Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[JerrySeinfeld]

Of course the object of going to war is to kill people. Do you think it's to round up the enemy and bring them to trial? The object of dropping a bomb is to kill the people it's dropped on. Nothing else.

Yes. this is straying from the topic. But yes, the object of going to war is to kill your enemy. ONly a stilted left wing self-loathing defeatist would think othewise.

[Wilber]

Such a goal may be laudable, but the means remains the same. In the face of authorized deady force, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, and even abortion on demand through the third trimester, saving a life quickly runs afoul of logic and reality.

Capital punishment is a state commanded death. None of those are.

[Wilber]

Yes. this is straying from the topic. But yes, the object of going to war is to kill your enemy. ONly a stilted left wing self-loathing defeatist would think othewise.

Don't be an ass. War is just another way of looking after your interests and any sane person knows it is the worst way and a last resort. Do you think countries would go to war if they could get their way without it?

[Wilber]

Of course the object of going to war is to kill people. Do you think it's to round up the enemy and bring them to trial? The object of dropping a bomb is to kill the people it's dropped on. Nothing else.

So you are saying that the only reason you are in Iraq is to kill Iraqis and the only reason we are in in Afghanistan it to kill Afghanis? I would say that is the last reason we are there.

[Smallc]

So you are saying that the only reason you are in Iraq is to kill Iraqis and the only reason we are in in Afghanistan it to kill Afghanis? I would say that is the last reason we are there.

I would agree with you. You are there to do something in particular but it is not to kill. The killing is only a byproduct of the other particular.

[Guest American Woman]

So you are saying that the only reason you are in Iraq is to kill Iraqis and the only reason we are in in Afghanistan it to kill Afghanis? I would say that is the last reason we are there.

You don't think the reason we went to war was to kill terrorists/potential terrorists?? I would say that is the first reason we are there.

Why do you think you/we are there?

[Guest American Woman]

I would agree with you. You are there to do something in particular but it is not to kill. The killing is only a byproduct of the other particular.

What would that "something in particular" be? What in particular are we there dropping bombs for if not to kill??

[Smallc]

What would that "something in particular" be? What in particular are we there dropping bombs for if not to kill??

To free the Afghans. To fight for democracy world wide. To end the threat of terror. As for Iraq, well, that has nothing to do with Canada, so I have no idea why you are there.

[Guest American Woman]

To free the Afghans. To fight for democracy world wide. To end the threat of terror. As for Iraq, well, that has nothing to do with Canada, so I have no idea why you are there.

Evidently we are there to free the Iraqis. To fight for democracy world wide. To end Saddam's reign of terror.

So why aren't you there if this is the way you feel about Afghanistan? Why would Canada want to free the Afghans, but not the Iraqis? Why would you fight for democracy "world wide" only in Afghanistan and not Iraq? Is Iraq not as much a part of the whole world as Afghanistan is?

You may delude yourself the way those who say when they kill us it's murder but when we kill them it's collateral damage, but that's all you're doing-- deluding yourself. And if you can delude yourself regarding Afghanistan, then you better give us the same delusion regarding Iraq.

If it weren't for 9-11 we wouldn't be in Afghanistan. If it weren't for 9-11 you wouldn't be in Afghanistan. We are there to kill those who are either a threat or perceived as a threat. That's the first and foremost reason we are there, and but for that reason, we would not be there.

Edited November 12, 2007 by American Woman

[Smallc]

Evidently we are there to free the Iraqis. To fight for democracy world wide. To end Saddam's reign of terror.

So why aren't you there if this is the way you feel about Afghanistan? Why would Canada want to free the Afghans, but not the Iraqis? Why would you fight for democracy "world wide" only in Afghanistan and not Iraq? Is Iraq not as much a part of the whole world as Afghanistan is?

You may delude yourself the way those who say when they kill us it's murder but when we kill them it's collateral damage, but that's all you're doing-- deluding yourself. And if you can delude yourself regarding Afghanistan, then you better give us the same delusion regarding Iraq.

If it weren't for 9-11 we wouldn't be in Afghanistan. If it weren't for 9-11 you wouldn't be in Afghanistan. We are there to kill those who are either a threat or perceived as a threat. That's the first and foremost reason we are there, and but for that reason, we would not be there.

The beginning of the war in Afghanistan was a war on terror. That was not the case with the War in Iraq. The reason you went into Iraq did not even exist. The reason that we all went into Afghanistan did. We were there originally to fight terror. We are in Afghanistan now to keep security, stabilize the democracy, and pick up the slack left by the US when they mostly abandoned the country and went into Iraq. Thats probably my biggest problem with the war in Iraq. You should have finished the first war before you started another one. There would be none of the problems that exist in either country if this had been done. We take prisoners of war in Afghanistan all of the time. If we went there only to kill the terrorists, why would we take prisoners?

[capricorn]

We are in Afghanistan now to keep security, stabilize the democracy, and pick up the slack left by the US when they mostly abandoned the country and went into Iraq. Thats probably my biggest problem with the war in Iraq. You should have finished the first war before you started another one.

There are currently over 25,000 US troops serving in Afghanistan. I would hardly call that abandoning the country.

[Wilber]

You don't think the reason we went to war was to kill terrorists/potential terrorists?? I would say that is the first reason we are there.

Why do you think you/we are there?

Certainly we went Afghanistan to deny Al Queda it's base of operations and remove the regime that was supporting them. To a large degree we have done that but we will never be able finish it by just killing people. Fighting the Taliban is just something that has to be done in order to rebuild the country and help it defend and govern itself in a manner that doesn't make it a threat to the rest of the world.

And yes we are there because of 9/11 and to date it has not been shown that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. That more than anything is why we are not in Iraq.

