I’m late to the party, but this little canard just has to be addressed.
Canada was in WWII well before the US was. We were busy fighting and dying while the US was sitting around thinking about whether or not there was anything worth getting involved in going on.
The fact that Canada didn’t have enough population to single handedly win the war does not in any way minimize the amount of effort, as a percentage of citizens, that was put into the war.
Stop spouting nonsense.
Also, in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops were committed, they were effective and respected by other forces in the area, as far as I have seen mentioned in these forums.
The fact that Canada did not believe Iraq was a direct threat worthy of a preemptive war doesn’t mean a hell of a lot with respect to what you are implying.
Find a real reason to impugn us, I’m sure there are plenty. The fact that we state our opinions and stand up for our beliefs is pretty attrocious… not in keeping with American values at all I’d wager.
I hope you take better aim before you fire than this when you see action.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Also, in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops were committed, they were effective and respected by other forces in the area, as far as I have seen mentioned in these forums.[/quote]
Just a quick correction. It’s not “were”, it’s “are.” 1300 of our troops are still deployed in Afghanistan.
The only other war we skipped, as far as I know, was Vietnam. For the rest, Kosovo, Desert Storm I, etc. we fullfilled our Nato obligations and/or U.N. resolutions.
For Iraq, there was no U.N. backing for the operation, which Jean Chrétien, the prime minister at that time, had said was a key condition of Canada’s participation. As a sovereign nation, we are well within our right to disagree with U.S. foreign policy and to refuse to participate in military actions we do not deem justified.
[quote]vroom wrote:
If we had “more canadians” Mr. Irish you would be be speaking German right now. If your attitude should ever take hold you may want to brush up on your Arabic.
Hedo,
I’m late to the party, but this little canard just has to be addressed.
Canada was in WWII well before the US was. We were busy fighting and dying while the US was sitting around thinking about whether or not there was anything worth getting involved in going on.
The fact that Canada didn’t have enough population to single handedly win the war does not in any way minimize the amount of effort, as a percentage of citizens, that was put into the war.
Stop spouting nonsense.
Also, in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops were committed, they were effective and respected by other forces in the area, as far as I have seen mentioned in these forums.
The fact that Canada did not believe Iraq was a direct threat worthy of a preemptive war doesn’t mean a hell of a lot with respect to what you are implying.
Find a real reason to impugn us, I’m sure there are plenty. The fact that we state our opinions and stand up for our beliefs is pretty attrocious… not in keeping with American values at all I’d wager.
I hope you take better aim before you fire than this when you see action.[/quote]
Nonesense. Pot calling the kettle black hey wroom. Don’t you think you’ve lost your credibility to criticize others opinions?
Simply stated if your nation doesn’t want to be part of the solution, your input on solutions are immaterial to those who are dealing with it. Be grateful you’ll benefit from the termination of the problem when it is eventually defeated.
I actually admire the Canadian armed forces. For a small force they are professional. However from a political standpoint Canada has relied on the US for many years for it’s defense. Now that the cold war threat is passsed, the political leadership should start repaying it’s obligations. Again if they don’t want to help, simple silence will suffice.
I am curious as to why liberal Canadians can opnely criticize the US and the administration with conjencture and opinion but get very defensive when an American does the same. Why is that? Seems to me that if you start an argument, especially on a politcal forum, you should expect to be set straight.
By the way I never missed in wartime! Laser rangefinder and stabilized gun allows unheard of accuracy all while moving at high speed.
Read the rest of the posts. It was quite entertaining and interesting for both parties I think.
