Alex Moore

ooooh... I love people who quotes the simpsons and pop rock "artists" and talks about the 'new world order' in the same sentence. They are how shall i say... oh i can't violation of forum rules. basically as a response anyone who actually believes they understands the world enough to assumes that they have the know how to fix it and to suggest that others are blind to this. Are (forum violation). Nobody has a monopoly on truth and no single ideology has the single solution to it. Don't call me blind because I don't agree with you. The venus project, hippies please grow up.

As much as i believe the Iranians can (will if allowed to) do it. Pakistan isn't going to help them.

so then you call an imposed dictatorship a great alliance? I'm a little confused by this. as for the miniskirts I've not been alive long enough to comment on their history. but given the sexually repressive nature of Islam I have trouble believe that they where common during the 60-70s. especially since the shah's attempts to westernize Iran was a factor in the Islamic revolution

sorry saw this and have to laugh read history 1941 was the year Britain invaded Iran to prevent them from siding with nazi Germany. If there has been been any alliance between Iran and the west it was forced. Remember the shah? Great allies. yeah that was the dictatorship left behind following the 1941 invasion. which (forgive me if i'm wrong) wasn't terribly popular in Iran. and oh was the driving cause behind the 1978-1980 islamic revolution in Iran who are: the douches in power right now developing nuclear weapons. miniskirts in Iran between 1941-1978? ummm... I don't even think they were invented yet.. I'm going to need photographic evidence of this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/iran-says-it-will-further-enrich-uranium/article1385575/ Is anyone actually surprised?

Your right this will be perceived as an awful thing to say, entirely because it is an awful thing to say. NO no and no. You really need to take a look at homeless people before even considering your argument. Homeless people are the people who fall through the cracks in our society. Not that i'm denying them responsibility of they're action(surprise a conservative defending the homeless). but as an observation they typically suffer from a mental illness or a drug addiction. The streets are the refuge of those who have nowhere else to go. you can't say the schizophrenic understands his situation when he scared of aliens sending him messages. You can't say the addict will improve without treatment. these people are the ones who are dependent on others. the schizophrenic needs his medication and the addict needs help to move past his addiction. Animals on the other hand are perfectly capable of surviving outside of human control. I may surprise you to know that most of the animals in the shelter are either feral or abandoned. Regardless of their history the animals in the shelter will have most likely been surviving outside of human control for months. Why does fido stick around in an abusive home? I don't know but you can't say either. As two why I care more about the homeless guy more than the beat up dog? I care more for him because we are member of the same moral community. That is we are judged by the same principle an act in accordance with them. If a homeless guy stabs me or if I stab him we are both capable of understanding that are actions were wrong and that there are consequences to them(and that we we'll be punished). Fido does not. not matter how cute and lovable pets are still motivated by survival needs. Honestly starve your dog (don't actually this is just a point) and see how cute they are then. a dog that kills a man will not understand what he has done as wrong in any moral sense. We shoot that dog not because he is a criminal but because he is a danger to society.

Is there a question or topic in there or just an outlet for misplaced aggression?

I'm still confused as to why bleeding hearts are still screaming this. What good will be accomplished by a premature withdrawl?Nothing for the Afghans. They'll still be under siege by forces that kill women for the crime of getting an education. Us not being there won't change that only liken the possibility of another taliban government. Maybe less Canadian soldiers will die and we'll spend less on our military budget. BUT this is a responsibility we accepted when we entered afghanistan. Though its to easy to forget this we fucked up the country and we have to unfuck it regardless of the cost. Withdraw now and that won't accomplish anything but placing the burden of our responsibility on our allies and pissing them off.

I seconded it. Honestly making issue out of personel expenses is just stupid because they are such a small part of DND budget axing them wouldnt have any effect. Whats going to get axed is equipment purchases for an army that is already stretched to its limit. Or something else to get axed that hippies wont enjoy: humitarian efforts in Afghanistan.

wow you liberals are getting really desperate for punches to have gone that low. You clearly don't know anything about Sikhism/India to have made that comment. 1 there aren't that many of them, not enough to be worried about to specifically make a photo opp for (something like 20 million globally mostly in India. I don't know the number in Canada but doubt it's significant) 2 there's a difference between Sikhism and Indian: most Indians are Hindus. If he was legitimately trying to appeal to the Indian population he would have not made that photo because Sikhs and Hindus hate each other. 3 Its called respect. the fabric he wore over his is a sign of respect to the culture of sikhism. Why does this HAVE to be a political move. WHY ARE YOU MAKING IT A POLITICAL MOVE? can he just travel to india visit the golden temple, eat some indian food play the piano and go home?

Pay and training aside. (30k starting salary for someone with a high school education is actually pretty good) The government really needs to expand the military and actually create a force able to act for a sovereign nation. We must admit that our forces as competent as the men and women fighting in are, Is in abysmal state. We could not act in our own defense or if necessary invade another country. We do not have the capacity of a full modern army lacking things like an airborne division, marines(NOT the US kind) or attack helicopters etc. Where un-developed nations like mexico do. instead we rely upon Other nations like the US for military assistance basically if we need helicopters they send in theirs to back ours up. the best thing for our troops would be to build a force capable of acting fully and independently as a modern army. I would argue this is also best for our nation as well.

wow Argus you've said incompetent and idiot so many times in this debate that I don't know if its an insult or a common adjective anymore. You fail to appreciate what this situation is. Anytime criminal case goes to court without 100% certainty. There is almost always a subsequent civil suit on behalf of the defendants against the prosecuting lawyers for malicious conduct (Scientology is famous for this see Hill v Church of Scientology). It would be great If prosecutors always went to court with absolute certainty. But the very fact that they are in court usually means there isn't absolute certainty in the case (especially for sexual abuse cases). so by your standard that lawyers shouldn't go to trial unless they have absolute empirically tested evidence that create 100%certainty of a conviction. It would mean that lawyers couldn't do their job. In order to do their jobs lawyers need to be protected against these lawsuits except of course in cases where its clear that lawyers where going beyond the scope of their job and either using there position to personally attack the defendant or to advance their career. which is unless I read wrong the standard that the supreme court set.

The story that read was that this guy went crazy out of fear because he was being sent to Iraq.

To say that the science is settled is an outright lie. Scientist don't like to admit to the fact that they don't understand everything. But that is the case especially for large complex systems like the earth. The science behind global warming is confusing and much of it too recent and unempirically tested. Far too much is correlational to actually make inferences from or to attribute causation. There still is no cohesive understanding amongst scientists as to what climate change will look like or if its even preventable, or even how to stop it. Climate change though alarming is still a science in its infancy.