Signals.Cpl

Who raised you? My god the ideas you have...

Because thats the only other alternative? Where do you live? Which planet is it?

No, but If I were, I would ask someone who might actually know something about women... Comparing notes with you on anything might be useless wether it be about reality, women, politics, economics, well anything and everything...

Good luck with that...

Ouch... how old did you say you were?

Was your wife a mail-order bride from Russia?

If you say so.

No, its not.

All you and your ilk do is make more victims...

Thats called prostitution. I think its legal now so its all good, but you don't need to call her your "girlfriend"...

You are illiterate if you can't read your own post.

Maybe if you could get a girlfriend you would have to pay for a women to strip? Ever thought about that?

I believe he was making a point agains this "argument" and not trying to compare strippers to anything.

We already knew where you kept that stick of yours.

Wow...such an insult I bet he is crying in the corner from that one...

Only a child would be amused by swearing.

Thats all it takes to impress you?

Besides, aren't you one of those who argued our system is just fine? We don't need to change it?

Common sense dictates that if there is a group of people coming in to your country who are extremely vulnerable because they have no friends or family, they don't know the language, and there is a subgroup of those who are taken advantage in brutal ways we stop the practice. True they could go to England or Turkey or France or any other country but we cannot influence their laws or decisions but we can make sure that women in Canada cannot and will not be victimized in such a way and that we will not import more of the problem to the country by letting women who are extremely vulnerable be abused. You lack the common sense to see that the rights of those women being brutalized in Canada are more important then the rights of women to come and make money. Again, how many women forced to become sex slaves is the acceptable number? Is there a percentage that you can simply right off because at least the other are making money?

Great, thats easy to say "go after the criminals" in the meantime we would let the women be abused and enslaved. How many woman have to be exploited before you support this? Millions of women worldwide make their living as strippers true, but at the end of the day do we really use that excuse to indirectly support making some of those women sex slaves? They make a living, power to them, but we also need to protect them as best we can, and if that means that we will have to eliminate the whole groups access to our country in order to protect the once being abused then so be it. Because unlike you, I don't think the right of one money to make money trumps the right of another to be free and amok her own choices about sexual partners. If you can provide a serious solution to the problem other then just "go after the criminals" it would go a long way to support your argument. Right now the authorities are going after the criminals but they can't necessarily too much in the way of helping these women because the women themselves don't trust police or are not even allowed access to the authorities.

Once the mission to expel the Taliban and al-Quida in Afghanistan ended the NATO mandate ended and a new mission, nation building stated at which point NATO members would not really be obligated to stay. Simple, if you want to have a more active and robust alliance you need to change its mandate. So you don't see every piece of military equipment being a whole new war to purchase it? How long before another government comes in and cancelled all projects pending a review of all the purchases? As a defensive alliance in nature, the US gets the knowledge that should a war breakout it still has the support of NATO behind it. Afghanistan was a defensive war insofar as the taliban had to be removed and al-Quida had to be kicked out, past that it was the responsibility of the Northern Alliance. Well that was an answer to your suggestion that we should pick and choose our allies as the situation comes along, and honestly we have a limited choice of allies. In a serious international situation we are limited to the US. suggesting to diversify our allies to say China or Russia is great in peacetime, but should it ever come to that we will probably not be in a position of strength. So we have come to the conclusion that Canada is like the "barely second world" armies of Eastern Europe. So if we purchase the best equipment, say thats the F-35 and cut training to the levels of say the North Korean Airforce, would the RCAF still be relevant? If there was a relevant UN type organization to take leadership I can see Canadians having a change of heart. Right now one side sees the UNPK as handing out flowers and candy while bringing peace on earth without being violent like the big bad Americans, while the other side sees the UN as an irrelevant organization that I wouldn't trust with my pocket knife. And then there is the large majority of people who don't care one way or another. If a strong organization takes leadership, and makes an informative presentation it could have a significant impact on people's view. Again, the US was attacked, NATO moved in to assist the US, and then the Adfghan War started, if the war had stated the goal of removing the Taliban, and removing al-Quida from power and the country, arming the Northern alliance and being out by late 2002-2003 it would have been good, but then you have an extension of the war in order to conduct nation building...by an alliance that is meant as a defensive alliance in a different type of war. Round one was NATO's concern, and round 2 was not so much, those who wanted to stay, stayed and those who didn't want to stay left as they had no obligation after the initial stage was done. So? Russia is also supplying Syria with weapons to kill civilians, whats your point? Piracy affects them and therefore they act on it to protect their interests. No, the last point had nothing to do with NATO, it was more of your suggestion that we can pick and choose our allies, which I took as implying that we had a choice to Choose China or Russia in any future conflict with the US instead of the US.

And mine says that if done as it should be done any problems that are encountered will quickly be overcome.

It can be done right if if there is a proper mindset, if there is no central plan and little communication between the different organizations involved in the process then likely it would not work but if as I said done right with the proper ROE's telling both sides that messing with the Peace Maker and you will meet your maker. The reason it won't work has little to do with the other side, and more to do with the fact that we as a group in the west don't have the stomach for a fight and many of the troublemakers in Africa and the middle east know it and use it against us.

If its done right, it has the chance to stop all the bloodshed right then and there, if on the other hand done wrong, it will do nothing more then add extra targets.

Depends on the situation though, if like you said we had gone in killed off al-Quida and the Taliban and left the Northern Alliance to do as it pleases we would have been out of Afghanistan long ago, so many people and I assume in W.Europe they hold similar views, see the war in Afghanistan as a waste since the threat was removed and the war continued. Most people don't care about what the US thinks, look at our country, its a national sport to bash the US wether they deserve it or not. We have had an anti-American attitude for generations but now its at least in my view dramatically increased due to the ability to have average joe voice his opinion in front of an audience of potentially millions. We declined to support them in Iraq, but it would be different if we stick them with the bill for our defence while we give them the finger. Because we don't have the option to pick and choose, once someone sets their sites on the US our ass is on the line by default. IF we wanted the ability to be as neutral as Sweden is we would have to commit economic suicide. We might get stuck with the people we don't want as allies and promptly end up as America's lunch. If I can't afford to feed my kids or I didn't want to spend the money to feed my kids would my kids not starve either way? No I don't, I think that its not black and white, better training can offset a lot of handicaps, and in the long run a badly equipped but well trained and led army could get the job done, just becomes of question of the human costs. And no, I didn't serve in the 80's so my opinion is based more on theory then experience. Yes it is, but then most people still view Peacekeeping as hanging out flowers and candy. The CAR could have helped significantly in preventing the genocide. Don't get me wrong, I hold no beliefs that Canada will ever spend enough money to equip the CF for independent operation, but as part of an alliance we sure could contribute greatly. As I mentioned before, and as you yourself said, people see it as a useless continuation of a mission that should have ended years ago. When your people see it as having done their job, and not having signed up for nation building they might fell little need to assist in something that is well outside of the mandate of the Alliance. They did operate as intended for the duration of the attack which lasted until the fall of the Taliban and the removal of al-Quida, if you see it as a nation building mission which the alliance is not intended for why should they see it different? Because the US is our main ally and will remain so for a long time to come unless something really stupid/horrible happens. We cannot choose China or Russia as an Ally as it would be disastrous to our economy and our independence. We could have agreements and we could work together in certain issues but when push comes to shove we stick by the US as a loyal ally or we stick in the US as an occupied territory.