I am not adressing the American People, my mom is American, so that would be silly. I am adressing the government. Dont get me wrong though, The British Government isn’t any better are they? They’ve bipassed the UN laws along with the Bush Administration. If you think that this is an ideological hyperbole, I can only say that you’re wrong, really, because it’s actually a recently well documented event, and by UN standards, the war is, in fact, illegal! Not that it makes any real sense that wars can be legal or not… But the UN was set up by many countries including the US and the UK so that this sort of thing could be prevented. And fair enough, you may justify the war however many ways you like, but the official reason that the US and UK governments were claiming was Weapons of Mass Distruction, which the entire world now knows was not the case. And I agree with you, The US has an UBER sophisticated military. That’s exactly why it’s even more outrageous that they wouldn’t actually know whether or not they had weapons. Blatant fabrication. I still stick to the fact that if the US wants to set an example for respecting international law, then certainly they shouldn’t bipass an organization which they assembled in order to maintain international laws…
As for the timeline thing, I was not sure of it’s relevance, and thus ignored it. Of course things are different in different eras. However, the original question you asked, and I’m repeating myself, was whether or not Churchill would have just given up because it’s impossible to destroy an ideology. I gave you a simple answer, and now I’m confused as to what exactly you were getting at?
I’ve also noticed that you’ve decided to insult Europeans, which only makes you seem like a jerk. However, I’m guessing I must have come off sounding like I was attacking americans in general. So if that’s the case, I’m sorry, and I assure you, that’s not what I’m doing.
Now you’ve also effectively dismissed me as a conspiracy theorist. If that’s not what you’re doing then please adress the points I made concerning american foreign policy. I’m truly concerned that you neglect believing the historical facts I stated specifically regarding latin america and vietnam. I’m not sure if you are just avoiding it and simply disregarding them because I cannot provide a solution that suits you. I am willing to provide some evidence for my claims if it is required.
CONTRAS
"A key role in the development of the Contra alliance was played by the United States following Ronald Reagan’s assumption of the presidency in January 1981. Reagan accused the Sandinistas of importing Cuban-style socialism and aiding leftist guerrillas in El Salvador. On November 23 of that year, Reagan signed the top secret National Security Decision Directive 17 (NSDD-17), giving the Central Intelligence Agency the authority to recruit and support the Contras with $19 million in military aid. The effort to support the Contras was one component of the so-called Reagan Doctrine, championed by American conservatives, which called for providing U.S. military support to movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist-led governments.
"In 1984 Nicaragua filed a suit in the International Court of Justice against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States, which in 1986 resulted in a guilty verdict against the US, calling on it to “cease and to refrain” from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua through placement of underwater mines by CIA operatives and training, funding and support of the guerrilla forces. The US was “in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state” and was ordered to pay reparations (see note 1). The US response to this ruling was to dismiss the jurisdiction of the court, holding that its power did not supersede the Constitution, and escalate the war, besides pointing out that the court did not take in consideration the alleged role Nicaragua played as a Cold War proxy in a purported Soviet offensive.
After direct military aid was interrupted by the Boland Amendment (passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1982 and extended in October 1984 to forbid action by not only the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency but all U.S. government agencies), Administration officials sought to arrange funding and military supplies by means of third-parties, culminating in the Iran-Contra Affair of 1986-1987.
On February 3, 1988 the United States House of Representatives rejected President Ronald Reagan’s request for $36.25 million to aid the Contras.
U.S. officials were also active in drawing the various Contra groups together in June 1985 as the United Nicaraguan Opposition under the leadership of Calero, Arturo Cruz and Alfonso Robelo, all former members of the original Sandinista cadre: after its dissolution early in 1987, the Nicaraguan Resistance (RN) was organised along similar lines (May 1987). Splits within the rebel movement emerged with Pastora’s defection (May 1984) and Misurasata’s April 1985 accommodation with the Sandinista government: a subsequent autonomy statute (September 1987) largely defused Miskito resistance.
Mediation by other Central American governments under Costa Rican leadership led finally to the Sapoa ceasefire agreement of March 23, 1988, which with additional agreements (February, August 1989) provided for the Contras’ disarmament and re-integration into Nicaraguan society and politics, and internationally-monitored elections which were subsequently won (February 25, 1990) by an anti-Sandinista centre-right coalition.
