TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Defending Afghanistan
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX in all honesty... I mean I heard the other day on Fox News that your army is for shit. so watch it lil man.

Do you have any idea the fuckin' shitstorm that caused here?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Do you have any idea the fuckin' shitstorm that caused here?

I was reading some of the responses on line and I saw a Tom Green response to it that was fucking funny.
Fucking Fox News man, never lacking for a daily lol or face palm

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium American Empire's fall will affect many countries in some way, but that doesn't mean the world will stop and we all die from it or start speaking Arabic or Spanish all of a sudden. You need to look at things more rationally.

Perhaps you are correct but

quote:

did Soviet Union collapsed but much of Eastern Europe has reinvented itself, with exceptions to the countries like Ukraine and Belarus who have Russia partly to blame. Look at Czechs today, currently leading the EU.

So that happened all over night huh? Shit did not hit the fan when it happened? Did borders change?? How long has it been to say look at the Czechs today?

Yeah, Canada would be affected if the US collapsed. Thats Reality. Perhaps it is time.......2012 is extremely fucking nigh!!

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Perhaps you are correct but So that happened all over night huh? Shit did not hit the fan when it happened? Did borders change?? How long has it been to say look at the Czechs today? Yeah, Canada would be affected if the US collapsed. Thats Reality. Perhaps it is time.......2012 is extremely fucking nigh!!

LOL ... Czechs are waaaaay better off now than 20 years ago. There were no killings, mass unrest during change, things were very civilized when transition took place. When United States falls, 20 years later Canada will be in much better shape than before, too! This is a new post-Soviet reality. Economic recuperation is much easier in this 21st century global system, and it will give Canada a drive to change.

Surely, Canada will be affected negatively by the collapse of American Empire, no doubt about it, but she will rise from it in a much better shape than before. Heck, EU is worried being dependent on Russian energy, Canada should feel the same way about American freefall.

If Poland, Czech Republic, Baltic states, etc. in 1989 worried about the horrific threat to their economy, system and stability from the collapse of communism, one could imagine that it was going to take them many years to get out of the communist mess. Not so much.

This shit only hit the fan in countries like Georgia and Ukraine and Russia ... for absolutely different reasons and with no relevance to this discussion. You just cant compare Canada to Ukraine or Russia.

If you invade Canada, you might as well shut yourself off from the world, because everyone will look at you like an idiot and even the Saudis and Taliban will have a laugh out of it. You will isolate yourself even from UK. Your logic is irrational and doesn't make any sense. You just won't invade Canada for the sake of being sane ... its not the medieval era when countries were invaded on a daily basis.

Besides, with your economy and system in ruins, you will ill-afford a senseless war against a close neighbour. We are already your #1 supplier of oil, and considerable source of resources and energy ... invasion would be like stabbing yourself in the foot.

You're just a cocky American! Admit it.

Good thing your leaders aren't as stupid as you or we would have a 51st state already.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Good thing your leaders aren't as stupid as you or we would have a 51st state already.

Canada is too big to be a single state. You're gonna have to try harder than that.

I particularly dont understand that above quoted comment of yours. If they weren't as stupid as me ... you would have a 51st state? You mean Puerto Rico? Or you mean Canada is already part of USA.

Please rephrase.

You're too stupid to understand. The shit you were saying would be tantamount to declaring war on the US in which case we would invade you with the support of the entire world.

ps

you said that canada ditched GB to ally with the US, but in reality we're ALL allies and canada is still part of the commonwealth if you didn't remember

quote:

Originally posted by Zild You're too stupid to understand. The shit you were saying would be tantamount to declaring war on the US in which case we would invade you with the support of the entire world. ps you said that canada ditched GB to ally with the US, but in reality we're ALL allies and canada is still part of the commonwealth if you didn't remember

^^^ And all of that is still nowhere as stupid as USA going to invade Canada or Canada becoming the 51st state (none of which I said or endorsed). I never said that Canada ditched UK, I actually said we should be strengthening our ties to UK as in the old days as opposed to weakening them (too much dependence on USA today). USA+Canada+UK are allies, no shit! I wasn't the one who said that America should invade Canada, or vice versa.

