Peter F
-
Posts
2,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Peter F
-
-
Silly questions deserve silly answers.
Don't you usually knock Figleaf for these kind of polls?
What's silly about reality?
This is a valid question - with much more attention to reality than the mookies out on the street screaming for an end to Canada's involvement - without any regard to what that means for the future, or what it means for the people living in that country.
When you march down the street with a placard stating "CANADA OUT OF AFGHANISTAN" the other side should read "TALIBAN BACK IN POWER!!" because that's tantamount to what you are ...in REALITY saying.
Thank you for explaining what I think. Now I realize the truth - Canada is keeping the Taliban out of power. We are crucial to who forms the government of Afghanistan. I'm just curious about when we gained that power and why didn't we wield it before?
-
Yes lets talk about accountabilty shall we...from a liberal...give me a break...
I think that 40% of 17 billion of defence contracts without tender is a little on the 'iffy' side. Such criticism is certainly valid. Being members of the opposition they are doing thier job they are expected to do. The government can justify the contracts can't they?
-
A silly answer would be to answer yes we should allow the taliban to regain control of the country. Anyone with any knowledge of the the talibans escapades during thier rule would know this is not what the Afgan people want, it is not what they need. We as Canadians have agreed to help them, lets concentrate on that , pushing forward not backwards.
I gave one of the silly answers. The poll is silly. How about a poll like this: Do you approve of wife beating, even if the woman doesn't deserve it?
I agree that most Afghans had no use for the Taliban theocracy. I also believe that Afghans are quite capable of keeping the Taliban out entirely on thier own. This was proven many times during the Afghan civil war when anti-Taliban warlords with enough cash managed to give a thrashing to the Taliban. The Taliban got its support (in arms and personnel) from Pakistan - not Afghans (unless the Afghans were paid enough). The Northern Alliance swept through Afghanistan in very quick time once the flow of cash from America allowed them to undermine Taliban support.
Wich is to say, yes, Afghans really don't support the Taliban - Pakistan (the government) did, and Pakistan (elements within) still do.
Also agreed that since the civil war and subsequent Taliban government reduced Afghanistan to the dark ages in infastructure and economy, that the present Karzai government may need western $$$ to induce greater support amongst the Afghani's and also pay enough to keep a standing army.
So in the short term Afghanistan needs help. Fine. But what bugs me is nobody is willing to say how long is enough. 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? When the Religious Fundementalism no longer attracts recruits?
Its been 5 years now. How much longer? How much time doe's Karzai need ? 50 years? 100?
-
And the odds that the Iranian justice system will come even reasonably close to meeting your standards are _____ ???
Zilch. Doe's that mean us Lefties should welcome a more theocratic bent to the world of Justice?
-
Withdrawal does not always mean peace.
Niether does invasion and occupation. Since the USofA is a domocracy the authors recommendation of
going postal in Iraq isn't gong to happen. The Americans always intended to withdraw anyways, their planned withdrawl is only being delayed.
Withdrawl doesn't always mean peace and it certainly won't mean peace for the Iraqi's until thier civil war is fought to a conclusion (and the winning team will be a brutal bunch of muthers), but the USofA will have peace if they withdraw. Just like after Vietnam when the South Koreans withdrew or when the British withdrew from Indonesia. Peace reigned when the troops were brought home.
-
...blublublah...
The notion that our military is not capable to smash an insurgency is misleading...more so than just about any other arguments anti-war protestors have made. Western nations historically have been atrocious at combating significant insurrection movements in colonial territories and in foreign military conflicts, why? Because we, unlike our foes, follow a strict set of rules and guidelines on what you can and cannot do in war, what you can and cannot do with your prisoners, and rules of conduct for invading soldiers. When a largely educated, sizably middle class Western public hears of water boarding, a non-lethal form of torture in CIA prisons they go ballistic, and why? Because the enemies that tried to kill our soldiers aren't being pampered and not treated as according to documents not fit for a paper shredder in reality (Kellogg-Briand Pact, UN Charter, etc...)? The "justice" and "fair treatment" our soldiers get is a kitchen knife slicing through their neck, or a bullet to the head, and all the public can do here is look on with mild expressions of disgust and ignorance?! How do you think the British crushed three separate insurrection movements in Burma? How do you think the South African government under P.W Botha obliterated the anti-apartheid SWAPO insurgency in occupied Namibia in the 1980's? How do you think the Algerian government crushed a civil war and an insurgency in ten years? Well, I'll tell you now it wasn't by considering the negligible controversies in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, trusting an immensely corrupt indigenous police force to do our job, and handing out candy to kids. It was done by force, brutal decisive force, a force we would be called "Fascists" for using and the insurgents "freedom fighters".