Some Contra elements and disaffected Sandinistas returned briefly to armed opposition in the 1990s, sometimes calling themselves recontras or revueltos, but these groups were subsequently persuaded to disarm again.
The Reagan administration’s support for the Contras continued to stir controversy well into the 1990s. In August 1996, San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb published a series entitled Dark Alliance, linking the origins of crack cocaine in California to the contras. His controversial and highly damaging revelations were disputed at the time, subsequent revelations largely confirmed his findings. Freedom of Information Act inquiries by the National Security Archive and other investigators unearthed a number of documents showing that White House officials including Oliver North knew about and supported using money raised via drug trafficking to fund the contras, yet a similar number of sources hold that to be false."
GULF OF TONKIN INCIDENT
"According to the official description, increased U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War came in 1964. This constituted a program of covert South Vietnamese operations, designed to impose “progressively escalating pressure” upon the North, initiated on a small and essentially ineffective scale in February. The active U.S. role in the few covert operations that were carried out was limited essentially to planning, equipping, and training of the South Vietnamese forces involved. However, U.S. responsibility for the launching and conduct of these activities was unequivocal and carried with it an implicit symbolic and psychological intensification of the U.S. commitment.
Many dispute the above sequence of events, including dissident Noam Chomsky. They contend that active military involvement on the part of the US actually began as early as 1961 (with operations beginning in 1962) and that the August 4 incident was in fact a fabrication crafted by the Johnson administration. It is their assertion that the reason for this was to enable the US to claim, for the benefit of the American public, that it was in fact the North Vietnamese that initiated the open hostilities. Although information obtained well after the fact indicates that there was actually no North Vietnamese attack that night, U.S. authorities say they were convinced at the time that an attack had taken place. As a result, planes from the carriers Ticonderoga and Constellation were sent to hit North Vietnamese torpedo boat bases and fuel facilities.
Regarding claims that the attacks on the US were unprovoked, veterans of US Navy SEAL teams say that US-trained South Vietnamese commandos were active in the area on the days of the attacks. Deployed from Da Nang in Norwegian-built fast patrol boats, the Lien Doc Nguoi Nhia (LDNN, soldiers that fight under the sea), made attacks in the Gulf area on both of the nights in question.
On July 31, LDNN in “Nastys” (the name commandos give to the fast attack boats) attacked a radio transmitter on the island of Hon Nieu. On Aug. 3, they used an shipboard-mounted cannon to bombard a radar site at Cape Vinh Son. The North Vietnamese responded by attacking hostile ships visible in the area. While US officials were less than honest about the full extent of hostilities that led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, critical claims that a naval commander fired weapons solely to create an international incident tend to overlook circumstances and opportunistic responses that suggest a less intentional motivation.
Daniel Ellsberg, who was on duty in the Pentagon that night receiving messages from the ship, reports that the ships were on a secret mission, codenamed DeSoto Patrols, inside North Vietnamese territorial waters. Their purpose was to provoke the North Vietnamese into turning on their coastal defense radar so they could be plotted. This constitutes an act of war by the United States against North Vietnam.
Squadron commander James Stockdale was one of the U.S. pilots flying overhead August 4. In the 1990s Stockdale stated:
[I] had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets ? there were no PT boats there? There was nothing there but black water and American fire power.
In 1995, retired Vietnamese General Nguyen Giap meeting with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, categorically denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers 1964 August 4. A taped conversation was released in 2001 of a meeting several weeks after passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, revealing that Robert McNamara expressed doubts to President Johnson that the attack had even occurred."
If you would like me to provide more resources, I’d be glad. Also, I am curious to know what kind of a solution you’d propose, in order that I can see what kind of solution you’re after and see if I can come up with something. Concerning Idealism, I’d like to remind you that the Constitution of the United States is actually all Idealist… I’m not quite sure why so many people use Idealism as a derrogatry term these days especially when everything they believe in is an ideal. (and once again, I mean everyone, not just americans)
Anyways, I hope I’ve cleared things up a bit, and maybe we can bridge this misunderstanding. Cheers!