Anyway, I have no interest in satisfying your American ego, I see where this is getting at. Time to get back to talking about the Afghanistan issue here ...

We're trying to explain to you why you are in the same wars the US/UK are in. And you're saying you guys should fuck over your closest allies. You're the one not making sense and trying to over inflate your sense of pride by somehow fooling yourself into thinking Canada is morally superior to the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild We're trying to explain to you why you are in the same wars the US/UK are in. And you're saying you guys should fuck over your closest allies. You're the one not making sense and trying to over inflate your sense of pride by somehow fooling yourself into thinking Canada is morally superior to the USA.

No, no and no. a) We are not fucking NATO over, as an equal and rightful member of NATO (not a slave as you think), Canada should re-emphasize the situation in there and redeploy to a more useful area/country that suits the Canadian ideals, i.e. peacekeeping mission, not occupiers. Afghanistan is hopeless, which is the point of countless of the articles I posted. You see, NATO is just another bureaucratic piece of bullshit, they know its failing in Afghanistan, but it doesnt want to lose the country to Russian/Chinese sphere or to Pakistani Taliban.

We are not ditching NATO and dont want to leave it. We disagree on Afghanistan. You have no right to force us to do everything as you want, there's something called equal partners, and Canadian interests must be acknowledged also.

When Canada said NO to USA for Iraqi war - yes, Americans whined about it, but look at that decision by Chretien now - one of the smartest decisions for Canada this century. And relations between the two countries are pretty good today. See the logic?

116 Canadian troops dead in Afghanistan, and look where is that country heading to. Look at the most recent development: Karzai about to pass a law that horribly limits the rights of women and allow rape by husbands. Despicable. And guess how I feel about it and how 116 Canadian soldiers who sacrificed their lives feel about it. And 30+ million Canadians who want to know what good is our $10 billion done for Afghanistan. Kapish?

b) Canada is not morally superior to USA. We just have our own different unique values and interests. We are not 51st state and not an extension of American agenda.

Have you actually considered that some of these recent wars unhinged by USA/UK are a mistake? Seems like you think your government is always right and doing everything properly. We have our own brains, and we can decide for ourselves. We Canadians dont report to Washington, and we hardly even report to Ottawa, we got enough bureacracy in between for the provinces.

c) We got into the Afghanistan war for the good of it, for democracy, rights, progress, etc. But now it is very clear that not only this is hardly the objective, but the human rights issue is taking a serious beating. Havent you heard that 95% of the world's heroin is still from Afghanistan? The SAME Canadian troops PATROL and PROTECT these drug fields! We are in that war along with UK/USA because we share many of the same principles and beliefs, except occupation is not our specialty.

Well, well ... so is mandatory sex or no sex for the Shiite minority in Afghanistan? There will quite a few disappointed men out there if this falls through, thats for sure.

Read the last paragraph of the article. Makes you wonder ... doesnt it?

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/541890

quote:

