AngusThermopyle

Good point. I actually just thought it odd that you had something about gay ministers. I misunderstood the point you were making, thanks for clarifying that for me. I think actually that he did that to show just how terrible they all are. Sort of like when he says all military people are bad and evil state sanctioned murderers. That kind of crap generalization.

Actually Guyser only the last link link you provided is of a similar tone to the one about the doctor. The other two were about people who are gay. I don't think being gay can be construed as criminal or even harmfull, despite what some may think to the contrary. This doctor on the other hand appears to have stolen millions, and even more shocking, to my mind anyway, has tampered with medical computers restricting access to records. Theres a world of difference between being a gay bible thumper and what this guy has done. It also appears that when caught in some wrong doing he attempts to divert attention by bringing up Native issues. This being the case I would postulate that he in effect cheapens such issues with his diversionary tactics. From what is apparent he appears to be quite the scum bag. Certainly not in the same category as the gay preachers, more in line with the Paedophile actually.

Well, it doesn't happen often but this time I have to agree with Kengs, at least in part. What he appears to be saying is that if you have a purpose primarily driven by an agenda then it will be hard or impossible to see any point of view as valid if it does not support your agenda. I've heard people state that everything Six Nations announces is true. This alone is clearly and obviously untrue. There is a lot at stake here and the natural tendency of any human is to try and stack the deck in their favour. I do not believe for one second that Six Nations are being totally honest. In fact when claims Six Nations have made are shown to be false they have turned around and tried to defend their position using specious and, really, rather vacuous rationalizations. Things such as not destroying property, the bridge was just burnt down because it should have been demolished. That sort of simplistic arguement. History too can be distorted by ideology. Currently there is a great deal of revisionism occurring in this country when it comes to Native history. On these very forums we've seen utterly ridiculous claims made about Natives. The one that springs readily to mind is the "Natives evolved in North America" claim. He appears to merely be pointing out that just because an educated person who is agenda driven says something, that doesn't necessarily make it true. On the other hand, you CR, have openly implied that you know the truth. This is a rather bold claim to make, and one I seriously doubt. Kengs disagrees with you, that alone doesn't prove much of anything, on either side. It just means you disagree.

I guess you didn't read my entire post, you know, where I mention that the word incompetent wasn't used. But hey, don't let your lack of reading comprehension skills get in the way of your flapping cake hole, right. Oh, by the way, no complex here, quite the opposite, very very confident in fact. But hey, don't let your baseless assumptions get in the way of reality, right.

You are correct.

Oleg! Why would anyone ever suggest such a thing! There are always latrines that need to be cleaned.

Okay, now I see what you meant. Sure, they do present a threat, not in this particular scenario though. I agree it would have been suicide for them to press any sort of attack. They probably knew that as well, or at least you would think so. Still, perhaps all their parents were playing in the shallow end of the gene pool when they were conceived. You never know. I forgot to add. Any vessel approaching closely without identifying itself clearly is construed as a serious threat and treated as such. There really is no other way to see it.

Sure they're fast but do you honestly believe they weren't being painted during their fun and games? Not to mention the ships secondary weapons would have been trained on them as well. Sorry to disagree with you but I still maintain those boats would not have been able to strike effectively. As soon as they throttled up and set intercept vectors they would have become greasy smudges. That is if the ships crews were competent, which I do believe they are. Not as good as Canadians, but still good none the less.

In this case I happen to agree with you Kuzzad. As I mentioned though, it wasn't just Washington being obvious wankers here. Iran has acted the part of the wanker too many times to count. It was a provocative move to make, designed to cause a strong response. I don't doubt the crews were not feeling threatened. With the fire power they had at hand and the state of alertness they were at they had just about zero to worry about. Like I said before those boats would have become fish homes in less than 30 seconds had the order been given. Once again, out of all the parties involved the only ones who displayed any common sense were the sailors.

Gates is obviously a fool. Did he honestly think he would bolster support by claiming everyone else is incompetent. That was a rhetorical question by the way. Besides, I do think he could be wrong. Anyone who would claim the Brits are incompetent obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. Not to mention the fact that our RCR boys made major inroads in Afghanistan whilst there, a remarkable achievement given their numbers. Or the record sniper shot being set by a Canadian. The guy should be removed from his position ASAP slagging your allies is no way to gain support or further help in the future. It could be mentioned that he didn't use the word incompetent but I do believe his meaning was pretty well crystal clear.

Hmmm, I do see what you meant. I cant say that I would want to see another war starting, war is never a good thing. Sometimes it is a necessary thing, the lesser of two evils, that however is still no reason to actively desire it. On the other hand as someone who spent 13 years at sea before going land forces full time I can approve of the ships closing up. If they had done otherwise under the circumstances it would have grossly negligent of the commanders. As I said they showed admirable restraint. I believe this whole thing was a propaganda exercise from the get go, both on the behalf of Washington and the Iranians. It's pretty obvious that the intent was to provoke a strenuous reaction. Out of this whole fiasco it would appear that the only ones who exhibited any common sense were the ships crews. Both Washington and Iran appear to have behaved like a bunch of wankers.

