Signals.Cpl

When did I say that Iceland will invade us? Resources like Canada? Care to provide a source?

How many of them are improving the situation? How many of them can and do prevent massacres? How many of them have long term chance of success rather then repetition of Rwanda? The DPKO is understaffed, and unequipped to meet an emergency of any sort. Look at Syria and the actions of the UN, we have the UN going there with the intention of recording the crimes for future warcrimes trial, rather then preventing the massacres they are recording for the aftermath...real helpful. If the UN were to be successful in any peacekeeping they need to be able to deploy a force that maintains the peace when there is peace to maintain but can also make peace, and they need diplomats who can and will solve the problems while the Peacekeepers hold down the fort rather then dragging out a solution for a generation.

Can you point to any successful peacekeeping missions? And then they want to send Canadian Peacekeepers to missions where they can watch the rapes and murders happen while being restricted on their actions. I hope you realize that there were other nations there as well. Does it matter if the end result is a nation that can provide a better life for its citizens? Protecting the 50 or so percent who had NO voice? The failure was was on the political side rather then the military side. Massive difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. Care to explain? Then it wouldn't be a peacekeeping mission... The whole argument here is that the UN has screwed up each and every mission because of its very structure which was wether intentionally or by accident designed for failure.

i'm sorry but who has defended Iceland throughout the last 100 years? Who defended Iceland during World War 2? The cold war? Im pretty sure the US had something to do with them not requiring a military.

So you are sticking to the imaginary numbers now? What about during the hight of Canada's peacekeeping adventure where we had thousands of soldiers deployed? I don't think even the NDP is naive enough to believe that 150 soldiers will bring Canada back to a leadership role... 121 Canadians died over those 60 years, and how many of those missions were a success? You want cheap, useless missions, so that a military could be maintained on the cheap and be useless in any other type of operation but peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is dead, at least with the way the UN is running it, so the best we can do is avoid going overseas at all or avoid UN peacekeeping.

And their own party platform says you are wrong. Are you seriously going to argue with me about the NDP's platform when their platform specifically states intent to sign up for useless peacekeeping missions?

Last time I didn't have home insurance my house didn't burn down, but I don't plan on building my future on the assumption that this will not happen again. It would be a little too late to start building up the military when you need it, as so far we have gotten away with it but I don't base my decision for my future on the flukes of yesterday. I remember Canadian soldiers dying needlessly because of the last spending cuts, I assume you don't know much about national interests, but they do exist and as such military force will be required from time to time. Wether the ruling party is the Conservatives, Liberals or the NDP, it will always be the exact same situation when the National interests come up the government has to act.

Reply: My reply http://www.ndp.ca/platform/leadership-on-world-stage#section-6-4 The fact is that the NDP is just as likely to deploy Canadians overseas as any other party, I was pointing out that little fact.

Unfortunately I would have to disagree with you here, there are people who support this policy and believe its a positive change.

DoD=US DND=Canada

Ok what about if we are to resume the Leadership in Peacekeeping? That would entail thousands of soldiers in dozens of different missions without the RoE's in place in order to prevent mass murders and improve the situation. In the 90's the budget cuts were accompanied with an increase tempo in deployments, which means that more people were being send to missions with worse equipment and less and less financial resources. Sending soldiers in to dangerous situations and missions and then tying their hands behind their backs is probably not the most productive way to accomplish anything. Besides even if we were to return to peacekeeping and avoid wars of any kind in the foreseeable future would you say that we should disband the military units that are not directly associated with peacekeeping? The military is an insurance policy, you cancel the insurance policy if your house catches on fire it would probably be a little late for you to try and get some insurance. What you cut now, will cost you much more in an emergency.

I don't know where I should post this, but my question to people here is do you agree with the no zero policy not specifically for the school in question but the policy in general. I have received zero's when I didn't complete assignments or when I didn't show up for a test or an exam, and to me that prompted me to review my actions and improve. I don't see how we can expect anything from the future when kids are not held accountable for their actions, if you dsont complete an assignment you don't get the marks for said assignment just as when you don't do your work you don't get paid. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/06/08/edmonton-no-zero-teacher-dorval-no-appeal.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/05/31/edmonton-teacher-zeros-sheppard.html

Meaning that there will be more. The NDP wants to send Canadian Soldiers on peacekeeping missions that serve no purpose other then a feel good mission for Canadians. And honestly, I am well aware what equip the military for peacekeeping means.