OTTAWA � Afghanistan�s ambassador to Canada defended the progress made by women in his country after he received a diplomatic dressing-down over a controversial new law. Omar Samad was called in by the Canadian government amid an international furore over legislation that would make it illegal for Shia women to deny sex to their husbands. He said the Afghan government is examining the law and will have no comment about it for now. In the meantime, he asked for patience from his country�s Western critics. �I fully understand the reaction � the immediate, emotional reaction of countries like Canada who have done so much to build a young democracy,� Samad said in an interview. �People also need to understand that this young democracy is immature. It is not at the same standard as a Canadian or European democracy. And it�s in a very different cultural context as well. We are going to fall down, we are going to make mistakes, and we�re going to move forward as a result.� He said the condition of women in his country � where they hold 89 of parliament�s 351 seats � cannot be compared to the dark days under the Taliban. Samad made the remarks after a host of Canadian politicians made it clear that this country has not lost soldiers� lives and spent billions of dollars in Afghanistan to see women�s rights slide backward. Critics worry the legislation undermines hard-won rights for women enacted after the fall of the Taliban�s strict Islamist regime. The law � which some lawmakers say was never debated in parliament � is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan�s Shiite community, which makes up about 20 per cent of Afghanistan�s 30 million people. The law does not affect Afghan Sunnis. One of the most controversial articles of the law stipulates that the wife �is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires.� �As long as the husband is not travelling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night,� Article 132 of the law says. �Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.� One provision also appears aimed at protecting the woman�s right to sex inside marriage, saying that the �man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months.� A spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said officials called in Samad on Wednesday to discuss the matter. �We have informed the Afghan government of the damaging effect that the law could have and we pointed out that across the country, Canadians are following the issue closely,� said a Foreign Affairs news release. �We understand that the Afghan government intends to continue to review the law and discuss it with civil society. We are monitoring closely developments and will continue to make our principled position known.� Spokeswoman Catherine Loubier said Cannon discussed the issue with Afghanistan�s foreign affairs and interior ministers in The Hague this week at an international meeting on the country�s future. Canadian diplomats have also met officials in President Hamid Karzai�s office in Kabul and are seeking clarification on possible implementation of the law. The proposed law has sparked outrage in Canada and abroad. It would also restrict other rights of Afghanistan�s minority Shia women, making it illegal for them to leave the house without permission or to have child custody. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and politicians of all stripes have urged the Afghan government to honour its commitments to human rights, including respect for the equality of women. Canada has lost 116 soldiers and spent up to $10 billion to support the Karzai government. The father of one slain soldier called the law an insult. �My son gave his life up for all these causes and to have President Karzai�s government bring in a law like that, that�s insulting,� Jim Davis said Wednesday. His son, Cpl. Paul Davis, was killed in Afghanistan in 2006. The proposed Shia family law has cast a shadow over the international conference in The Hague. Critics say Karzai approved the law in advance of his country�s elections in the hope of winning critical swing votes from conservative Shia men. But the law remains shrouded in mystery: it has not been published, Karzai�s office has refused to comment on it, and its alleged details have only been made public by the Afghan parliamentarians who opposed it.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild The shit you were saying would be tantamount to declaring war on the US in which case we would invade you with the support of the entire world.

I'm sorry, but, no matter how disagreeable some of what he has said may be; nothing he has said would satisfy the generally accepted jus ad bellum; subsequently, it is improbable that any country would receive the support of the world if they were to declare war in retaliation to these perceived slights.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm sorry, but, no matter how disagreeable some of what he has said may be; nothing he has said would satisfy the generally accepted jus ad bellum; subsequently, it is improbable that any country would receive the support of the world if they were to declare war in retaliation to these perceived slights.

Maybe, but it wouldn't stop there and in that type of political climate where those on your immediate borders are allying with your enemy sometimes you have to strike quickly and decisively.

Does the world support the war in Iraq? But we still went in and we are still there. Think about it.

And who is going to save you from us? If it comes down to that I can assure you we won't be giving a fuck about the global consent. You have to realize you are stuck on this side of the planet with the only assholes who have ever used nuclear arms on a civilian populace. Twice mother******s. Twice!

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Maybe, but it wouldn't stop there and in that type of political climate where those on your immediate borders are allying with your enemy sometimes you have to strike quickly and decisively.

I wasn't saying it couldn't happen... just that it would not be considered a just war and therefore that bit about the world being on your side is likely incorrect.

quote:

And who is going to save you from us?

Actually, I'd like to think the other NATO countries would giv'er a shot given our mutual defense treaty; however, I'm not confident about that (I mean really, like you can trust the fuckin' Germans or Dutch). Of course this entire discussion is moot since such a thing is less probable then the tin-foil hat brigade convincing PKC that 9/11 was an inside job.

quote:

You have to realize you are stuck on this side of the planet with the only assholes who have ever used nuclear arms on a civilian populace. Twice mother******s. Twice!

Dude... I think you've misdirected this comment. I'm very happy that Canada and the US are the closest allies and trading partners that have ever been. I, like most Canadians, value my countries relationship with yours very highly and with the exception of the crazies you have living in Jesusland and those that do their bidding in Washington we generally like our cousins to the south (and yes I realize that excludes Alaska... but can you blame us for not liking Alaskans?).

