greyman

But since "the best defense is a strong offense" I oughta get out there and wipe out any and all predatory animals, just to be sure, right?

I didn't think so.

It was more than ok for the Liberals to cut social programs and health care, they just didn't do enough of it.

Where's diplomacy in this scenario?

How do they sell their products?

Defending is what you do when under attack. Attacking is what you do when you're attacking. Where's my cookie? Pessimism. No doubt.

Who said anything about static? Your point?

You can seriously harm someone with just about anything. The reason you don't is because the will to do it isn't there. That will to do it doesn't just magically appear when you have a gun. And for another thing, I should have as easy access to protect myself from those who mean to harm as those who won't obey the laws you're in favour of anyway. If they're bringing a gun to my home, my knife ain't cutting it...pardon the pun.

So, you're in favour of creating bureaucratic red tape that robs people of their hard-earned money, just "because"?

Companies with higher profit margins can afford to raise CEO compensation. Companies competing in a market tilted in their favour by government assume far less risk, and make more money, therefore they can pay their executives more. Get it?

There a point in there somewhere?

So we've established you agree lobbyists exist. Why do you think that is?

The best defense is a strong defense. Industry could pump out weapons pretty quick when called upon. War profiteering is absurd. Echo chamber feeding.

So that's a yes?

I know if we sent battleships, bombers, fighter jets, and personnel into combat, they're not going with solar panels attached to them.

Do lobbyists exist?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between attacking and defending. Industry obviously, but the difference is legitimacy. Sure, we could approach the world with your broad brushes, but how much sense would that make? Your automobile/bomb comparison is disingenuous. I prefer English, thanks.

You have to take into account where "political objectives" come from.

Government and industry works in collusion to make each other rich. The board room and the political office is a revolving door. Technically speaking, government starts a war, sure...but government is influenced by industry lobbyists, and is also full of people who worked in the same industries that profit off the decisions they make.

It is illegal to kill or assault human beings in Canada.

Oil is already under-valued, what you're talking about is already a likely scenario as it is, so in the grand scheme, what would be the point in wasting even more oil fighting with Iran for theirs? Talk about a waste of money, and resources.

They may be apples and oranges, in which case...why did you use them as comparisons?

I would agree with you completely, if the political was separate from industry, but we both know that's not how it is.

This is also disingenuous because it is comparing the war with the plains Indians with war in the Middle East. The former was a war to take over, to conquer, to own the land. The latter is a police action, an exercise in installing sympathetic puppets. They are not the same thing. If the idea was to go into Iraq or Afghanistan and colonize them as new territories for the US or Canada, then yes, you go until the people are either wiped out or conquered - and in that case there's not much of a possibility for blowback. BUT, if you go in with unclear mandates, and set up a presence in the area, but half-ass it - then yes, you wind up leaving their population largely intact, building resentment in the region with your presence on their land...and accordingly you get blowback. People who are completely overwhelmed or dead can't hit back.

Your argument is disingenuous. I am against war profiteering, i.e. making war for wars sake. I am not against making war when it is called for. If someone attacked our homeland, and/or threatened our sovereignty as a nation I would pull out all the stops - firebombing, guided munitions kits, napalm, etc etc...whatever it took. Where I draw the line is doing all of the above because there's an industry in it...because it's being done to make a buck. I'm saying war is a hellish, ruthless undertaking...and if we're gonna bring hell-fire, and be ruthless, it better be because we HAVE to, not because we simply want to.