Derek 2.0

Well no, you didn't........Do you know how the quote function works? If so, by all means quote the passage you attribute to me.......like myself and BC2000 did with you.

ISIS was/is outnumbered by the current Iraqi army........Of course its an opinion, likewise your claim ISIS wouldn't have risen without the 2003 invasion....... Clearly ~8% of our economy in one sector is too great....... Don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-oil rant though....

Well no, I provided a quote of you actually stating as much.........unlike you, I'll quote the actual post and not utilize made up projections

Right......so ISIS was able to help topple one regime, but Saddam would have posed to great nut to crack.... You know oil accounts for ~8% of Canada's GDP right?

Exactly, as Fisher suggested, the British SAS and Americans SEALs, Green Berets and Delta Force (likewise the Australian SAS) have been there for months.........Canadian special forces aren't the only ones locating and targeting ISIS forces on the ground....

Well yeah, you did:

It is per the forum rules. Good, I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that ISIS is a threat, worse than Saddam…..but what makes you so sure ISIS never would have attempted to take over? Didn’t you already regurgitate Wikipedia and suggest the formation of ISIS predates the 2003 invasion? Likewise, ISIS wasn’t deterred by the equally brutal Assad regime in Syria, so ISIS has rose in Syria but it wouldn’t have in a Saddam controlled Iraq? I see, so if a regional war were to occur in the Middle East, a war that could stop or curtail ~60% of the World’s oil reserves from entering the World’s markets, we just simply fuel our economy with something else………..Well if its that easy, you have me convinced!!!! Brilliant!!!!

Exactly

I acknowledged your quotes of the “silenced scientists” not being silent……..and names? You called names in your prior post........then question my memory That's subjective......none the less, if the Saudis decided to halt the flow of oil from all member states of the Persian Gulf, likewise invade or destroy their neighbors resources or a non-state actor took control of Saudi fields there would be a catastrophic effect on Worldwide supply and in turn, the World's economy........hence Western intervention in the 1980s, 90s, 2003 and now yet again. Oh, like when he invaded Iran? Or the Kuwait follow-up? You're talking out of your arse: That was but one, granted politically inflated, reason.......the reason for Western intervention now, was the same as it was in 2003, 1991 and the Tanker Wars in the 80s........ Maybe, but Realpolitik is an ever evolving reality………doing nothing and wishing away problems is not the solution....

Where did I state that? By all means, provide a quote in which I said that......... You speak to maturity and quality of the conversation, yet I've provided cites and quotes versus your name calling and personal attacks....... Sure and a large portion of total World production is in the Middle East......if said Middle Eastern oil is taken out of the equation, the balance sheet of production is thrown on end.........A sharp reduction in World supply would translate into very nasty results for everyone. Without a doubt, Saddam certainly posed threats, numerous times, to the production and export of Persian Gulf oil....

Perhaps you should have a go at those mind games.....You inferred I claimed said nations didn't have Governments...Now quote the distinction in which you feel I made. Sure, the World doesn't run on the laughter of children and recycled hemp......if the oil stops, everything stops Its my fault that I don't acknowledge your opinion is fact? ISIS clearly posed a threat to topple the elected Government of Iraq....since the West has joined in, said threat has diminished. No, I was speaking to the present day Iraq and the threat posed by ISIS. I'm not a mystic, so since you won't substantiate your opinion, I'll drop it until you're prepared to revisit it.

Literally? By all means, provide a quoted passage where I did. Dinosaur bones that fuel the World economy...... They didn't pose a threat......in your opinion. In your opinion......my opinion is that a violent force that has destabilized an economically important region is a threat to not only Canada, but the World. I've went back and reread your posts......which pieces of legislation do you find authoritarian.....in your opinion? I will repeat a question I feel important if its not answered........for fun, sure, that is the point of the forum in my opinion....

I never made that distinction......again that's your projection. If such nations have/had shared interests like ours, like terrorism, I'd favor working with such nations, inversely, if said nations posed a threat to our interests, if required to protect those interests, I too would favor military action......... Case in point, I favor working with China combating international piracy, but if China were to attack the Japanese, I'd favor military action in defense of Japan.... Again distinctions were made.......... Did you cut and paste wikipedia? I know the threat posed by ISIS.......you suggested ISIS didn't become a threat until after Canada joined the effort against ISIS..... What authoritarian polices?

Government as experienced by Smith…….does stable democracy work for you? I'm not confused the slightest.......clearly its within Canada's interests that the Government of Iraq is able to defend its own society from violence and injustice wrought by ISIS..... Ahh no, I clearly made the distinction between what was fact and opinion.......... In your opinion....... ISIS was not present in Iraq prior to our involvement in the conflict? Now I'm confused.... Where? You're confused...... But claiming conservatives desire an authoritarian Government is wrong........as demonstrated by the current Government's actions

I too heard something along those lines, based on their projected lay-offs in the merger bid......