Should Churchill have surrendered during the Battle of Britian? I mean it was hopeless right? National Socialism had defeated Europe and Britian didn’t really have a chance. You can’t defeat an idea right. Can’t kill all the Nazi’s. It’s pointless so why not just accept it. Your thoughts?
It’s great to be against the hard work of others but it’s equally important to be for something and have a sensible alternative.
[/quote]
More nonsense as usual. You can criticize Canada or Canadians all you like, in fact I asked you to do so, as long as you can find something factual or at least arguable to talk about.
If you want to change your criticism to state that Canada “relies” on the US you can certainly do that. Don’t be surprised if people decide to disagree with you. This is at least arguable.
To me though, it looks like you are sidestepping what I said with an attack of your own, instead of admitting your statement was historically inaccurate. That’s a big surprise!
If you want to set me straight, howabout you argue the point I raised, instead of crying about Canadians, liberals and all else that you consider unholy being unwilling to take criticism. You look to be the only one unable to take criticism around here. Why is that?
[quote]vroom wrote:
I am curious as to why liberal Canadians can opnely criticize the US and the administration with conjencture and opinion but get very defensive when an American does the same. Why is that? Seems to me that if you start an argument, especially on a politcal forum, you should expect to be set straight.
Hedo,
More nonsense as usual. You can criticize Canada or Canadians all you like, in fact I asked you to do so, as long as you can find something factual or at least arguable to talk about.
If you want to change your criticism to state that Canada “relies” on the US you can certainly do that. Don’t be surprised if people decide to disagree with you. This is at least arguable.
[/quote]
vroom,let me ask you this. Do you really think that if Canada was invaded that the US would just sit around and let it happen. That is the type of protection I believe Hedo is referring to. I mean with the US as a big brother looking over you. What country would want to take on Canada knowing that the US would never let that happen.
But, Hedo feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you.[quote]
[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
vroom,let me ask you this. Do you really think that if Canada was invaded that the US would just sit around and let it happen. That is the type of protection I believe Hedo is referring to. I mean with the US as a big brother looking over you. What country would want to take on Canada knowing that the US would never let that happen.
But, Hedo feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you. [/quote]
I think you got it right, Goku. Nobody is saying that invading the USA is suicide because Canada has our back. We take care of our own shizzle. But I also want to add that there is nothing wrong with this seemingly one-sided arrangement, as long as US citizens can go on up to Canada for free health care!
[quote]vroom wrote:
I am curious as to why liberal Canadians can opnely criticize the US and the administration with conjencture and opinion but get very defensive when an American does the same. Why is that? Seems to me that if you start an argument, especially on a politcal forum, you should expect to be set straight.
Hedo,
More nonsense as usual. You can criticize Canada or Canadians all you like, in fact I asked you to do so, as long as you can find something factual or at least arguable to talk about.
If you want to change your criticism to state that Canada “relies” on the US you can certainly do that. Don’t be surprised if people decide to disagree with you. This is at least arguable.
To me though, it looks like you are sidestepping what I said with an attack of your own, instead of admitting your statement was historically inaccurate. That’s a big surprise!
If you want to set me straight, howabout you argue the point I raised, instead of crying about Canadians, liberals and all else that you consider unholy being unwilling to take criticism. You look to be the only one unable to take criticism around here. Why is that?[/quote]
Historically innacurate?
Of course I responded to you. Nonesense. That’s it? You always attack the poster instead of the idea? Where’s the suprise in that vroom.
Here’s my point. The US is Canada’s big brother militarily. Canada has been an ally in the past. Therefore you spend much less then you would have to on your own defense. Based on GNP your spending on defense and fightinging tyranny around the world is very small.
Do you actually disagree with that?
My point is that if Canada doesn’t agree with our positions, considering all the benefits they enjoy, they should show some discretion and keep it to themselves.