I totally agree with you and I see you are rational about our alliance. Throwing that away would be really bad for both of us, and would probably never ever happen. It is more the idiot Russian who is pissing me off, but I'm ignoring him as he has no idea what the fuck is going on. I apologize if I lashed out at you.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I apologize if I lashed out at you.

No worries.

Oh, just a side note on that whole nuclear thing... we have them too... actually they're yours but you guys trust us enough that you left them here with our fingers on the buttons... but; shhhh.... no one's supposed to know about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard No worries. Oh, just a side note on that whole nuclear thing... we have them too... actually they're yours but you guys trust us enough that you left them here with our fingers on the buttons... but; shhhh.... no one's supposed to know about that.

i know but we're one and the same really so i'm not worried

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard No worries. Oh, just a side note on that whole nuclear thing... we have them too... actually they're yours but you guys trust us enough that you left them here with our fingers on the buttons... but; shhhh.... no one's supposed to know about that.

I thought these Nucleur shared weapons in Canada ceased in 1984?
Although in Kingston this guy from the navy said its widely rumored that there are a few warheads in Kingston.

Even though the countries in nuke sharing are led on to beleive they have the execute buttons, this may be a farce, as I still see the US having a discreet override system.

this is about the canadian nukes

http://books.google.com/books?id=5-...snum=1#PPA15,M1

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi I thought these Nucleur shared weapons in Canada ceased in 1984? Although in Kingston this guy from the navy said its widely rumored that there are a few warheads in Kingston.

and North Bay, and silos in the Territories.

Indeed, the shared program ended and Canada is not a declared power; however, word on the street is we're the back-up plan.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard First; it's "eh" not "aaa."

yes - i see the difference, it is eh.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard No, the reality is that we need to be good neighbours. This will often require us supporting the US agenda (which we often do) but we can have differences of opinion... our interdependent economies are not going to sever ties simply because we don't do all the US' bidding.... the whole Iraq thing is a good example.

that's true, but it's also splitting hairs.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This is likely true for two reasons; 1) protecting Canada is beneficial to US interests, and 2) the mutual defense pact that is a cornerstone of NATO kind of demands it. While your assertion is true I do find it rather interesting that it has never actually happened... not once... the US had never come to the aid of Canada... ever. The US can't really say the same of Canada though... you guys always seem to forget that.

I agree that protecting canada is in the interests of the US. Personally, I have no problem with the US defending Canada, even if it were in a dispute with which I disagree (Canada and its people have a special place in my heart - i love BC and Toronto).

The reason the US has never needed to protect Canada is because (i) as noted by Magn, Canada is not an aggressive nation, and (ii) the potential for external threats is diminished by the fact that the potential aggressors know that the US will defend canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I just fixed up that last bit for you.

If the US wanted to take Canadian oil it would do so. NATO is not the factor dissuading the US from doing so. It is just not in the interests of the US to take Canadian oil. In addition, NATO is not a factor as your suggest for the following reasons:

(i) NATO only protects its members from EXTERNAL threats (the US would be an internal threat).
(ii) Canada likely wouldn't be a party to NATO if not for the participation of the US (Canada and the US tend to move together on the international stage).
(iii) NATO likely wouldn't be a viable organization without the participation of the US.

WTF, Canada!? FUCK CANADA! WTF do we need mooses and fucking eskimos for?! Canada, FUCK! Just b/c you have the biggest mall in the world don't mean SHIT BITCH. Hey Canada. America can whoop your asses motherF0COKERS!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 If the US wanted to take Canadian oil it would do so. NATO is not the factor dissuading the US from doing so. It is just not in the interests of the US to take Canadian oil. In addition, NATO is not a factor as your suggest for the following reasons: (i) NATO only protects its members from EXTERNAL threats (the US would be an internal threat). (ii) Canada likely wouldn't be a party to NATO if not for the participation of the US (Canada and the US tend to move together on the international stage). (iii) NATO likely wouldn't be a viable organization without the participation of the US.

