killjoy

And yet more Canadians went down to the states to volunteer to go to Vietnam than Americans who came up here to skip the draft. Maybe you should stop listening to Rush. .

BS? You didn't address a single thing I said so how can it be BS? Instead you continued a different argument entirely. You belittle our forces yet freely admit you know nothing about them - that's not BS it's just plain stupidity. We're fighting (and dying) with you in Afghanistan and you can't even acknowledge it now- that's not BS......instead you argue someone else's point...one I didn't make. If you want to see my opinion of "American Bashing" look here (and the posts that follow) then start arguing what I say instead of what you wish I said. .

jdobbin is a prime example of the opposite of gerry: a sincere poster/debater who can admit it when someone else has a point but holds opposite views from me (most often). S'like I don't even have the heart to argue with him/her any longer...he's just too reasonable. .

zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Show us one thread you've started that was critical of the Liberals or the NDP....unless it was critical of them not being critical enough of Harper. .

Yeah. You do. But you would never admit something like that because unlike a lot of people on this forum you can never admit it when someone has a point unless it's a simple mimic of your own. Why? Because you're a liar. When I, ArmyGuy or Argus admit that just because a couple of families want to bring the troops home that it doesn't mean they're not supporting the troops (which we've all done on this thread) and you can't even admit an obvious historical ubiquitous truism such as the F A C T that it is the opposing parties that use the troops as a form of attacking the whichever party is in office when the mission is on - that it is a hot potatoe for the ruling party not the opposition then you're a liar. .

Yeah. You do. But you would never admit something like that because unlike a lot of people on this forum you can never admit it when someone has a point unless it's a simple mimic of your own. Why? Because you're a liar. When I, ArmyGuy or Argus admit that just because a couple of families want to bring the troops home that it doesn't mean they're not supporting the troops (which we've all done on this thread) and you can't even admit an obvious historical ubiquitous truism such as the F A C T that it is the opposing parties that use the troops as a form of attacking the whichever party is in office when the mission is on - that it is a hot potatoe for the ruling party not the opposition then you're a liar. Hilarious. Listen to yourself pontificate about research and honestly as though you could manage either. Prescisely when it was supposed to. Take your own advice and do a little research. That the Liberals or the media didn't tell you that was the plan for a long time isn't my fault. Yeah. That's such a bizarre claim and one I'm sure you've never made .

Whatever Gerry. You'll lie at the drop of a hat. You know full well that until Harper came into office the stories were vastly positive and as soon as he went in they turned vastly negative. You know it, I know it, most people with an aptitude for perception and an ability to debate without constantly lying know it too. You decide to lie now because you know I'm not about to go accumulating stories to show you the before and after when you'll simply ignore it if I do. While the Liberals were in office the stories were positive. When Harper got in they became negative and equally deceptive. This is why you have zero respect on this forum gerry from Liberals and Conservatives alike: You're transparently dishonest. You're not a debater gerry, you're a shameless propagandist and amature spin-artist. .

More nonsense and denial of reality. The F A C T is that within 2 days of Harper coming into office the media's portray of the mission in Afghanistan went from "Heroic Canadian Soldiers building peace and handing out candy" to "We're simply following the Bush take-over-the-world eeeevil empire". That you and many Canadians refuse to recognize this fact is testament to your inability to deal with the truth and make up your own instead. And Canadians have been all to happy to lap it up. Canadian opinion changed with the media's story. the situation in Afghanistan has not changed. The same Taliban that were run out are the same Taliban who came back. .

Frankly, since we're all talking about insults here, I'm a little insulted that as an American you didn't know we had troops in Afghanistan, let alone that we are suffering the highest per capita casualty rate there. It always astounds me how the US can continually belittle it's allies and at the same time wonder why they're running out of them. .

Yyyyyep. .

The fact that it works. That's what solidifies it as a tactic. If it didn't work they'd have switched tactics long ago.From the story: Then there's also the idea that not calling Bush a moron and then calling that a foreign policy amounts to 'cozying up with Bush'. .

Gerry No, you ignore that you using the troops to attack Harper. You use anything to attack Harper. That's all there is to it and anyone with a sincere bone in their body and who has been here for 1 month can see it. You do not make up the issue and then dictate what it is. Sorry. The real issue is the fact that you don't care one way or another about the missions. To you it's simply an angle of attack on Harper. That is the real issue. Your quote from Harper is plain and pedestrian and a weak argument without your 'translation'. Your obvious all-evil-stems-from-Harper rampage you are continually on is the issue. Your dishonesty is the issue. The 'issue' you present is non-existent. It's a smokescreen. .

Since you ignore the capital 'T' truth of it gerry: The only one 'using the troops' is you and the opposition for which you spend all your time 'grass-rooting' for and spamming propaganda for. .