The South Koreans sent in more than twice as many troops into the Vietnam War under Park Chung Hee than we have in Iraq right now, and over the course of more than half a decade of intense warfare they came out with 5,000 dead, nothing compared to what we sustained. Why? Because the South Koreans were the most hated, despised, feared, and respected force to the Vietminh and the NVA. Did you ever see videos of Vietminh getting chucked out of helicopters if they did not talk to their 'interrogators'? The South Koreans did that and made a fellow captive insurgent watch his comrade die a disgusting death, and he began to talk. They served in some of the most combat torn areas of Vietnam, and came out man for man less hurt than our army was. They understood that to allow victory to be an option against an insurgency you must establish a dominant mindset over your enemy by making them scared as hell to fight you or go near you. What Coalition forces are allowed to do in Iraq today is ridiculous compared to the reality of war, armchair policy makers and idealists who have never seen combat wish to re-write the reality of war. That's why we will lose if our strategy does not change quickly. Either introduce elite counter-insurgency unit such as what the Koevet did in Nambia for a "less brutal" mission, do what the Algerians did for a slow and exhausting victory, or do what the British and South Koreans did and establish fear of your armies throughout the nation you occupy. The one answer that never works in combating insurgencies and terrorism in modern warfare is a premature withdrawal. The decision is up to our policymakers, and far be it for me to say they will do the right thing but I can only pray they will.
-Written by Xing/FinishingTouch
Well, can anyone disprove this?
Yeah. South Korea withdrew its forces from Vietnam. Despite puilling out the stops they still lost.
South Africa withdrew from Namibia
Britain withdrew from Indonesia
the Algerians are still fighting.
Brutality doe's not guaranee Victory. Civilized behaviour does not guarantee defeat. This article is a gross oversimplification of a very complex problem. The author believes that the USA should actually intensify the killing and maiming. This would result (according to the author) in the insurgents giving up and turning thier arms into ploughshares....sorta like the Palestinians did...no wait, they havn't yet. Bad example. No, the IDF sitll functions with a modicum of civilized behaviour.
Russians! Yes, Russians marched into chechnya twice - the second time they made sure they did it right - turned it into a free fire zone and flattened the place with artillery/tank fire. Seems to have worked to.
or the Allies bombing Germany and Japan flat without regard to loss of life amongst the targeted.
So lets look at the Iraq problem and apply some western know-how. The USA should declare Baghdad a warzone - Bomard the place three ways from Sunday then have the grount troopsstart at one end and move slowly through shooting anything that moves.
When they are done they should then remove all the heads that can be found and boil the skin off them, then make big piles of bleached skulls beside the roads that enter the city.
The insurgency would collapse.
And every Iraqi would love america again.
Unfortunatly, and my thanks to God above for it, politically no-one can advocate for this either openly or behind the scenes.
I love democracy - especially when it works.
-
and who, in particular, is living the life of reily here in Canada and is/has been fighting Canadian troops?
Are you kidding me, i thought we were just over that piont, lets start at the top shall we.
the sister, accused of assisting her brother in running a camp for training terrorist, has openily admitted on TV interview that she supports the taliban and it's way of life. now living in Canada, on our dime.
Zaynab Khadr accused of helping her brother run a terrorist training camp. Did she serve donuts? What precisely is the charge and who is making the accusiation?
little brother, crippled in combat operations with Nato and Pakistan forces, now living here in Canada on our dime.that would be the youngest. Abdulkareem, crippled in the shootout in 2003 that killed his father. Born 1989.
Abdurahman Khadr, living in Canada was on payrole from various intel agencies for info and intel, living in Canada on our dime...Hell, he provided some actual service to various intel agencies.
So whats wrong with this guy?
The other 2 brothers are in jails or dentention centers coming out of the US pocket book.Yeah. Thats the way it should be is it not?
then thier is MOMA , living in here, and yes on our dime.lets save a few dimes deport them, back to where they are more comfortable, and could freely support the taliban anyway they wish...
I agree. But first, lets actually gather up some evidence that they are combatting us and/or aiding and abetting others who are fighting us.
Till then, they get to say whatever pleases them. Just like everybody else.
-
And my piont is they should not be living the life of reily here in Canada when they have been on the other team, fighting our own troops.
and who, in particular, is living the life of reily here in Canada and is/has been fighting Canadian troops?
-
The left always employs a double standard. They want Paul Bernardo treated compassionately, but not som e innocent traveler whose head is sawed off for apostacy.