Of course I expect you to disagree. You are anti-admisnistration and liberal.
[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I am curious as to why liberal Canadians can opnely criticize the US and the administration with conjencture and opinion but get very defensive when an American does the same. Why is that? Seems to me that if you start an argument, especially on a politcal forum, you should expect to be set straight.
Hedo,
More nonsense as usual. You can criticize Canada or Canadians all you like, in fact I asked you to do so, as long as you can find something factual or at least arguable to talk about.
If you want to change your criticism to state that Canada “relies” on the US you can certainly do that. Don’t be surprised if people decide to disagree with you. This is at least arguable.
vroom,let me ask you this. Do you really think that if Canada was invaded that the US would just sit around and let it happen. That is the type of protection I believe Hedo is referring to. I mean with the US as a big brother looking over you. What country would want to take on Canada knowing that the US would never let that happen.
But, Hedo feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you. [/quote]
Correct.
I don’t think many understand how valuable that relationship has been.
Canada is a large country with a small military. The threat of invasion only ended in the 90’s. You would have to be very idealistic not to think without the US, Europe and Canada would have been part of the Soviet Union.
[quote]Sepukku wrote:
Who and why would anyone invade Canada?
-Sep[/quote]
Exactly. Who would invade the US. nobody. Well, nobody in there right mind anyway. That is why nobody would invade Canada. Because we are right below them. And we would defend Canada to keep ourselves safe from a possible invation.
I don’t understand why you think that every other country on the planet should not do what the US does.
In short, look after their own self interests.
So far, there has never been a realistic threat of invasion from external forces, so Canada hasn’t maintained a huge military.
However, a thought, if Canada was large militarily, we would still act in our own interests. It is silly to think that we should simply be puppets of the US.
That thinking pervades around here. Every country in the world should be a puppet of the US because of its military might.
So, the US is the only place able to look after its own self-interest and the only place able to express its opinion?
I don’t have the time to refute each and every article but I will review them and hopefully after
Rita will respond in kind.
YOu asked for more resources before providing a suggestion for solutions.
Here goes: Terrorism is a world wide problem. Recently Al-Queda has unified several groups of murderer’s under the banner of Islam. The stated goals of this group are well known and published.
Restoration of the Caliphate.
Restoration of all Muslim lands.
(all of them not just the Middle
East)
Sharia law becomes law of the land.
Until Afganistan no state offered them support. After the US liberated Afganistan Al-Queda became stateless again. Several states offer them support but not outright sanctuary.
Since Islamofacism attacked the US and killed 3000+ of our citizens we went after their base. Next nations that outright threaten us thru their support of terrorism. We have pursued this agenda overtly and covertly with or without help from others?
There you go. A very brief strategy review. My question, what would you do differently that would be better. The question is really one of strategy not of outcome. Many would say do it better?er or differently but have no idea h
Back on topic, I’ve repeatedly stated that it will take more than force to end this situation.
It will take the ability to create a situation that dries up the supply of new recruits.
Why?
Because the terrorist organization is not readily visible until it acts. It can have sleeper cells all over the place, basically created whenever anybody accepts the ideology espoused.
Don’t be thinking nobody has ideas, you just reject any ideas expressed by anyone else. Especially, god forbid, if someone you consider liberal comes up with them.
I think it’s sexy how you avoid reading anything that undermines your arguements… You stud, you.
Anyways, I wasn’t against the invasion of afghanistan, but as I said, many times, you should look at the big picture. Supporting and Funding the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the Afghanistan War against the Soviet Union is effectively what put them into power in the first place. Thus, the U.S. Government put themselves in the position they are in now.
So basically, what you believe, is that in order to prevent the terrorist ideology from taking hold, is to eliminate all potential threats. Which basically means eliminating all Muslims because they’re obviously the only ones who will accept a fundamentalist muslim ideology. Every country in the world “harbours terrorists” or at least potentials. And since we both know a terrorist isn’t born a terrorist, we know that it is a choice that is made. Anybody can make that choice, maybe we should erradicate free will.