Actually Kuzzad what you just posted confirms that the ships did indeed go to action stations. Standard procedure when unidentified craft close in an aggressive manner is to close up and go to action stations. The deviation from course further confirms this. As I said earlier the crews of the ships deserve credit for exercising restraint. Even without radio transmissions the actions of the small boats in itself is tantamount to an act of war. Once again I will repeat that this is standard Navy doctrine, not exceptional or limited to the States alone. In Canada we follow the same procedural process in such instances.

What appears to be overlooked or forgotten in this instance is a very basic rule concerning ships of war. It matters little who was pushing an agenda as far as the ships and crews are concerned. What does matter to them is the fact that unidentified vessels closed well within weapons range of the ships whilst not clearly declaring their intentions. Any ship of any nation will regard such behaviour as an aggressive act and respond accordingly. None of the articles that I've seen mention the alert status of the ships. I can guarantee that all three went to action stations and closed up all departments in response. Just the act of closing with the ships whilst failing to identify intent is tantamount to an act of war. For instance when we did blockade duty of Yugo we were constantly painted with aquisition and targeting radar on a daily basis, technically this was an act of war. We did not respond in a hostile manner and merely disrupted the signals to the best of our ability. However if we had called in strikes against the sites we would have been well within our rights to do so. Likewise the American ships would have been fully justified had they sent the puddle jumpers to the bottom. They refrained from this course of action and do deserve recognition for this fact. Closing with a ship of war in such a fashion is in fact a hostile move, that applies to any nation, not just the Americans. What the numbskulls in Washington do has little bearing on the ships and crews at the time. What matters to them is an identified threat, not each nations propaganda. Some here appear to want this downgraded to a harmless prank status. It is no such thing, it is an aggressive act deliberately designed to illicit a strong response. As to the radio transmissions, well frankly they are irrelevant. The act of closing with the ships is what matters and is of extreme relevance.

You really cant be serious Renegade, you actually need it explained to you why it wouldn't work if everyone had to provide their own food? it's simple really. Food production in it's various forms requires both a given amount of land and time. simply put we would have no manufacturing sector and a totally agrarian society. We would have food instabillity and many would die. This has happened many times over. Although not overtly an act of war food embargos are an agressive action that cause many deaths. These sanctions have been employed many times against countries dependant on others for their food supplies. Just because this type of sanction has never been applied against an industrialized western nation does not mean it never will if they surrender this vital capability. As for countries being unlikely to cooperate and deny this necessity, what is so unusal about that? we already have a prime example of countries doing just that in the form of OPEC. Sure its oil not food, its still a vital commodity though. For years OPEC has been exerting influence through control of the worlds major oil supplies (until recently anyway). I find your contention that nations who hold such a power, one far more essential than oil, would never use it to be rather naive at best. You seem to believe that food is a low priority item when it is in fact indisputably one of the three most important items to life. As for it being like saying I'm going to choke you. What is that nonsense? That has to be the most absolutely specious and down right stupid analogy I've heard in a long time. I could go on but quite frankly I'm tired of trying to discuss an issue with someone who merely responds with, it hasn't happened yet so it cant, or why cant we do this or that obviously ridiculous thing, or the even more well thought out, prove it. Sorry man, you just refuse to see the importance of a nation being self sufficient, or the fact that food has. can be, and will be used again as a weapon, so what point is there in discussing issues related to these rather salient facts? As I said earlier, I have more to do than respond to sophomoric questions of an argumentative nature.

Oh here we go with more simplistic ways of viewing things. Are you merely trying to be argumentative? First, since you're obviously a city guy and just don't know I'll explain. When we say we butchered a beef it is generally acknowledged that it is our beef. I happen to think you already knew that and are just trying to find basic arguments. No, everyone should not raise their own food, that wouldn't work. Once again I think you already know that, you're just being argumentative. Next point, of course no one has ever denied food to an entire country before. With the trend being to allow other countries to grow more and more of our food for us this is a new and very valid possibility that has reared it's ugly head. Did I state that this had been done before? No, I said food has been used as a weapon throughout history. It appears you suffer from comprehension problems. I don't mean that as an insult, you just don't appear to be able to grasp obvious and simple concepts. Is it your contention that if we basically contract our food supplies to other countries they will never contemplate with holding said food in the event of conflict. Just in case you wish to deny that any such conflict could ever arise let me point out that mankind is fighting more wars globally now than at any other time in our recorded history. I also believe it is a very bad idea to give control of the most basic necessities of life to others, do you think thats a good idea? Next, more comprehension problems. I clearly stated I did not have time to read those links, did you miss that? I was merely showing that food is actually a very common form of weapon, which it is. Why do you think all else will evolve to new forms yet the use of food as a weapon will not follow the same trend? The fact is that analysts have been saying for quite some time now that an evolution is underway regarding food and warfare. This is simple logic, mankind is never more adept than when he is finding ways to subjugate and control his fellow man. Thats our thing as a species, what we do best. You can try to deny that, but you'd be wrong. Now, I have other things to do so if you wish to dredge up simplistic arguments then fill yer boots man. Just don't expect Johnnie on the spot answers.

