and training for that. They should have attacked the entire world at the same time.

"Can you please stop comparing Iraq and Afghanistan to support your Afghanistan arguments? We are in one, and not in the other. I am strongly opposed to the Iraq war, but I support what we are doing in Afghanistan. So does the U.N. "

Dude, you just stated in that post a reference to non Afghanistan Terrorists? Global Terrorists from different countries. That would be a contradiction on your part. Also just as a FYI, we are in Iraq.

Canada is playing a not very well publicized part in Iraq. The CO of our newly formed special operations command now holds a very important allied command-staff position over there, the RCMP is helping to train the IP, and the navy is participating in maritime security operations in the Gulf. It is believed that elements of JTF-2 may be there, as well, advising the IA and IP. Not to mention that there are Canadian exchange personnel in US and UK units; combat units.
So if we're in the gulf doing patrols we're involved directly with Iraq? I guess we're involved with Iran, Kuwait, Oman, U.A.E, and Saudi Arabia as well. Probably just isn't publicized.

If JTF2 were in Iraq, you would never know it. Just because the interweb or Wikipedia tells you something doesn't make it true. The acception is the hostage resuce situation they took part in.

I already stated that in a above post.

Now I am not even going to bother wasting my time responding to your other comments as you keep making the same statements, that don't even make the bit of sense. Either come up with a detailed response for your comments, or back it up with something. Anything at all, then I will respond to them. I don't feel like playing rind around the rosy with you all day.
They make sense, but the only way you can relate to the material is if I drew pictures and gave you treats for understanding

"I have so many points running through my head, but I'm done wasting my time with you. Just know I won't be respoding to anymore of your nonsense because you aren't worth the effort. You contradict yourself in every argument, and proved with your first post you don't know what you are talking about. I thought I would try, but you can't be taught."

Though as you stated 'To Finish you off", I would like to point out that you haven't made a single point in either of your posts. Most of your so called points are assumtions, the rest was basic facts that everybody knew that diddn't back up any of your statements.
Again, colouring books maybe, some slides? Maybe point form. Would these help you grasp the material that the rest of the class already understands?

I however don't see how I contradict myself in EVERY arguement, would you mind showing atleast 3 examples of that? If you don't, I am just going to assume they aren't any. Though I am sure you are right, I have no idea what I am talking about. You obviously do though right? Promising of butterflys and rainbows of the war, get your brain out of your ass as it is suppose to be in your head.
1) You stated that Pakistan is a stable country, yet it is overrun with terrorists that the government can't control. By definition, this is considered unstable. I guess you wanted to leave that quote out.
2) You would take a terrorists word, the very enemey that we are fighting. Who's side are you on.
3)You want us to hunt terrorist organizations, but now that there is an insurgency, you want us out. The insurgency is made up mostly of Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda. What should we do then? I know, lets ship them here and let em run loose, then we can fight them here and not actually be in another country.

I can be taught however, if you made a valid point backed by evidence or backed by anything. You however have not done that, all you have done is shouted out wild assumtions in all your posts. Sorry for not "being taught" with something like, "They attack countries because they are associated with America" :lol
No, you can't. Unless there's a coloring book involved and some promise of getting a gold star :

As I said before, you don't want us setting up a democracy and working government, and you don't want us to go after terrorists in other countries. What should we do then? Oh, be careful not to contradict yourself. You're grasping at straws here. Also, please learn to form proper sentences. You can practice in your coloring book.