Are you a boxer? You are extremely adept at sidestepping.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Canada is a large country with a small military.
Hedo,
I don’t understand why you think that every other country on the planet should not do what the US does.
In short, look after their own self interests.
So far, there has never been a realistic threat of invasion from external forces, so Canada hasn’t maintained a huge military.
However, a thought, if Canada was large militarily, we would still act in our own interests. It is silly to think that we should simply be puppets of the US.
That thinking pervades around here. Every country in the world should be a puppet of the US because of its military might.
So, the US is the only place able to look after its own self-interest and the only place able to express its opinion?
Get real.[/quote]
Right up to “get real” you were being cognizant and actually debating. Too bad, that’s the credibility factor I pointed out to you before. Looking for a debate or a fight. I’ll give you both both but prefer to debate. Your an old timer. Time to uplift instead of drag down our forum.
Canada had a very real threat of military defeat and occupation from 1945 thru 1990. Absent the US don’t you think the political landscape would look a little different? Remember incursions by Soviet Bombers? Testing the territorial waters by warships? Submarine incursions. It wasn’t Canada that detered them.
Besides, as I thought I pointed out. I like the Canadian Armed forces. I just don’t think your leaders have enough of them or show enough discretion in their leadership. Unfortunately I think the Left has bought it hook, line and sinker. Regardless I don’t care if individuals share their opinions. It’s national leaders, who greatly benefit from US leadership that appear ungrateful.
Back on topic, I’ve repeatedly stated that it will take more than force to end this situation.
It will take the ability to create a situation that dries up the supply of new recruits.
Why?
Because the terrorist organization is not readily visible until it acts. It can have sleeper cells all over the place, basically created whenever anybody accepts the ideology espoused.
Don’t be thinking nobody has ideas, you just reject any ideas expressed by anyone else. Especially, god forbid, if someone you consider liberal comes up with them.
Stick your head back in the sand.[/quote]
Again, until your last statement you were acting like an adult.
So what are your ideas? So far you have told me I am wrong, the US is wrong and if we disagree, of course, we are all wrong. So are you advocating allowing the sleepers to continue to slumber until they actually do something while acting to dry up their recruiting? Great idea. How? Have them reject the religion that offers eternal salvation with 72 virgins? From a temporal standpoint that tough competition. May be easier to just take away their apparatus, financial network and lives before they come over here to sleep. But I am interested in how you would propose to dry up the recruitment other then the steps we have already taken.
look at it this way Vroom. You actually have things to say sometimes besides, “we should think about it”. Most people indulge that. However, why do you think being whiny and confrontational at the end of a post is endearing. That type of behavior will get you decked in most places where men tend to accumulate. Is it the annonimity of the internet that emboldens you? It certainly doesn’t add to the argument or your credibility despite repeated warnings by myself and others.
[quote]Sepukku wrote:
I think it’s sexy how you avoid reading anything that undermines your arguements… You stud, you.
Anyways, I wasn’t against the invasion of afghanistan, but as I said, many times, you should look at the big picture. Supporting and Funding the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the Afghanistan War against the Soviet Union is effectively what put them into power in the first place. Thus, the U.S. Government put themselves in the position they are in now.
So basically, what you believe, is that in order to prevent the terrorist ideology from taking hold, is to eliminate all potential threats. Which basically means eliminating all Muslims because they’re obviously the only ones who will accept a fundamentalist muslim ideology. Every country in the world “harbours terrorists” or at least potentials. And since we both know a terrorist isn’t born a terrorist, we know that it is a choice that is made. Anybody can make that choice, maybe we should erradicate free will.
Are you a boxer? You are extremely adept at sidestepping.
-Sep[/quote]
Not a sidestep. But your kind of funny to debate. Are you taking on the persona of others. Just attack the poster if you don’t have a game.
You could answer the question or are you sidestepping?