Actually, the Lefties (me) want both to be treated compassionately.
-
...my point being: The ones that acted are either dead or in jail. Those that talk and do nothing else are bitchin and moaning and chest thumping harmlessly next door.
all is as it should be.
-
Bravo. If only someone in Canada could bring themselves to squeak out something similar...
and who's holding you back? I think you're doing a fine job of squeeking something similar.
-
...We most certainily do arrest terrorist, and we do have laws that do allow for thier arrests...Who is it you see harbouring and supporting the same people you were fighting? Khadrs Mom?
That is a good question, but my guess is i don't know why they have not been arrested or deported. read the article below from an interview from one of the Khadr sons, then read the entire family bio you be the judge, would you want them living next to you...and can you honestly tell me they were not part of the same organizations we are currently at war with...
Lets see...Omar was picked up in Afghanistan and dropped into Guatanamo. He co-operated with the Americans and was released. What was his crime? I mean real crime...not just unpleasant behaviour. His brother (allegedly) committed the crime of killing an american soldier with a hand grenade amongs other less violent things. So aside from the lad in guatanamo, what are the Khadr's crimes? Talking big. So far thats it. Bravado and bullshit are not crimes. Actions count...and so far Momma Khadr has taken none.
-
...only to come home to find that we are harbouring, supporting, the same people, who still belief in thier cause, thier beliefs and openly support the taliban movement, and thier tactics..
Canada doesn't arrest terrorists? or those that harbour and support terrorists? We have no laws that allow the police to arrest these people? Who is it you see harbouring and supporting the same people you were fighting? Khadrs Mom?
-
army guy:
Kick them and all like them back to thier orginal countries to spread thier poison somewhere elseand there's the goon; who are "all like them"? Brown people? Muslims? folks who don't cut their lawns? People who think our morality has gone to shit?
-
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/aldridge060507.htm
Decent Canadians don't do this - Decent Canadians don't do that -
I'm sick to death of conforming to some boneheads idea of a 'Decent Canadian'.
And I am sick and tired of being forced to conform to incorrect socialist policies that have wrecked this country.
If I was you I'd vote for the PC party. Maybe they can get us all conforming to your idea of 'decency'.
Perhaps we should have a 'Decency patro' to ensure we all behave like Canadians.
Punish those who don't. Sorta like Iran.
-
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/aldridge060507.htm
Decent Canadians don't do this - Decent Canadians don't do that -
I'm sick to death of conforming to some boneheads idea of a 'Decent Canadian'.
-
So will anyone be boycotting Iran, or are they going to defend this LOL
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/3593/127/
Iranian regime’s judiciary advisor defends the inhumane punishment by stoning
Friday, 01 June 2007
Its disgusting. I condemn Iran. I will join any boycott. I hereby pledge to not buy Iranian goods.
-
Mind you, the 'Sending states' don't seem to have much interest in controlling or inhibiting the contractors from shooting at will. There are probably a few of these mercenaries being held for trial in the US or Britain or wherever - maybe, maybe not.
The failure to reign in this shoot first attitude amongst not only the mercenaries but also the troops is what led the whole Iraqi thing to blow up in thier faces. Too much shooting whoever happens to even remotely resemble a threat.
That and the high handed arrest everyone because everyone is a suspect. The recent saw about Rumsfeld's original plan having too few troops to evectively occupy the country is bunk. The Iraqis were, more or less, fairly content if insecure with the conquest. It was all the high-handed shit that sold the Iraqi's down the river.
the CPA's order 17 was probably one of the stupidest things ever enacted. It is one of the key reasons the whole bringing-democracy-to-them went to shit.
-
[
For the nth time, I will point out to you that 80% of language school grads never even use it again after returning to work.
If 80% of the positions that are classified bilingual in Ottawa rarely if ever require the employee to use French in the performance of his/her job, how can you ever expect the employee to make use of it? Please explain why we're bothering to classify positions as bilingual AT ALL if the second language isn't going to be used at least, say 10% of the time.
Why is it that you're so in favour of a practice that in effect serves only to keep most anglophones out of a number of positions?
You, like the current language policy, are idealogically driven. Your attitude towards this wasteful program is simply to hire employees which are already bilingual, which 80% of the time means hiring a francophone. At the end of the day, that is what this program (and you) are all about, IMHO.
80% of bilingual positions are occupied by Francophones?? 80% of bilingual employees never use the 2nd language?
Where do you get these numbers from?
-
Oops, this link, hehehe: http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnist...icle2611720.ece
Should of been pretty obvious from the title though what I was referring to, at least for anyone who is following whats going on in Iraq.
