Signals.Cpl

No I like veriety, unlike in your fantasy world there are multiple reason for events rather than only one... kinda like there are multiple reasons for you being irrelevant and they are all so good I cant stick to just one.

Well we went to remove the Taliban from power, seeing as they had been brutalizing the people of Afghanistan for years it was appreciated help... while you admitted to supporting genocide hence you have no problem with committing one. When you learn the value of innocent life then we can talk.

Who would want your input? We went to help the people of Afghanistan we did not go to commit a genocide against them seeing as you support genocide my conversation with you seem futile as you have no common sense or a sense of decency

I say we start a fund for wyly's history education...seems to me someone dropped the ball at some point and he is painfully unaware of any events before 2000 and thus relies on BS.

This is and was well recorded Taliban and by extension al-Quida practice, he went to fight for them and therefore he fought for their beliefs and supported their actions. Because stupid things happen in Canada we should let terrorists go free? Love your logic or lack thereof. So you like their actions? You support the Taliban and al-Quida? Financially, morally or physically? Yeah but the organization(see Taliban history pre 2001) he so heroically joined to fight the big bad Americans redeemable qualities they could never even match up. I guess you support those who committed the Holocaust or the Genocide in Rwanda, after all you don't need to like everything about the organization to be part of it right? Three hoorays for the SS, the Gestapo and the Interahamwe! If he was not there, he would not be fired upon. Are you tired? Do you need a nap? You seem awfully cranky... need a wowypop? And you do, thats the difference between us...well one of the differences the others being I have common sense, a brain and well I am an adult. Well thats true, you could be a conservative or NDP and thats your right, but when it comes to supporting the Taliban through your actions and participation you have to judge their history and previous actions and their view is that women are dogs( thats why they are not allowed to get an education, covered from head to toe and could only leave the house if a male relative was with them or they received written permission to be outside "unsupervised") and he judged that with the Taliban and al-Quida just fine... Well unless the organization is all extreme and none of the soft and gooey stuff. Financing al-quida does not count as "humanitarian" effort... According to the Taliban and al-Quida he was a great man... so was Hitler, Saddam and Stalin when you ask their supporters,idiots, undedicated or apparently you. Yes, because hat was it almost 8 or 9 years of Taliban rule was a paradise for the people of Afghanistan and they were not oppressed in the least? Do you know ANYTHING about the Taliban? And we have every right to let him suffer the consequences. Not military, terrorist. Again, there is a difference between military organizations(US military, British Military etc...) and terrorists(the Taliban, al-Quaida etc...) learn the difference it might do you some good. He was send to Pakistan as a translator, he chose to go and fight with the Taliban...the same group that were oppressing Afghanistan for years, he build IEDs that likely killed NATO soldiers and Afghan civilians, he was captured by American Forces while in the company of his colleagues(al-Quida/Taliban) and received a 10 year vacation to sunny Cuba... What did I miss? Who is a funny bunny? You are! Terrorist Activities against the nation and people of Afghanistan. Neither do the Majority of Canadians, the only problem is the idiot few are also the loudest. I ask again, do you think about what you write, or is it kind of a surprise to you as well when it come out? Not really, I just emptied my bowels and seems to me that you are trying to spew your all over this forum. You wouldn't know what a fact or for that matter reality is if it smacked you in the face. Yeah because the Taliban are the poster child of liberty... genius...pure genius... What are you talking about? That is if you can decipher your own bullshit... Building IED's, funding terrorists, fighting to oppress Afghanistan...need I say more? You mean like attacking the liberty of a little girl for wanting to get an education? I don't see you having a source for that. Cant compare him to myself, I am a human being, he is an animal... see no comparison... Man when you grow up to be a biiiiiig boy and you find some women to marry, she will be in for a biiiiig surprise when she finds your loyalties and beliefs are so inline with the Taliban... are you going to let her learn? Work? Or are you going to follow in the footsteps of your heroes the Taliban?

Don't be so sure...

