Not asking you to agree with me, just saying you're wrong if you don't. ;-)
GM Hockey
wprager wrote:Whatever. But it's part of foreign policy.
wprager wrote:You are welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make the statement silly.
I wish for a world of Unicorns and Rainbows.Flo The Action wrote:I miss the days when our involvement in military was through peacekeeping. And even that has left blemishes on our record. The more a country has an aggressive military foreign policy the more they are liable to have it splash back in their face.Cap'n Clutch wrote:Totally agree Spader. Canada should be providing support in the way that it's best suited to do so. The way to best support is to train and provide the aid required for the country to defend itself. We've seen it over and over again. Countries get ready to pull out and the country can't do it on their own.
I don't buy into that Canadians should be scarred butlers not be surprised when Dung hits in the face. We go into war on our own account. Terrorism is just another name for war against an opponent that we can hardly put a finger on. We wouldn't got involved than we wouldn't have incidents happen.
Oglethorpe wrote:I wish for a world of Unicorns and Rainbows.Flo The Action wrote:I miss the days when our involvement in military was through peacekeeping. And even that has left blemishes on our record. The more a country has an aggressive military foreign policy the more they are liable to have it splash back in their face.Cap'n Clutch wrote:Totally agree Spader. Canada should be providing support in the way that it's best suited to do so. The way to best support is to train and provide the aid required for the country to defend itself. We've seen it over and over again. Countries get ready to pull out and the country can't do it on their own.
I don't buy into that Canadians should be scarred butlers not be surprised when Dung hits in the face. We go into war on our own account. Terrorism is just another name for war against an opponent that we can hardly put a finger on. We wouldn't got involved than we wouldn't have incidents happen.
While I agree that military force should not be used to protect a countries business interests in other parts of the world, sometimes you have to use force to protect those who can't protect themselves. I guess back in school you wouldn't help someone who was bullied because you were worried about being bullied yourself.
Flo The Action wrote:wprager wrote:Flo The Action wrote:Exactly. Why must people blindly follow in fear of not looking patriotic. The fact that support the troops is even a thing is because they want people to feel like it's either or. Who wouldn't support fellow Canadians. The problem is that people can vary in support of what the government is doing with them.spader wrote:Ev wrote:LeCaptain wrote:Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?
So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.
I support the forces so there's no point arguing this.
It's possible to support the forces without supporting the overseers. By that I mean that you can support the troops, but disagree with the mission.
Not quite that simple. You can argue all you want up until the decision is made. Once the troops are overseas, you stop. The debate is over, the decision has been made. The men and women in uniform believe that this decision is the correct one. You saying that it's wrong is not going to show then the kind of support they deserve.
That is exactly the tactic that gets started as soon as they want to stop any opposing ideology or opposition to the mission. "Shut up because our troops are there. Absolute media manipulation.
Hello, that is what peacekeeping comes in?NEELY wrote:Oglethorpe wrote:I wish for a world of Unicorns and Rainbows.Flo The Action wrote:I miss the days when our involvement in military was through peacekeeping. And even that has left blemishes on our record. The more a country has an aggressive military foreign policy the more they are liable to have it splash back in their face.Cap'n Clutch wrote:Totally agree Spader. Canada should be providing support in the way that it's best suited to do so. The way to best support is to train and provide the aid required for the country to defend itself. We've seen it over and over again. Countries get ready to pull out and the country can't do it on their own.
I don't buy into that Canadians should be scarred butlers not be surprised when Dung hits in the face. We go into war on our own account. Terrorism is just another name for war against an opponent that we can hardly put a finger on. We wouldn't got involved than we wouldn't have incidents happen.
While I agree that military force should not be used to protect a countries business interests in other parts of the world, sometimes you have to use force to protect those who can't protect themselves. I guess back in school you wouldn't help someone who was bullied because you were worried about being bullied yourself.
Again, well played. I don't know where these hippies get the idea that the world can be perfect if only we acted this way. Not only is that naive and ignorant on its own, the fact people actually use this point of view to push their own agenda while apparently being "immoral" is disgraceful and disgusting.
I find once people actually start working for a living, start raising a family, and eventually stop living in the student/unemployed dream world they snap out of it. Easy to rip on others from the comfort of your parents basement.