Should have been but wasn't.
according to the linked article:
Paul Bremer - the first US viceroy to Iraq - issued Order 17, which exempted all mercenaries operating in the country from having to obey the law. He in effect gave these men a licence to kill - and they are using it, every day.(See order 17 here: CPA IRAQ)
The CPA has, of course, ceased to function and legal power now resides in the Iraqi government. Wether the Iraqi government has or will or can rescind Order 17 of the CPA I do not know.
According to Order 17 "Contractors" are subject to thier home state's laws. They are also subject to the whims of the ''Sending State'' and the
Order 17 (Section 2 Iraqi Legal Process)
3. ...They shall be immune from any form of arrest or detention other than by persons acting on behalf of their Sending States, except that nothing in this provision shall prohibit MNF Personnel from preventing acts of serious misconduct by the above-mentioned Personnel or Consultants, or otherwise temporarily detaining any such Personnel or Consultants who pose a risk of injury to themselves or others, pending expeditious turnover to the appropriate authorities of the Sending State.So, if Order 17 still stands, the mercenaries are in fact subject to the rule of law...just not Iraqi Law.
As such your question is flawed. You have assumed they are not subject to law - when they are.
-
That link is to an article I read earlier today which is rather disturbing. Normally, this would of been better suited to U.S. Politics, but I had a question to go along with it.
If one party is exempted from all laws pertaining to their actions, should others not also be exempted from the laws that protect the individual who has been given free reign? In other words, if a person is allowed to murder people without being governed by any law, should anyone else be allowed to kill them and also not be charged with a crime?
What link? Who is exempted from all laws pertaining to thier actions?
-
I'm against it.
Some of the reasons for this include:
1. Mixed member proportional will create endless minority governments (gridlock).
2. Mixed member proportional will reward extremist and single-issue parties, to the detriment of parties that need to garner support across all regions and socio-economic-ethnic groups.
3. There will be less representation, as a certain number of MPPs will only represent backroom partisan interests, and not have a geographical constituency
Nr 3 is the killer for me also. Just what we need - more political appointees. Are there not enough party hacks as it is?
-
A majority of Americans supported Bush through a democratic process and chose him as their representative to the world... Iran is realistically a dictatorship where power is held by force and oppression.
Too true (except for election day)
-
cybercoma:
The weapons haven't been used in Canadian schools, however, this article clearly shows that Sikhs are not opposed to using them to injure and murder people when they think their supernatural beliefs have been offendedActually the article doesn't clearly show that at all. The article says:
One person was killed and more than 50 were injured after tens of thousands of angry Sikhs, many armed with their ceremonial kirpan daggers, went on the rampage across Punjab and the neighbouring state of HaryanaSo at least 20,000 Kirpan wielding Sikhs managed to kill 1 and injure 50-60. Sorta makes a Kirpan (even the long ones) kind of useless don't you think?
Cybercoma:
Do you live a "good" or "moral" life simply because some religious leader told you to? If you were never taught about religion, could you bring yourself to rape, murder or abuse someone? Most people wouldn't and those that would, sure hell aren't going to have their minds changed by some ancient book and a group of old dudes telling them what's right and wrong.Nope. Personally religion don't mean squat to me. On the other hand, I usually do pay attention to old dudes telling me whats right and wrong...sometimes even old dudes long dead and speaking through ancient books.
Anyways, its evident that my point was not made. Figleaf may have understood what I was getting at.
Figleaf:
.Our laws are not merely arbitrary traditions, particularly in the last 100 years.We have a system of laws designed to deliver efficiency, predictability and objective fairness
I also like to think so. In fact, that very same system of laws efficiently, objectivley and fairly determined that it was ok for Sikhs to wear Kirpans in school.
...and no ones been knifed with one yet.
Afghanistan Poll
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Rebilding nations has no known mathematical equation that could possibly answer the question I asked...therefore you say rebuilding the nation is the proper course to take? Without definition and without limitation? This is an intelligent committment of our under-equiped and under-manned armed forces? Good strategy?
Who says I want to get our forces involved in Noble Deeds like Darfur? To make it very clear - I say stay the hell out of Darfur, Iraq, Somalia and wherever else Noble Deeds need to be done. The people of those places are quite capable of performing Noble Deeds without our help...unless, of course, they don't particularly give a shit...in wich case all our noble deeds will be for naught.
As for proving to the world that we cannot keep our committments; By committing our undersourced forces to open ended committments we are guaranteeing that such committments will not be honoured. We are stretched making it to 2009, as you well know.