Stoker

This thread should be locked!!! Tis too freaky First caesar agrees with me, and now I find myself in agreement with Black Dog....... Now do when you say the needs of the rank and file, am I correct to understand you in saying equipment and more personnal? We are......trying to do that, but global events don't seem to let us. 10-20 Billion dollars for unequiped ships? Where did you hear that? For that price we could buy a dozen US Arleigh Burke (AEGIS) Destroyers, which are arguably the most powerful surface ship ever made.......... As I said before, we shouldn't rob peter to paul, noe of the three services should be aloud to fall apart. So Virail, do you beleive that it is the duty of the United States to "look after us"?

Why would you want to reduce the number of Peacekeeping missions we partake in, well at the same time increasing the size of our army and making it "fast" and "light"? Though I believe that we need to fund all three services (army, navy and air force) well, I'd argue that if the left has it's way, and decideds that we can only fund one service properly *shudders* that it be the navy for the reason being that many Canadians don't seem able to commit to certains courses of action. Unlike the Army, a commitment of Canadian Naval task force is much easier to move into (and more importantly to some Canadians, move out) of most "hot spots".

Vote Conservative and pray. Black Dog do you think that allowing our military to collapse or be reduced even further, will make Canada more sovereign?

Who says that it is apart from the war on terror? So are you trying to say that the world would be a safer place with Saddam in power? WRT to your quotes: Where is Neil Mackay's "SECRET blueprint for US global domination"? Paul O’Neill? The guy was fired for christ sakes Richard Clarke? The same guy that was turned down the postion of Sec. of Homeland Defence and is selling a book? My god, all you need is a quote from Moore and you've solved the case

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Tell me then, why most other first world nations are able to find money for Healthcare and defence? Whats so different about say, the United kingdom and Canada? So if somethings broke, you shouldn't bother to fix it? WRT the choppers, when you write your letter, address it to the people in the Navy and Air Force who deal with the Sea King and under you, would after deal with no helicopter. Tell them we don't need it. Well Canada proper most likely won't get invaded, our intrests abroad have before and most likely will be again. What makes Canada so different from other first world nations that allows us not to fund defence and not to protect ourselves? Oh yeah...........I forgot, the United States will do it for us

Why do I need to send any letters out to victims of our healthcare system? I never said that there wasn't a problem with the bloody thing........... Fixing problems faced in our Armed Forces, Healthcare and any other example you used should not be an either or decision. There are many nations that can fund all of their "institutions"........... By all means, please explain why the 28 helicopters are not the "help that is needed"? What good is a social safety-net if you can't protect it and the people that use it? Now I urge you, go write the letter to the men and women that are away from home, defending you, and tell them that we don't "use" them.

So you then wouldn't mind providing documentation then eh?

.........Or they are being prudent, in that they will ensure their own safety instead of allowing an international body, which is filled with vested intrests, to do so. According to who? The United Nations? Why? As I asked Ceaser, should the United States always be forced to take the first blow before reacting?

With 1441, the Security Council would declare Iraq was in a "new breach" if it made "false statements or omissions" in it's declaration to the Security Council.......So how is not providing proof that they destroyed their WMD, not an omission?

I listen, watch and read it............I don't know what you're on about, so again:

Go here and send a letter to the people overseas and explain to them how they are not being "used".......

I said: Where did I mention Iraq and 9/11? The entire war on terror was a reaction to 9/11 and is being waged against any nation, group or person that is a possable threat towards Americans. If 9/11 had not of happend, the chances are slim to none that a war would have been fought in Afghanstain, special forces operations in parts of the Sudan and the Philippines, bank accounts seized across the globe, the voluntary disarmament of Libya, and the war in Iraq etc. Are all these cases directly related to 9/11? Of course not.... Would the actions that have been taken most likely have happend if it were not because of 9/11? What do you think?

And what is the United States doing that we need to protect ourselves from?