Seriously Neely you're a little reactionary Wing Dang Doodle.NEELY wrote:Flo The Action wrote:wprager wrote:Flo The Action wrote:Exactly. Why must people blindly follow in fear of not looking patriotic. The fact that support the troops is even a thing is because they want people to feel like it's either or. Who wouldn't support fellow Canadians. The problem is that people can vary in support of what the government is doing with them.spader wrote:Ev wrote:LeCaptain wrote:Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?
So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.
I support the forces so there's no point arguing this.
It's possible to support the forces without supporting the overseers. By that I mean that you can support the troops, but disagree with the mission.
Not quite that simple. You can argue all you want up until the decision is made. Once the troops are overseas, you stop. The debate is over, the decision has been made. The men and women in uniform believe that this decision is the correct one. You saying that it's wrong is not going to show then the kind of support they deserve.
That is exactly the tactic that gets started as soon as they want to stop any opposing ideology or opposition to the mission. "Shut up because our troops are there. Absolute media manipulation.
Time to start living in the real world, child. You support those who represent your country and do the job you wouldn't in a million years have the balls to actually do. Once military is there they have no choice but to obey orders and they believe what they are doing is for the greater good.
Guess what, if it wasn't for military interventions of the past this world of ours in our little bubble called Canada would have no where near the amount of rights we do now, especially women. Again, grow up, get a job, get a life.
Yup. Bad idea also.Ev wrote:Didn't we go to Afghanistan under a Liberal government?
Cap'n Clutch wrote:Not all military intervention is so altruistic. Sometimes it's purely political and economic. I know you're not childish enough not to realise that.
There are definitely times when military intervention is necessary. It's not black and white and its not all or nothing. One can support the troops while not supporting the mission.
NEELY wrote:
Time to start living in the real world, child. You support those who represent your country and do the job you wouldn't in a million years have the balls to actually do. Once military is there they have no choice but to obey orders and they believe what they are doing is for the greater good.
Guess what, if it wasn't for military interventions of the past this world of ours in our little bubble called Canada would have no where near the amount of rights we do now, especially women. Again, grow up, get a job, get a life.
A big difference should also be made between military intervention and military occupation. Also facts that's should be ignored is who started the aggressions. It's one thing to defend yourself against unprovoked attacks but let's not call ourselves victims either when we were slugging mud.LeCaptain wrote:Cap'n Clutch wrote:Not all military intervention is so altruistic. Sometimes it's purely political and economic. I know you're not childish enough not to realise that.
There are definitely times when military intervention is necessary. It's not black and white and its not all or nothing. One can support the troops while not supporting the mission.
Amen. That's where I stand.
The nazis. Now that's a military intervention that was justified.spader wrote:NEELY wrote:
Time to start living in the real world, child. You support those who represent your country and do the job you wouldn't in a million years have the balls to actually do. Once military is there they have no choice but to obey orders and they believe what they are doing is for the greater good.
Guess what, if it wasn't for military interventions of the past this world of ours in our little bubble called Canada would have no where near the amount of rights we do now, especially women. Again, grow up, get a job, get a life.
Source? That's a big claim, for which I'd bet you have no evidence except, "Well, if the Nazis had won..."
Cap'n Clutch wrote:Not all military intervention is so altruistic. Sometimes it's purely political and economic. I know you're not childish enough not to realise that.
There are definitely times when military intervention is necessary. It's not black and white and its not all or nothing. One can support the troops while not supporting the mission.
Flo The Action wrote:Yup. Bad idea also.Ev wrote:Didn't we go to Afghanistan under a Liberal government?
At least our involvements under liberals were minimal. I'm not saying liberals make perfect choices. My point is that the reasons why we are having the troubles we are having is because we keep backing the imperialistic actions of our neighbors to the south.
If we didn't get involved I doubt we'd ever become a target.
It's foolish to think that Muslim terrorist is aimed at converting the infidels as an agenda. They want leadership over their own region and by disturbing a place like Iraq we open up an entire region to them.
Afghanistan isn't better than when the taliban ruled there. And they will probably be back to where they were before we ever entered. It wasn't enough to convince people after the attack in America that we should enter Afghanistan, We entered with arguing excuse of the mistreatment done to women after 9/11 but they are still being stoned in the streets for exposing skin. And the taliban was a direct result of another military operation from the USSR into Afghanistan. Can we not learn to leave people alone and let them progress towards their own internal positive change? Slowly Iran is starting to change and turn a corner. And that's from the inside. It's their own youth and future generation that will bring about change. Aggressive Military intervention rarely amount to anything positive for a country's future.
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|