I completely agree with point iii; however, the other two are incorrect. re: i) internal threats mean those internal to the member nation (ie. civil war), an attack from one member nation on another would be an external threat to the attacked nation. re: ii) I'm sure that if a US withdraw would result in NATO being even more ineffectual then it already is then we would likely pull out on those grounds, not simply because our best friends left the party so we're going too.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I completely agree with point iii; however, the other two are incorrect. re: i) internal threats mean those internal to the member nation (ie. civil war), an attack from one member nation on another would be an external threat to the attacked nation. re: ii) I'm sure that if a US withdraw would result in NATO being even more ineffectual then it already is then we would likely pull out on those grounds, not simply because our best friends left the party so we're going too.

As to (ii): i was referring to the initial membership in NATO, not a subsequent withdrawal. Canada would not be part of the organization if the US declined to join in the forties.

As to (i):

The NATO treaty isn't the most detailed document, but let's take a quick look:

quote:

Article 5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

Article 5 of the treaty states: the attack on one country (Canada) by another country (the US) is considered an attack on every country (including the US). As a result, the US would be obligated to fend of an attack of Canada by the US. That really doesn't make sense because you can't defend a country from your own attacks.

The very nature of the organization didn't comtemplate an attack by an internal member. The purpose was to create a force to defend members from Russian attacks. I don't think article 5 obligates any country to come to the defense of a member when attacked by another member. In any event, the article is watered down by the qualification, "as it deems necessary."

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I wasn't saying it couldn't happen... just that it would not be considered a just war and therefore that bit about the world being on your side is likely incorrect. Actually, I'd like to think the other NATO countries would giv'er a shot given our mutual defense treaty; however, I'm not confident about that (I mean really, like you can trust the fuckin' Germans or Dutch). Of course this entire discussion is moot since such a thing is less probable then the tin-foil hat brigade convincing PKC that 9/11 was an inside job. Dude... I think you've misdirected this comment. I'm very happy that Canada and the US are the closest allies and trading partners that have ever been. I, like most Canadians, value my countries relationship with yours very highly and with the exception of the crazies you have living in Jesusland and those that do their bidding in Washington we generally like our cousins to the south (and yes I realize that excludes Alaska... but can you blame us for not liking Alaskans?).

Zild doesnt know his history. He is forgetting that Canada made significant contributions in World War I and World War 2. Who liberated Netherlands? Who participated in liberating considerable portions of Italy and France?

Without Canada, it would not have been the same. Tens of thousands of Canadians gave up their lives in those wars. Yes, we did and do support our allies.

Canada has a strong but small military, and came to the defense of our allies when NEEDED. But today its becoming clear that Afghanistan is unneccessary. Few years ago there was something to fight for there, and now after the fog cleared up, its obvious that Canadian troops are merely protecting (crappy and corrupt) Afghan leadership and patrolling the heroin fields. And besides, the only country that has to the date invaded us was ... our closest neighbour. We don't worry about other countries invading Canada. Just like Norway doesn't worry. Anything else is merely political intimidation.

We don't shit on anyone's lawn, and enjoy having a good image in the world. No offense, but United States isn't exactly a very popular and widely loved country (compared to Canada), and we definitely dont have the guns to back up our "tough" stance, so we try not to invade countries or stick our noses into other countries' business - thouggh occassionally we come to the rescue of our allies even if our public doesnt support the stance. And now in Afghanistan, we see that Afghan politicians are spitting on the graves of the Canadian soldiers with ill-conceived and ignorant laws that once again allow women to be controlled and raped systematically.

Smart thing to do for Canada now is to threaten to the Afghan government that we are pulling out. I am sure that would be enough for them to cancel the law. Zild might think that Canadian military is weak, but 1,000 Canadian troops are strong enough to control the Kandahar province.

EDIT: He is also conveniently ignoring the articles I posted on Afghanistan. At least I use evidence and rational thinking to base my conclusions on, and not harsh language.

I really really do think it is time for the Canadian forces to leave that country. Clearly the leadership there is a joke and our troops are dying for nothing. Lets leave to Obama since he thinks having more forces there will solve the problem.

GET OUR TROOPS OUT NOOOOW.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.