So were Delta Force...they were a guest to the people of Afghanistan while he was a guest to the people animals who indiscriminately kill civilians, target little girls who only want to go to school and get an education, use civilians as human shields, oppress women to almost unheard of degree, kill anyone willing to teach girls and well there is quite a lot more but I will not waste my time explaining all of their activities. Never said he had no right to be there, what people have a problem is that he left Canada and went to a war zone fought our allies and then cried for Canada to take him back...he was in Afghanistan placing IEDs while Canadian soldiers were in Afghanistan helping our allies...love how he had a right to be there and oppress people as a guest but we had no right to be there to help people as a guest... love your "logic"... I did not know treason was a constitutional right... but then again you know everything about nothing so why am I even arguing... Yeah, we should hold the US accountable that he went to Afghanistan planted IEDs that in many situations kill civilians intentionally... we should hold the Us accountable because he is a Canadian and he had the "right" to go and oppress the people of Afghanistan? I am done arguing with you, I feel like I am getting dumber just by reading your posts... he had good intentions I know...blow up NATO soldiers, bring back the Taliban to power and oppress and terrorize women and the people of Afghanistan in general? Good intentions all around right? Well if your thing is throwing acid at the faces of little girl or shooting them in the head then by all means you are right... but then again if you are civilized not so much. The US had every right to overthrow Afghanistan, and the people of Afghanistan are that much bette off without them no matter how bad it gets. The Khadr's had no reason or right to involve themselves in oppressing a nation and any punishment that terrorist receives is not enough. A war where he had no right involving himself in... it didn't work that well for Kanao Inouye so I guess that piece of garbage can count himself lucky... It is an unfortunate event that the Americans could not finish the job. Not initiated? He moved from Canada to Afghanistan where he build IEDs and he did not initiate anything? Are you serious? Do you read what you post or is a surprise for you as well?

There goes your theory of War over oil...

And a Canadian Khadr had no place there either... I love how you miss about 80% of the argument and add "facts" where you want to... After a long day dealing with adults I like coming here and read your responses... lightens the mood to see your brand of comedy.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT... its not like 80%+ of our trade is with the US...

Monroe Doctrine? And not every little insignificant nation should have a military, why would the USSR need Costa Rica when they had Cuba as an Ally? What would the Soviet Union get from invading Costa Rica that would be worth the potential war with the US? Look at the population of Costa Rica and their paramilitary forces, they are proportionally really close to Canada based on population. They Abolished their military but transferred many of the abilities to their national police forces and expended them to meet the growing responsibilities. Thats like disbanding the CF and transferring its responsibilities, budget, equipment and manpower to the RCMP and saying we abolished the military hence we are defenceless. The biggest threat to Central American states is themselves rather than the US. Like? And why did that happen? Maybe because those nations were irrelevant? The gain was too small when the risk of war with NATO and the US was ever present? Was that before or after the end of the Cold War? Lets ask Hungary(1956) and Czechoslovakia(1968)... I want to know which were these countries that the USSR let go so willingly... Actually if we are to be historically accurate I would say it would be the British...

It does make it alarmist, people don't understand that our unemployment or rather our employment is affected by the US, if the US is doing great we are too, if they are not so hot we can do a lot to mitigate the problem but at the end of the day we are greatly affected. What bothers me is that there is all of this talk of high unemployment yet the government resorts to importing labour rather than creating more programs to offer retraining to in demand trades. I think that there would be many Canadians happy about going back to school and having a good chance to get a job at the end of it so why not invest in more and better retraining programs instead of streamlining the process to bring the in demand workers from other countries. Also it seems to me it is the same crowd crying about the high unemployment and then goes and cries about PM Harper going overseas to try and expand our trade to beyond just the US.

Yeah during the cold war Iceland defended itself because of this stelar example of them having an economic disagreement with the UK. See if this was a real war as you are trying to present it as the British would have steamrolled through the "defences" of Iceland with only a couple of destroyers. I would think the fact that Iceland had an American Garrison defending it for over 30 years proves that the US defended Iceland...but don't let facts get in your way.

Is it just me or do some people REALLY want dirt on the PM but can't find much so they try to tun everything he does in to a "scandal"?

I was just saying that it was the only negative change within that timeframe shown so I don't understand understand the whole alarmist reaction.

It seems to me that the only place that unemployment has not gone down is Newfoundland and Labrador while every other province has cut their unemployment rate.

We need to improve the efficiency rather than eliminate the organization. The limit is the ability to provide effective coverage over our airspace, the limit is the ability to provide SAR with aircraft that will let them reach anyone anywhere whenever needed rather than put them in harms way with aircraft that are 50 years old and unreliable. The limit is providing enough soldiers to be able to create a safe environment for SAR in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack and provide the manpower for assisting in SAR efforts in the event of such a need. Having too much will drain our resources, having too little is a waste of resources, if we limit our force to such a degree we will be wasting money on an entity that cannot meet any of the above mentioned expectations. And then the professionals have come in and decided that 65 is enough for us to provide security for Canadians. It is something that people have strived for since the beginning of humanity, just because there is no 100% guarantee does not mean we will stop trying. until it happens and we need the equipment, thats one big whoops moment one we cannot afford to have. until something happens where people realize that we need them and we will dish out 3X as much to get them in a hurry... what was that saying? Close the barn door after the horse hot out? I am all for drones, but drones do not replace fighters maybe in 10 years but not now. So you are FOR spending billions on building and maintaining nukes but would rather not spend billions on aircraft that are much more useful than Nukes. No vehicles, no heavy weapons, no aircraft... seems like the soldiers will be useless once the property owners as you suggested buy their fighters and CAS... I get on a plane and know that there is a chance someone is on that plane with the intent to hijack it but I also know that chance is small thanks to precautions taken by security staff... just because we cannot guarantee safety does not mean we should stop trying as money becomes useless if you are dead. Glad you agree, that is where your solution leads to.

