Moonbox

You can't put it any clearer because you have no idea what you're talking about in the first place. Greece's corruption problems were/are systemic and permeate their entire population. Their black market economy accounts for about 25% of their GDP, meaning people just don't like paying taxes there. He doesn't do that at all. That's just a lame red-herring.

just as I never suggested the British were wanted in New Lodge or other provo communities, despite your numerous attempts to imply otherwise. Funny. It's was a red herring Derek. My disjointed hypothetical was an exact copy of your own. The inadequacies of your perspective are made painfully clear when you can call identically structured statements 'logic' when they're written by you and "disjointed" when they're not. What's especially funny is how your saying you used your "logic" on my unfounded claim, when the picture above clearly confirms my claim that the British were were wanted in Belfast. I'll leave you the last word, as you say. I'll also actually do it too! As usual, your special combination of self-professed expertise and logical gymnastics has been entertaining.

So (to use your own logic and line of questioning) you're saying that there was not a significant population of pro-Union loyalists in Belfast, and that the Provos were being supported from Sandy Row, and that nobody wanted the British in Belfast? It'll be interesting to see how you handle your own brand of shabby reasoning.

When the UK was divesting of its 'colonies' which is what you brought up. More intense violence, greater mortality rates, call it whatever you want. Again, no, I didn't shift anything. I assumed that any reasonable human being would include context and time frame into their death toll. It didn't counter anything. The Falklands War didn't have any relevance to our discussion (being a completely different type of conflict altogether). It was moronic because it was yet another of your endless and exhausting red herrings. for reasons we've already described at length. The British could not enforce their terms on the Taliban like they did with the Argentinians. and here we see that you fail in even the most basic exercise of reasoning. This is a perfect example of how broken your logic is and a glaring example of how oblivious you are to your own non-sequiturs. Yes, I said the British were wanted in Belfast. Yes, I said New Lodge was part of Belfast. These two points, however, are not mutually exclusive. I've already explained how and somehow you're still failing miserably to get it. New Lodge is not the only part of Belfast. Your arguments make no sense. You provide facts to the discussion, but then you're clearly unable to assemble them into something even resembling a focused or cogent argument. You're all over the place on tangents and irrelevant segways and then when the reasoning behind your shabby conclusions gets scrutinized you whine about goal-post shifting and flail around trying to put words into other people's mouths. Do everyone a favor and look up the definition and then a few examples of "red herrings" and "non-sequiturs". You clearly aren't capable of avoiding them.

Except that Northern Ireland wasn't thousands of miles away and it contained a majority of the population that supported staying in the union...so very much unlike most other British colonies... but you're not making an apples to apples comparison. You're comparing the total casualties of a 30-year domestic insurgency with relatively brief (and failed) foreign campaigns where the violence was far more intense...but you know that. You're just being (as usual) disingenuous. Which was a moronic red herring completely unrelated to our discussion and comparison. Because the people in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't give up. The Argentinians did, after taking FAR less of a beating. It couldn't be any more simple than that, so I remain baffled with your dense line of questioning. No, they're not my words at all. I never said the British were wanted in provo-controlled communities. I said they were wanted in Belfast and in Northern Ireland. I even highlighted it in bold so you couldn't confuse the statement. I did not say the British were wanted in every single part of Northern Ireland, which is what you seem to be insisting. I like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're capable of understanding the distinction, so your insistence on misunderstanding/misrepresenting my statement makes it pretty obvious that you're doing it on purpose to distract from the incompetence of your own position.

What are you talking about? A vaccine is meant to provide immunization. Immunization isn't a type of shot.

The same Northern Ireland that had a large British/Protestant/loyalist population... You get so lost in your own red herrings and semantic nitpicking that you can't even keep track of the debate. YOU asked: "Are you stating British public opinion and in turn British domestic politics didn't play into the the withdrawal of forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan???" and I replied with a multitude of reasons why public opinion and politics shifted. First, I never claimed Northern Ireland had a lower death toll. That's pure strawman and a good example of either your blatant dishonesty or your confusion/tendency for logical fallacy. As for casualty rates, it wasn't a shift. YOU brought up overall casualties and asked why the higher total in Northern Ireland didn't lead to a withdrawal. I responded by asking you to do the math, assuming you'd have enough smarts and common sense to compare: "British armed forces lost ~453 soldiers in Afghanistan, virtually all of them in Helmand between 2006 and 2009. During the decades of the Troubles, around 700 died." The fact that you're persisting on this moronic tangent is baffling. Use some common sense and context. The British thoroughly defeated the Argentinian attempt to take the islands and ended the war on their own terms - totally unlike the situation in Afghanistan. I most certainly did not. I said, "New Lodge is part of Belfast, where the British most certainly were wanted." Is this all you're offering the debate? Strawman, non-sequiturs, and misrepresentations? Funny.