I guess we'll have to wait for President Bush to rubber stamp it two years from now though

I never said either country didn't have a Government.......quite the opposite really, as both those examples had Governments that allowed terrorists to train/plan attacks against the West and posed a threat to an economically important region of the World. With this second go around in Iraq, we're clearly there aiding the Iraqi Government in: And no, there is no confusion on my part, I clearly qualify both my opinions and fact...i.e. -Western Governments justified military action because of a threat against their societies...that being fact -I agree with the Government's justification for military action.....my opinion -You disagree with the Government's justification for military action....your opinion As such, if said Governments determine and act against a threat, they align with Smith's writings..... Would Libertarians responds if threatened? And no, I didn't backtrack the slightest......you stated "Conservatives love authority" and then I provided several examples in counter to your wide brush.... How so? I never suggested the CPC/GOP were more "Libertarian" then the Libertarian Party (Likewise the NDP not being more Commie than the Communists), that is your projection....... I did state however, parties like the CPC and GOP will encompass various Libertarian principles, likewise even statist principles, landing somewhere in between both extremes....Likewise the LPC/NDP or Democrats.....Clearly such things are not black and white, as such, claiming one side to have the monopoly on State authority is myopic......

Exactly, I feel the Federal Government job is to defend Canadians......not to raise our children. I acknowledged your links that speak to the silenced scientists speaking out........ I never suggested that Iraq or Afghanistan were part of a Canadian Empire, but as suggested by Smith, both are/were clearly countries without "regular Government" until established by Western force. That is your opinion. Of course others, including myself, feel instability in a region important to the World's economy does directly threaten the interests of Canadians...........Smith's own Government, likewise the other major economies of the time, very much so implemented an interventionist foreign policy.........perhaps you best reread Smith's comments on the economic benefits of the British Commonwealth......... I never said they were, nor the NDP being Communist...... How many US States or Canadian Provinces have seen a Libertarian Party form Government?Exactly.....hence fringe party. Again, Libertarian parties are fringe at best, yet some Libertarian ethos are shared by Conservatives/Republicans.....I'm not embarrassed the slightest.....why would I be?

Sure, its a demonstration of another encroachment of the State on the taxpaying populace...... Links of the "silenced" scientists no doubt? Read the ensuing sentences........... Furthermore: By all means, demonstrate where Smith suggests cutting the military to fund daycares......or save money. Both being fringe parties that will never govern in our lifetimes........versus the GOP and CPC that both contain varying Classic Liberal virtues.......Be they portions of the "Tea Party" or the old "Reform Party", but for said parties to be electable and to govern, require a less myopic view of (political) reality....

No, I look to programs promised by the various parities that will have the least amount of impact on my life as lessening of State authority...... What scientists were silenced? No it doesn't.........see Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations

I would say the current Government further deregulating the economy and reducing Government revenue runs counter to your meme though.......promises of state run childcare or "investing" CPP monies into pet projects, to me, is a far more relevant example of the authority of the State.....

Is it as silly as claiming Conservatives love authority? Yes, I know that, but thanks...... You bet.....more so than the Liberals and Conservatives, but to a lessened degree then that of the KPD......

That of course runs counter to Libertarian ethos..........one of course could claim the statist "left" also loves "authority".......

Clearly a fake!!!

Member Moonbox suggested the Americans spend too much on defense (and not enough on social programs), and in turn the South Koreans didn't require American defense aid to fend off a nuclear armed North Korea. The response by myself and BC2000 was to demonstrate the actual threat posed by the North Koreans, including their ability to attack Seoul with tube and rocket artillery from behind the DMZ......with that, the North Koreans being estimated to be able to drop a similar amount of munitions on Seoul as the Allies dropped on German/Japanese cities. The threat of course is acknowledged by both the South Koreans and the Americans, and further compounded by the fact the Americans have spent the last decade moving their forces from bases along the DMZ that are within range of North Korean artillery to a larger base further South. Member Moonbox's counter opinion is formed by his claim that 4000 tons of explosives dropped by Allied bombers is more destructive than 4000 tons of explosives dropped by North Korean artillery. Furthermore, a linked opinion piece that states the North isn't that much of a threat because the Americans have the ability to effectively counter North Korean artillery with smart bombs and artillery munitions.......now why someone would base his/hers opinion on the South's independent ability to counter the nuclear armed North with an opinion piece stating the Americans could handle the North is something you'll have to ask Moonbox.......... Clear as mud?