The state creates laws and the state enforces them, the military and police in western nations are created in such a way as to have checks and balances on their power and prevent some general or commander of the RCMP from overthrowing the government. If soldiers don't like something they can complain but not much more, police likewise. A hundred or a thousand armed citizens don't like something they tend to respond with violence. Right now a police officer or a member of the military swears an oath, you want to remove that and make money the only means of control the government has which means someone finds another source of money they don't have to abide by any rules but their own. So you want to go against centuries of progress on the off chance that your fantasy MIGHT work? Seems a little vague and oversimplified. The CDS might be the most charismatic person in the country and he is unlikely to be able to overthrow the government because of all the checks and balances in place, you want to let a mob pretend to be police where they can be swept up by a charismatic leader, there would be no professionalism in the "police" force no standards etc... Precisely why having a professional organization to protect the citizens was deemed a necessity by so many countries in the world... A police force formed entirely of private citizens with no loyalty to a central government and little to no standards of training becomes a gang soon enough when someone who has some leadership potential, charisma and no morals figures out that he does not need a government in Ottawa that will tax the people of Kingston to pay for a citizen police force, he can skip the middle man and tax them to death, and when one guy does it everyone else will jump on the wagon because they become their own boss and do not need to rely on the impotent central government. 1) That is I think part of the American constitution rather than a Canadian one. 2)By the people=Voted in by the citizens 3)for the people= healthcare, defence, education policing... 4)of the people= made up of Canadians democratically elected. Until I take my new citizen police force and unleash it on the people I am supposed to protect and tax them in order to wage war on the neighbouring towns. Anarchy will happen when the central government does not have power and the individual people of this country are left to fend for themselves, this means those willing to rape, murder, maim and use violence as a mean of accomplishing their goals will have free reign as no one will be there to stop them or enforce the laws. Yeah I figured out a long time ago that you are a closet anarchist Yeah, because I said so... well that and 10,000 years of history support my position. We will remove the professional forces with their standards and all, and will then go and give someone x number of dollars to form and run a citizen police force that has no loyalty to the central government but has loyalty to their leader... aka mercenaries. That is anarchy, so you agree that your stupid suggestion leads to anarchy? Finally making some progress... You limit it to a certain point and the power is eliminated, if the government does not have the tens of thousands of soldiers and police officers as a means of enforcing its laws but has only a few thousand soldiers and police officers they could not do much more than sit in their barracks and hope they don't get over run. So you are not only arguing with everyone on this board but are now arguing with history? show me an example of where your theory has been tried and has succeeded for a prolonged period of time. I know its a good one thank you very much. History supports my position, not yours. Sampoong Department Store... when the owner was left to his own devices he chose the cheapest option disregarding public safety, now imagine an entire nation of such buildings. Then how do you propose equipping and contracting the police? you essentially give someone some money to organize a force to police, when the force is loyal to their commander rather than the government it is mercenaries. You advocate for property owners to purchase weapons to defend their property including fighters...: Why waste money on soldiers though? If you don't buy the equipment needed those soldiers next to useless if they have to fight off property owners who have fighters and artillery but we don't want to spend the money on that equipment... I never suggested buying thousands of jets, you either provide a quote or stop putting words in my mouth. So your suggestion is in the meantime instead of protecting ourselves we should embrace democracy and trade? So we disarm and lets face it that is what you are advocating seeing as the majority of the cost to the military is personnel but lets say we leave a force of light infantry who have no vehicles to get anywhere and depend on walking or commandeering civilian vehicles to get from point a to point b... and then they get there are realize that the property owner has heavy weapons, weapons that outclass anything they have and then you end up with soldiers who don't have the means to fight and protect their own citizens.

That seems to be an answer for everything it seems, someone pokes holes in your idiotic theory and presents some facts it suddenly becomes oversimplification.

No its very simple, if your diplomacy will not work with a thug and his 5 friends it will not work with a thug and his hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Your solution is to negotiate, great but if you don't carry the big stick your words mean nothing. Expecting other nations to waste treasure and lives on our defence while we are unwilling to do so in our defence let along in theirs means you know nothing about the world.

So how would you strategy work anyway? You say we blow it up then you say that blowing it up is oversimplification....make up your mind.

Essentially you use people, just like you want us to use the US for defence... shows real character.

Which would lead to no government and various petty dictators with weapons terrorizing the people, which would lead to forming of city states and larger nations until we end up with a couple of large nations with dictators.

You define security, since you seem really elusive on it by saying we should let civilians form their own military units all the while the government will not waste money on a military but will have a military sufficient to defend Canada but without spending any money...

How long does your car run before you have to buy a new one? forever?