Great, once again who is going to pay for it? How will you raise the money for free tuition? How will you convince the government to spend the money on tuition instead of the hundred or so other pressing issues? How do you justify paying for the "higher" education of somebody who is in a program with the only career path being Tim Hortons? How do you justify free education for the kids of people making 100k+?

http://www.ndp.ca/platform/leadership-on-world-stage#section-6-4

My issue is not so much the terrorist but the fact that they are sponsoring terrorists out to annihilate a nation and its people. If there was an acceptable end goal anywhere in their preachings for example if they had the goal of a free and independent Palestine AND a free and Independent Israel I wouldn't approve of terrorist activities but at the same time It would be the problem of the nations doing the oppressing whereas now, my issue is that there is no acceptable solution as most of the organizations are bent on destruction and will not settle for anything less. Add to that the fact that Iran has also been preaching annihilation of Israel and you can see why some people feel a little uneasy with even a remote possibility of them getting a nuclear weapon. And one persons fight for freedom is everyone else's genocide... How have they behaved much better? What is the criteria to measure their behaviour? And how many brutal invasions? I Thats great, but like everything else in life there are a bunch of innocent people in the middle of it all. There might be some violent scumbags but vast majority are people like you and I, who just want to live in peace so they can raise their kids, see them graduate high school, college, get married and have kids of their own and that is on both sides of the conflict. Look at Rwanda, the world left the violent scumbags to do as they pleased and 800,000-1,000,000 people lost their lives, or the Balkans, Sudan, Somalia... I think we as human beings have a duty to help people, to protect the weak and defensives just as we would want someone to come and assist us if we ever were to be attacked or if it ever came to Canadians being murdered in the streets.

I would have to disagree, they are sponsoring terrorist organizations which have as their central idea the destruction of Israel, not freedom from an oppressor, not pushing back an occupier but the complete annihilation of a nation and/or the people.

There is a finite amount of money, one person loses another person gains. When all is said and done who do you think is going to be left holding the bag? The upper middle class and below will lose the money and the rich will get richer... I would assume that the people who got us in this mess have already made their exit strategy in case it does not work out so well...

Thats the problem though, the rich won't be losing their money it be the rest of us...

I am going to dismiss anything coming out of you from now on, just like most other intelligent people see through your bullshit. Well I was trying to see if you were related to the guy, after all that would explain a lot. Turns out you don't stand for anything so that explains it all... You are wrong and you just hate that fact so you try and confuse the issue unfortunately I'm not 5 and I can see that there is a pattern to your bull...

I understand it finally, you speak out of your ass, and when you are called out on it you try to weasel your way out... I don't have the time or desire to play where's waldo or more accurately where waldo's values and beliefs stand if you have any that is... You can dance around the issue but you are just another joker in a world full of them...You preach something and in another topic you do the very thing you cry about. You try hard to sound intelligent but unfortunately for you most people on MLW can see through your bullshit and see the real you, you cry and cry about how Derek L is doing something wrong, and then you do the exact same if not worse then that of which you accuse him. Its official you do not stand for anything as you have so clearly shown with your multiple opposing positions on the exact same issue, if you want people to take you serious choose one rather then switching your values according to the argument you are engaged in.

Funny, when it comes to the government its GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY no trial no jury just you as the judge, while it comes to a joker who opened fire in a crowded mall and potentially put dozens if not hundreds of lives in danger you become a stickler for innocent until proven guilty.... Do you have any relation to the accused in this case?

You mean like picking and choosing facts that support your accusation and discarding and/or destroying evidence that proves otherwise simply because you want someone or a party to pay for a crime? There are plenty of people who have been accused of committing a crime and then police and prosecutors "forming" evidence based on opinion, when the evidence does not support their assumption they rearrange the "facts" and remove those that do not support their theory. Now, if you think that we need to conduct politics at the provincial and federal level as a witch-hunt as long as that witch-hunt is directed ONLY at the conservatives then by all means say so... More suitable then you are...seeing as you cannot extend the exact same rights to your political opponents as you would to someone who is CHARGED with sexual assault, murder and attempted murder.

That is based on your own assumptions, it could have been one of the other parties or a completely unrelated group that had some stake in this, so your assumption and thats all it is an assumption is based on a few "facts". There is no difference, you can argue about how guilty the Conservatives are and the PM is and every time a newspaper prints out something about MND you and your cohorts are always on the assumption that he is guilty without even taking in any facts aside from those cherry picked by a reporter. Now, you either treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent, and in many cases even then its a "cover up" or you treat everyone as innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Just like life, the forums here are interconnected and thus your position on one subject can be called in to question when it is completely against the position taken on another subject. The Conservative Party of Canada as an entity should be given the same treatment as would be awarded to any other group/person, just like a political figure(PM, MND etc...) should also be given the exact same treatment as the average citizen. If you believe so strongly in to the innocent until proven guilty aspect in our justice system then you should be careful every time the subject comes in question, as when you take two or more opposing points on the same subject in different threads then your opinion is less then helpful in any argument.

So you are admitting that you flip flop on your values and beliefs?