Anyway, I think this thread has kind of lost its way.

[Wilber]

There are currently over 25,000 US troops serving in Afghanistan. I would hardly call that abandoning the country.

True, but both Hitler and Napoleon found out that one should finish one war before you start another. Don't get on me about comparing Bush with Hitler, I'm not and he is certainly not Napoleon.

[Smallc]

There are currently over 25,000 US troops serving in Afghanistan. I would hardly call that abandoning the country.

I thought there were 13000. It doesn't matter though, because at one time there were 70000, and what do you know, that is the number that they estimate for troops needed in the country. We, with only 2500 soldiers there, are in the most dangerous region sustaining the most loss, despite brining in th most advance technology that can be found.

[Guest American Woman]

The beginning of the war in Afghanistan was a war on terror.

The "beginning" of the war was the REASON for the war. It was, as you say, a war on terror. A war where bombs were dropped. With the intent to kill people.

That was not the case with the War in Iraq. The reason you went into Iraq did not even exist.

So what about the reasons you gave for going into Afghanistan-- freeing the Afghans, fighting for democracy world wide, etc. Are you taking those reasons back now?

The reason that we all went into Afghanistan did. We were there originally to fight terror.

Again, the reason we all went into Afghanistan was, as you said, to fight terror. And how did we do that? By killing people. We didn't kill them by accident. We INTENDED to kill them. And THAT was the purpose of going to war in Afghanistan. Sure we take some prisoners, but that's not our main purpose, and surely you haven't convinced yourself that it is. Look at the number of Afghans killed and then look at the number of prisoners and tell me we aren't there to kill. The number of prisoners is but a small fraction of the number killed.

As for abandoning Afghanistan-- last time I checked, we still had troops there.

Edited November 12, 2007 by American Woman

[capricorn]

I thought there were 13000. It doesn't matter though,...

Oh but it does matter. Don't try and wiggle out of what you said. You said the US abandoned Afghanistan, a clear implication that all US troops had been withdrawn and assigned to Irak.

[Smallc]

Oh but it does matter. Don't try and wiggle out of what you said. You said the US abandoned Afghanistan, a clear implication that all US troops had been withdrawn and assigned to Irak.

There has been a significant reduction in the number of US troops. If my employer was paying me $70000, and he dropped that to $25000, do you think that nothing in my life would change? By the way, there weren't even 25000 troops in Afghanistan in 2004, there was only 17000, so I doubt there are 27000 there today. My numbers may not be right, but I know for certain that there has been a significant reduction in the number of troops.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Smallc

[Smallc]

As for abandoning Afghanistan-- last time I checked, we still had troops there.

you don't have enough in the way of troops there because you are trying to fight two wars at once and that is pure stupidity.

[capricorn]

There has been a significant reduction in the number of US troops. If my employer was paying me $70000, and he dropped that to $25000, do you think that nothing in my life would change?j

That's a silly and immature analogy.

I doubt there are 27000 there today.

Of course you would be doubtful. Why am I not surprised?

My numbers may not be right, but I know for certain that there has been a significant prediction in the number of troops.

[Smallc]

I apologize, it was supposed to be reduction.

[Guest American Woman]

you don't have enough in the way of troops there because you are trying to fight two wars at once and that is pure stupidity.

Yet we fought two wars at once in WWII-- one in Europe and one in Asia. That's why the war ended on two different dates-- May 7, 1945 in Europe and on August 15, 1945 in Asia. By the same token, Bush et al will tell you that the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are both part of the same war-- the War on Terror.

FYI, I don't support the war in Iraq and I never did. I did support the war in Afghanistan. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't-- because I don't delude myself that we are there to free the Afghans or to fight for democracy world wide or any of those other feel-good reasons. I supported it, knowing full well that innocent Afghans would get killed, because I was afraid and I thought we had a right to 'fight back.' But I'm questioning if that's what we are actually doing. I'm questioning if we are really "fighting back."

Edited November 12, 2007 by American Woman

[Smallc]

That's a silly and immature analogy.

Of course you would be doubtful. Why am I not surprised?

Now I must admit I am wrong, there are 27000 troops there. This however, is not as high as the number there were during the invasion. There are currently 50000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. It is estimated that there needs to be 70000. If the number of US troops that were there during the invasion had stayed, there would be no problem.

[capricorn]

Now I must admit I am wrong, there are 27000 troops there.

I've stated inaccurate facts in the past and I probably will again at some point. It never upsets me to be set straight. In fact, I welcome it as it improves my knowledge of issues.

This however, is not as high as the number there were during the invasion. There are currently 50000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. It is estimated that there needs to be 70000. If the number of US troops that were there during the invasion had stayed, there would be no problem.

I'll leave that to the military analysts and strategists to ponder.

[jdobbin]

I'll post more of this in the political polls section.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...NuJwESUT1wximLw

Most Canadians don't agree with the Tory government's decision to stop automatically seeking clemency for any citizen facing the death penalty abroad, a new poll indicates.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey found 50 per cent of respondents opposed the new policy, with 43 per cent in favour and the rest undecided.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now I must admit I am wrong, there are 27000 troops there. This however, is not as high as the number there were during the invasion. There are currently 50000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. It is estimated that there needs to be 70000. If the number of US troops that were there during the invasion had stayed, there would be no problem.

So what took Canada so long to show up in such numbers? If it was so important to have a force level of 70,000, where was the rest of Canada, and their heavy airlift, and tactical air, and satellite imaging, and GPS guided munitions, and cruise missiles, and bombers, and money for the Northern Alliance, and rotary wing aircraft, and desert camo fatigues, and....

Edited November 13, 2007 by bush_cheney2004