A British subject is not the same thing as someone who wants to be a British subject. Who cares what you stated!? Your stated totals mean nothing unless they're provided with context. Like I said, it's painfully obvious you don't even remember what the original point was, which was simply that the Troubles differ immensely from the GWOT. The higher casualty rate for the latter serves to show how the intensity of the violence was so different. LOL! What do the Falklands have to do with the discussion Derek? Really!? I'm pretty sure it has nothing to offer in a comparison of the Troubles vs the GWOT. I'm not going to satisfy your need for another pointless and exhausting military-related segway, sorry. I said, in a debated comparison to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, that the Troubles were about political and nationalist tensions rather than religious ones. If I downplayed or underestimated the religious tensions then you can take your point if you like. It doesn't greatly affect the debate and I doubt even you would suggest that the PIRA's religious convictions carried as far as ISIS' enforcement of wahhabism. I flat out just didn't say that. That's a pretty rotten example of misrepresentation, but well in line with your tendency to dissemble.

because that's what they are. The arguments people generally make against vaccination are based on nothing but profound ignorance and fear-mongering. You can only call it high jargon if you actually are ignorant about it. They're not making stuff up when they talk about how effective the vaccines are. If you feel these lectures are condescending, it's likely because you've taken a foolish position and it feels lousy to be presented with facts and evidence proving you're wrong. That's not what you're told at all. Influenza has all sorts of different strains and mutations. The flu vaccines aim to prevent the 3-4 strains that you're most likely to contract. Criticizing the effectiveness of the flu shot against a strain which it was never intended/designed to prevent is like complaining that your measles vaccine doesn't protect you from meningitis.

Is that the part of Ireland that had a large British population that fully desired to remain part of the Union? My math doesn't need redoing. The Troubles lasted 30 years and if you count all British security deaths they amount to about 1050. The British lost 450 soldiers in Helmand province in ~4 years (2006-2009), after which they withdrew to safer areas having failed to pacify the insurgents. Derek, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure 450 deaths over 4 years is a higher casualty rate than 1000 over 30. Pull out your calculator if you're not sure. Hell, go back to 2002 and add up Iraq and Afghanistan over 12 years if you like. It'll yield similar results! You're wasting your own time, as by now you've clearly forgotten what my original point was. Now you're just engaging in another one of your pointless and blustering displays of armchair-general expertise. It's too bad that your enthusiasm and interest on these subjects are so clouded by bias and are never really matched by your wits.

New Lodge is part of Belfast, where the British most certainly were wanted. You're being disingenuous again. Not for those links. One of them was a UK government report to which you attached no relevance or explanation. Either explain them or don't bother citing them. It's only your own time you're wasting. GEE, I don't know. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that it was part of the union, part of the economy and had a substantial British or pro-British population...Call it, skin in the game. See above. As for deaths, British armed forces lost ~453 soldiers in Afghanistan, virtually all of them in Helmand between 2006 and 2009. During the decades of the Troubles, around 700 died. Do the math.

The newer (and larger) Beer Stores let you walk right into the freezer section and pick your own cases out. Regardless, the Beer Store is ridiculously lucrative monopoly and right now the customers are getting nothing in exchange for it. It's a racket and there's no reason for it to continue in its current form.

There are a few reasons for that. First, only something between 1/3 to 1/5 people get vaccinated, which is obviously not enough to stop the spread. Second, as you point out, the flu mutates regularly, which means new vaccines are required to adapt and keep up. None of these points, however, diminish the worth of existing immunization efforts. Each vaccine administered reduces the likelihood of the virus spreading, which in turn reduces its chance to mutate, with both serving to reduce the health costs of treating flu patients.

You're being disingenuous and semantic. The British were not wanted in Pasthun-dominated Helmand province. Whether I said nobody or hardly anybody doesn't materially affect the statement. First, if you're going to link material in your statements, at least provide some commentary for them. If you're going to go through the trouble of citation, taking 30 seconds to explain your citation's content/relevance is a pretty reasonable expectation. Second, yes, cost was one of the reasons the British left Afghanistan (same with the Americans and the Canadians). If the costs exceed the perceived benefits of the mission, it's unlikely to continue. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there were reasons that public opinion turned against them, and a lot of that had to do with how long, how deadly, how expensive, and how unsuccessful the campaign was.