Whatever gerry, you sit there with your semantic games like it isn't transparent you have nothing but the simplest of sheer anti-Harper motivation invested here. You twisted his words with your own 'translation' with zero regard to the context of it in Parliament. When the lies and the rhetoric of the "Mission Changing" were used to try and bring debate on the mission the Liberals began, that's when the "using the troops and the mission for political gain" began. You sit there and act like you don't know what everyone knows: that the political issue of the mission in Afghanistan is for the OPPOSITION to use against the current government.Don't believe me? When was there ever a combat mission that didn't see some measure or another of resistance from the parties not leading? It's a hot potato for the ruling party, not the opposition. This is the rub, gerry, the nutshell that anyone can see: They put us there, now the opposition uses us the same way you do: as an angle of attack on Harper. Simple as that. No twisting of words required. You wouldn't give a damn about Afghanistan (and you don't so long as it's not on TV) if it was during the reign of whatever tribe it is you swear your partisan allegiance to. Your semantic games and your grotesque level of dishonesty is practically pornographic. You scream and yell when someone accuses you of simply hating Harper or having an incredible bias against him and then post the most trivial and perpetually twisted "attack Harper" threads every single day. I mean I don't even really like Harper but you kinda make him look good. .

lol. Unbelievable. Spoken like someone with zero life experience. Everyone here always trying to sound like they're so serious about something they know they know nothing about, and probably couldn't say with a straight face, when face to face. The sheer level of delusion on this board is enough to scare the crap out of anyone with some real world wide knowledge and experience in the world. .

That's because it's a juvenile meaningless loaded question. Yes they support the troops, so what? Nothing interesting about it at all gerry, just another typical insincere smokescreen from the forum's resident liar and Liberal party propagandist. .

"Support troops, families tell Moncton rally" Oct. 10 2006 link Military families are finding it tough to cope with negative publicity surrounding Afghan mission He didn't say you had to seek out a CanWest story and you know it. Your juvenile level of dishonesty is transparent. From your link: Neat how the media tries it's best to make supporting the mission till 2009 sound somehow like a lack of support. Gerry you should be in journalism, your ethics match it. .

ArmyGuy. Thanks. I'm being a jerk. You didn't say that but I know it. Argus, Krusty: I'm being a jerk. I'm sorry. I think I just need a break here. Been yelling about Afghanistan till I've been blue in the face for the past few months and 'getting it' from the "Left" or "anti-War" crowd, and now I'm percieving that I'm 'getting it' from the opposite side. Perhaps I'm just projecting. I apologize to all. I'm gonna take a week off from here and chill. .

No I wasn't. You mean I'm arguing something you didn't say? Gee. What's that like? You mean I'm suggesting you said something you didn't suggest? Gee. What's that like? It was on the video. You have a reference. It's called Goggle, besides I did already reference it. Not at all. I just know when something's futile. I have yet to see any of you quote me properly or do anything beside misconstrue what I said. The only caveat, the only thing I took back and restated, was that I should've made it clearer that I wasn't speaking of the entire regiment. I don't have anything to prove here, so I take back everything I said. There were no members who were white supremiscts, with absolutely no connections to the Heritage front. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/a...otc/canada.html .

Yeah, I don't even know what you're saying here; it's gibberish. Anytime you're ready to say anything at all that has any relevance to anything I said in any way you just let me know, k? Try arguing what I said instead of what you wish I said. .

Hilarious. One is a mask, as effective or more than a balaclava. Everything you're talking about doesn't even come close. one removes the face and all identification from cameras, while "loud outfits that divert attention away from your facial features" is the second stupidest pretense to a serious rebuttal i've ever read here, right after the one about tribal chiefs demanding wives remove their shirts. Obviously you have no sincere intention of discussing this like a thinking being. Mask/not a mask. There is no argument here. Cultural rights? Ok. That’s a basis for argument. Arguing that a mask isn’t a potential security threat is just idiotic. Try walking into a bank with a mask on then come back and tell us what they called it. .

cuz they just got there. Same problem with us when we were there. There were communication problems and tactical differences. They were overcome. One of the problems imo is the feeling among them that NATO will always have access to air and arty and they pretty much don't. I think another problem might be that some of them are more used to the US. Besides I'm not really understanding what your statement has to do with your quote from me, which was really a quote from Hiller, which I already said is going to be full of ra-ra bluster, which is not to say he doesn't know miles more about what we're talking about than either of us x 10, because he does. He sure as hell knows more than any journalist. Any comment on this? Which is what I've been saying form day one, while trudging waist deep through all the, "CIA created the Taliban", and the, "What's Pakistan got to do with it?" and all the heaps of, "No one's ever occupied Afghanistan and they never will", and all stinking mounds of "Taliban are mostly Afghans and the Afghans all want us out and it's just like Iraq and and and". .

post script: While you rubes are getting your jolly's off claiming the only reason I said they had links to white supremiscts is because of the Confederate flag (which I didn't), or trying to bring to the table that the 'local elders' gave them permission to torture the kid to death as though that were a valid point on any dimension in the universe, and calling me an idiot.... I'd just like to ask why not even ONE of you supposed 'military experts' has bothered to point out to 'timetraveller-whatever-his-name-is' the blatantly obvious: that the jagged mountainous terrain of the Pakistan border is NOT the 'perfect place' to kick a bunch of 'crack' paratroopers out a plane, what with all the updrafts that have brought more than one helicopter down already or the jagged cliffs or the fact that mountains are a paratroopers worst nightmare..etc.,etc. None of the military experts here thought of that? Unbelievable. Carry on. .

This is hilarious. Yeah. Sure. I guess that makes it alright. What was I thinking. Ok. You guys are all right. There were no problem individuals in the regiment at all, they had no ties to white supremisct groups. They had every right to kill that kid. There were no problems at all. They never said, "We can't leave now. We haven't killed enough niggers yet", and none of them were racist. I'm making it all up. What the hell would i know? I was only like there. I'm just a harping hippy liberal with an axe to grind. Carry on. .

Yep. That and "go F### yourself" pretty much sums up your intellect in a nutshell. .