Oops! Here's another one. Even More Food As A Weapon Must I continue or is this sufficient to prove that food is, has been used and will be used as a weapon?

Here's another one, easy to find, I really don't know why you couldn't have done this yourself. More Food As A Weapon Only read the first few sentences but it does appear to bear out what I was saying. You know, that which you refute and refuse to believe. As I said earlier, food as a weapon is so basic and obvious that its a no-brainer.

Here's a quick one for you, don't have time to check it out but I'm sure it'll be interesting. Food As A Weapon Actually I am paying more now, I was paying 38.00 (give or take a few cents) when I lived in the Barrie area. As for the rest of the services I don't have a bill with me to check, I'm lazy that way, just plunk down money every month using my online banking. Last time I checked I had about a 500.00 credit with Telus.

Now you are being simplistic. No where did I say that individuals should produce their own food. I did say it is not wise to turn such a capability over to foreign nations. Yes I have seen food used as a weapon, many times over, that happens when you spend extensive amounts of time in countries where they do not adhere to a standard similar to ours. Would you not say food is used as a weapon when the threat of with holding food is used to force compliance? If you destroy the capacity to produce food in a country then you give ultimate control of that country to the nation that provides the food. Seems like a very simple concept to understand. I still remember the emphasis placed on food supplies by a lecturer on military strategy when I was still in the forces. A siege worked not because people were cut off, at least not in total. Thats just part of the equation. If you cut of someone you control the supply of food, why is this so hard for you to understand? Do you think the people under siege just went to the grocery store for more food? I guess you'll make me waste my time digging up links when you could just as easily find them yourself, it's not like theres a parcity of such examples. Well, be patient, I do have other things to do, other than indulge you that is. As for raising the beef, did I not tell you that my friend and I just butchered one? Of course we raised it, as I said, he has an acreage we raised it on, amongst certain other animals. You set em out to graze (except pigs and chickens) and provide feed when the season does not allow grazing. What do you want us to do? Go and cut the feed up and spoon feed it? Do you have any idea about how to raise livestock? I don't think you do or you wouldn't be making such asinine comments.

Wow! This thread is really dragging on isn't it! Back on topic. It's just my opinion but I really don't think the videos linked prove anything at all. As stated before by others, they actually appear to refute more than bolster the assault claim. Couple that with the fact that they show the Natives involved in the basest of light and I don't think any advantage at all is won by the posting of said videos.

Not the way you think they are, nor to the degree when indeed they are. I pay for garbage, water, sewer and town improvements. I also pay more for high speed ($46.00). So I think you may be a little off in your initial premise. Besides, I enjoy the company of rural folk a lot more than the average urbanite. Rural people tend towards the salt of the earth type, not effete pretty much useless bodies who are lost without all the amenities of civilization. As you may have noticed I take real exception to the designation of "hicks". As I said, show me the city dweller who is half as usefull or capable as these "hicks". If you can I'll declare it a genuine miracle.

Actually just recently a friend and myself butchered a beef that we split. we also keep a couple of pigs and a sh*t load of chickens on his acreage. We also have an extensive vegetable garden and his wife puts up a lot of what it grows as preserves. We aren't totally autonomous but we also rely on commercial foods a lot less than many people do, I even like to make my own bread (not with one of those silly bread makers). As for food as a weapon just google "food as a weapon" it will bring up lots of examples. I've seen it with my own eyes when I was deployed to Somalia. People take food for granted. When food is gone it becomes a huge incentive to do as one is told. Food is also becoming more and more the focus of strategy. Remember the old saying, an army marches on its belly? Very true, no food no fight. The same applies to a nation. It is just sheer insanity to turn that power over to a foreign nation that may not now or in the future have our best interests in mind. You need three things above all else in life, they are, air, water and food. Why would anyone consider any of these three essentials as irrelevant or not of the highest priority? Throughout history we've seen food used as a weapon. Why do you think long sieges worked? Do you really believe people gave up through boredom? Or could it be that they had no choice when they ran out of food and water? You really shouldn't need links for this one, it's pretty much a no brainer and yes, history is rife with examples of food being used as a weapon.

Not to mention the fact that a great deal of the infrastructure people talk about is actually built by people from rural area's. As to not wanting control over ones food source. How fricken stupidly insane can one get? Of course a nation should have control over it's food source. To not have that control is to hand it over to some one else. Perhaps some might think this is of no concern but history shows us time and again that it is a major concern. As for the country hick comment, thats just plain ignorant and the kind of thing a smug useless self centered person might utter. I've mostly lived in major cities myself. If any one deserves the designation of hick it would be the vast majority of city dwellers, not rural folk. I've found that rural people are extremely capable, a problem arises, they solve it with what is at hand. They tend not to wander around with a latte and cell phone glued to their hands. They also tend to produce real and tangible products and services, not just clerking or working in an office or factory. Before yelling hick it would be wise to actually gather some real information rather than merely spouting baseless hot air.

And I think you're starting to sound just like the former Posit in many ways.

Well! I hate to be the one to break this to you CR but that little diatribe of yours is empty and pointless. it consists of nothing but basic and rather childish insults whilest saying nothing of substance at all. Come on now, surely you can do better than that.