I went my whole life without getting the flu shot and never got the flu...until I got the flu a few years ago and I spent a week in bed, another 2 weeks barely able to talk, and about 6 weeks total until I was could breathe well enough to play sports again. It's surprising how many people have no idea what the flu is and think it's some sort of stomach bug or bad cold. It's not a minor nuisance. If it's ACTUALLY the flu, you're pretty much totally out of commission for at least 1-2 weeks and all sorts of other complications commonly follow like bronchitis or pneumonia. For the young and the old, it's generally much worse and it kills hundreds of thousands every year. As for the 'worth', the provinces provide the vaccine because they've determined the costs of treating the flu outweigh the cost of vaccinating against it. Yes, this is one of the main reasons the Health Ministry provides the vaccine. The contagiousness of viruses varies by strain and setting, but if a large enough proportion of people are immunized, the virus will peter out and disappear (at least in its current mutation). The commonly quoted reproductive value (r-number) for influenza is ~3, roughly meaning that each person that gets the flu transmits it to another 3 people. If that's the case, if over 67% of the population got immunized, the virus wouldn't be able to replicate in enough of the population to survive. Basically no. There are numerous types of vaccinations, but generally what they're doing is injecting either a dead/safe version of the virus, or something that's close enough to the virus to teach the proper response from your immune system without being infectious. There is a tiny risk (like virtually non-existent) chance that an attenuated vaccine (one that's been altered to be non-spreading) reverts to virulence, but I'm not even sure if that's ever happened in a human before. Regardless, that's one of the reasons that you're not supposed to get a vaccine if you're already sick or your immune system is otherwise compromised.

In terms of Afghanistan, it was because nobody wanted them there (unlike in Ulster), nobody wanted to be there (unlike in Ulster) and it was prohibitively expensive to stay (unlike in Ulster). Additionally, hundreds of years of past experience ranging back as far as Alexander to the more recent British and Soviet attempts at pacification, have made it clear that fighting a popular insurgency in Afghanistan is about as smart as fighting a land war with Russia.

You saying so doesn't make it true. The differences between Northern Ireland and the GWOT go far beyond the lack of ruthlessness and resolve of the British people. They've been explained not just by me but also by the British military. Also, the idea that the British needed to bring more nastiness to 'win' in Afghanistan flies contrary to all the past experiences in the area proving how ineffective it would have been. Soviet ruthlessness failed magnificently in the 80's, and back in the 1800 and 1900's the British (who had not yet developed their sensitive sensibilities), found that attempts at ruthless subjugation (like obliterating villages from the air) did little more than stir the hornet's nest.

Maybe just visit one of those websites...you know..."Ukrainian Women looking for Canadian husbands!"

They were leveled against themselves and against each other. You'll have to explain your point, because it doesn't make any sense to me. No, the British Army leadership essentially said they weren't ready for Helmand. They made naive assumptions about the mission and went in with insufficient numbers and equipment. This was all compounded by their failure to gather good intelligence which, depending on who's talking, was some combination of inadequate/conflicting/terrible. Right, and the cultural and operational differences in Afghanistan were no big deal....

Haggling? I don't understand what you mean sorry. We take it for granted because it's a common value that we virtually all share.

It's still cheaper to get beer there than at the LCBO. What sort of service is required? I go in, I pick up a case of beer off the shelf, and bring it to the counter to pay. As long as you're not going in at predictably busy hours, you don't even have to wait. I don't like the gouging. That's my beef. If we're going to be gouged, at least let it be going to public coffers.

Common values are what keep a society together. Even those, however, are things people will argue about and use to fuel their rhetoric. Most people would probably agree the government should provide security for their people. Depending on their angle, however, some might say the extremely modest 1% of GDP that Canada spends on its armed forces is totally inadequate, while others consider every procurement a waste and/or proof of war-mongering imperialism.

Yes, I said budget to clarify his point, since you misinterpreted it. He was saying that many on the left have unrealistic views on how and where to spend money, not understanding that overspending has consequences. Maybe, but it depends on where you are and what you consider wasteful spending.

You're missing the point. The context of the comparisons need to be considered. You and I both have two arms, two legs and a head, but would you say that we're similar people? Probably not. Similarly, there were plenty of comparisons and similarities with Helmand and Ulster, but they still weren't similar conflicts. That military leaders made these comparisons and stated similarities also doesn't support your point. It just means that military leaders stated some similarities. My countering of your opinion is based on the poor results in Helmand Province along with all of the criticism of that mission from the Ministry of Defence, the Brig in charge of Helmand as well as the former Chief of Staff himself. You state that reasons for British unpreparedness result from cultural and operational differences, which is exactly what I'm talking about. Fighting in Ulster where half the people want you there is a lot different than Helmand, where everyone is Pashtun and hates you. As far as defense cuts go, common criticisms of the Helmand mission were the lack of heavy equipment and properly armored vehicles - things not necessary in Ulster.

There's no question that the Soviet Union affected the area. It's not much of a leap, however, to say the region would have been a mess regardless. The powers of greater Persia, the Indian subcontinent and the asian Steppes have struggled for control of the area for thousands of years. The region's history is one of consistent back and forth conquest spanning 4000 years, with Afghans on occasion doing the conquering themselves. Eventually, sure. How long and how much violence that takes is really the question, since there's a lot more going on than a simple East/West divide. North America was perfectly suited for a speedy resolution. The British controlled the Sea and that's pretty much the end of the story. From that point on, their dominance of North America was unassailable, which ensured that their culture and way of life proliferated.