So your saying it's the fault of the Americans for the attacks? Isn't that kinda like saying that a rape victim is at fault for wearing a short cut skirt? Again, this is not a fight against just Al-Quada, but against any nation that poses a a possable threat and/or supports terror.........You're with us or agianst us remeber Simple, go back and look at my preious posts or at this quote from this thread: And Where did I say that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Were does it say the aformentioned bills become null?

And because I'm a nice guy..........here is some late night reading for yeah: RESOLUTION 686 RESOLUTION 688 and Resolution 1441

Have you read 1441 or any of the other UN mandates that were passed after the first Gulf War?

Whats the difference between the two terms?

Not just Alberta, but all provinces......remeber, Alberta doesn't want special status, just equal status.

I don't know about all of Willy's posts, but it does sound as if you are describing alot of your own posts..........

Did the United States blow-up the pipelines? Did the Iraq government blow-up the pipelines? Or did terrorists that fear a soveregin Iraq aided by the United States led coalition blow-up the pipelines? Is the United States trying to prevent the destruction of Iraqi pipelines? Is the Iraqi government trying to prevent the destruction of their oil fields via the new Iraqi army and police force? Are the terrorists trying to prevent the destruction of the pipelines? Is the United States rebuilding Iraq's only really industry to speak of, at the great cost of lives and money? Is the Iraqi government rebuilding Iraq's only really industry to speak of, at the great cost of lives and money? Are the terrorists trying to rebuild Iraq's number one industry? Is the United States working toward a positive outcome for the Iraqi people? Is the Iraqi government working toward a positive future for the people of Iraq? Are the terrorists working for a positive future for the people of Iraq? Who are the bad guys? First off, I wish to thank you for adding another "round to my chamber" to those that say that the United States went into Iraq for their oil. Second, I didn't imply that the United States went into Iraq for Iraqi oil, I said it, but from the postion of one playing devils advocate. Third, again thank-you for pointing out how absurd it is to think that this war was about oil, it's about the several thousand Americans that died almost three years ago. As I've been saying in many threads at this site, since I first started posting here, the United States did not go into Iraq for Oil.

Who did the United States "pick" as leader of Iraq? Didn't the Iraq government choose the leader and then come Janurary, won't the Iraqi people pick their leader? And do you have proof that Iraq can only sell Oil to the United States? So we could call the United Nations the higher authority, and with that the case then, I suggest you go read 1441. Police State? The United States has already stated that if the new Iraq government wants them gone, they will leave........how's that a "police state"? And why do you think other owners don't like the police? Could it be that the police are ensuring that the "workers" (Iraq people) at the new "Iraqi shop" have rights, as opposed to the coffee shop workers? I don't know the exact figures (I find them tonight when I get home from work), but yes, they are slowing getting back to the level of production that they had pre 1991. And the major difference, between now and since Saddam took power, is that the Iraqi people will be the ones reaping the benifits of their nations oil. So we have the Iraqi's getting freedom and oil revenue, and the Americans and the rest of the west are planting the seeds of stability (democracy) in the middle east.........whats wrong with this? Please i ask any of you..

Let's try this: Iraq is the coffee shop owner The United States is the Policeman and a customer The majority of the world are customers also The Terrorists/insurgents are the crack addicts/hobos Crack Addit comes and disrupts the sale of coffee to the public. This pisses off the coffee shop owner and the public. Policeman comes and deals with crack addict, thus allow the sale of coffee again. Coffee shop owner makes money, the public gets it's morning brew. No where in there is the Policeman taking money out of the shop owners till or stealing coffee...........just like how the States isn't taking the Iraqi oil money or outright stealing their oil.

So if there is plenty wrong with it, you should have no problem stating the wrongs........... Please explain........how I see it, the United States gets a stable source of Oil that it needs and Iraqi's get democracy and oil revenue and if needed the support of the worlds only superpower.......whats wrong with that? Why is it bad that the "Police" are from another country? WRT Alberta's oil, I don't see no need as to why the United States would need to insure it's stablity? Are there some form of Anti-US insurgents at work in Alberta disrupting the US-Alberta trade relationship?