james rahn Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 I also repeatedly said that I oppose, conscientiously, ANY funding for offensive military expeditions beyond our borders.Please try to pay more attention. It would be nice if the world worked that way,. Sounds like you have very high moral expectations for the human race , but unfortunately if that had been the predominent attitude 60 years ago, I think we would've lost the Second World War. Non-interference is commendable, but I think interference and involvement are two different things, and it's important to differentiate between the two. Although it's often hard to make a distinction, trying to establish a consensus among nations can be helpful. If that doesn't work, then a nation must act in its' own interest; it simply doesn't have any choice. Not every threat is an internal threat, and if you wait until a conflict reaches your own shores, it could too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaponeer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Nice try but I said I was a COMT and I also made it quite clear that I suppport a strict policy of non-interference in the affairs of others in the sense of a Prime Directive similar to that outlined in Star Trek. As I recall this never stopped anyone from defending themselves.I also repeatedly said that I oppose, conscientiously, ANY funding for offensive military expeditions beyond our borders. Please try to pay more attention. Yes, it is much wiser to defend your country while your in it. Fight the war in our country, maskes sense. So when the invading force comes you will wait until they enter our waters before you strike??? Yes, lets protect our goalie while the other teams in our end. Lets not start playing for real until we are down 5 - 0. You mentioned you were a fireman at some point. Lets wait til the place is on fire before we act, great!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 I care a lot about homeland defence actually. If I was in charge of that I'd do like the Chinese and deter potential invaders by building a small number of extremely large nukes. Much more cheaper and efficient than constatantly trying to upgrade our supply of weapons. So do the chinese believe in home defense...with 2.5 million men under arms, and climbing....so is there military spending (one of the leading nations in the world.....)along with a very long list of toys they own....Bad choice using china as an example.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Taxing weed is a good idea...but we'd have to double the taxes on munchies as well if we are really going to clean up..... legalizing it would of course put most of BC back in work....working for the man growing dope...this is getting better and better.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Marc Emery must have worked pretty hard to become a millionaire. Do you think mafioso family members work hard too? Edited January 17, 2008 by White Doors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Do you think mafioso family members work hard too? I have no idea, but I suspect they have lots of accountants, lawyers and politicians who do the really hard work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 So do the chinese believe in home defense...with 2.5 million men under arms, and climbing....so is there military spending (one of the leading nations in the world.....)along with a very long list of toys they own....Bad choice using china as an example.... These are for invading Taiwan and climbing on the backs of other Chinese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 It would be nice if the world worked that way,. Sounds like you have very high moral expectations for the human race , but unfortunately if that had been the predominent attitude 60 years ago, I think we would've lost the Second World War. Non-interference is commendable, but I think interference and involvement are two different things, and it's important to differentiate between the two. Although it's often hard to make a distinction, trying to establish a consensus among nations can be helpful. If that doesn't work, then a nation must act in its' own interest; it simply doesn't have any choice. Not every threat is an internal threat, and if you wait until a conflict reaches your own shores, it could too late. We are an island continent with oceans, some very vast, on three sides and there is only one direction a land invasion is feasible. As long as we don't do something foolish like reserve our natural resources for peaceful purposes only or legalize pot we should be safe. Maybe. As long as we're going to speculate about the past perhaps we should explore the possiblity that the Second World War would never have happened if we hadn't become involved in the First War that preceded it. Its entirely possible that we only made things worse. The EU might have emerged a lot sooner, Russia might have been encouraged to join the same fold, Isreal might have been born under more amicable conditions or not at all. Who knows, the age of empires could be long since behind us and I'd be posting this from [email protected] or even Mars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) We are an island continent with oceans, some very vast, ..... Oh god gosh.....Island continent? Are there any other kind? With Oceans? No! Go on! How incredibly shallow and jejune....Could you at least try and fake a semblance of profundity? Who knows, the age of empires could be long since behind us and I'd be posting this from [email protected] or even Mars. Oh I would say you are there Stardust, you are there.... Edited January 17, 2008 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 It occurs to me that legalized weed might also avert the looming food shortage in addition to help fund the military, but the problem of defending ourselfves from a US attack still remains. What to do, what to do?I wonder how legalizing pot would help the food supply. And when is the US attacking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james rahn Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 I have a close friend whose a SAR Tech in Winnipeg, he told me that they actually like the CL415 waterbomber. The SAR folks would love to see that airframe converted for SAR use. The second choice of the SAR world is the V-22 Osprey as it is both helo & plane.... I actually thought Bombardier did have a SAR version of the 415, but that it was a bit limited range-wise and more suited to a marine environment. http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0.../3_3/3_3_0.html Glad to hear the 138's in Yellowknife will be replaced with new ones. That little airplane does a whole lot for Canadian sovereignty in the high arctic. Worth it's payload in gold, IMO. Sure with the CG had some of those when I was in Hay River. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james rahn Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) We are an island continent...Who knows, the age of empires could be long since behind us... Okay, here's the long answer. Bear with me... If what you mean when you say 'island continent' is that we are geographically separated from many of the world's hot spots by vast oceans, yes, you are correct. The pertinent question is, so what? We might not be in danger form foreign invasion, but nuclear weapons can cross oceans quite easily. The vastness of the Atlantic Ocean did nothing to stop 9/11. Just because we are surrounded by water doesn't mean we are isolated socially, politically or economically from the rest of the world. In fact with modern technology, the world is getting much smaller. Sometimes there is very little that can be done to improve a bad situation in world affairs, but that doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to the rest of the planet and the people who live on it to at least try. With regard to the age of empires being behind us, that won't happen until tyranny itself becomes just a part of our past. From quick scan of world news headlines, that hasn't happened yet -- isn't anywhere near happening -- and political isolationism won't make it happen. The people in Iraq, Palestine and in Afghanistan who are committed to blowing up anything they interpret as being western (and often themselves in the process) must be given other options. We've got soldiers fighting to bring stability to Afghanistan and hopefully to reduce the threat of terrorism here in North America. You cannot separate the two interests. It takes military action and also economic reforms and both will take time. Canada developed over several centuries into the relatively peaceful society it is today, and part of the reason for that is that we did get involved in two world wars and fought them before the turmoil could reach our own shores. Neither can we expect Afghanistan or Palestine or Iraq to magically turn into peaceful, tolerant societies overnight or even over a single decade. It takes a high level of involvement over a long period of time. It'd be nice if we could fly off to Mars and leave everything behind, but right now that isn't an option. We're all pretty much stuck here on this planet. Even if we could go to Mars, how long do you think it would be before we'd have the same problems there? So instead of focusing on the oceans that separate us, the solution, I believe, is to focus on the things that bring nations together. I've always felt that people in the Middle East, Africa, People's Republic of China, etc. all ultimately want some of the same things out of life as we do: a certain level of personal significance and perhaps a better life for our children. At least that way, we have a starting point for change. Finally, there is no need to speculate about history, for it often repeats itself. Former Prime Minister Lester Pearson's words concerning the Second World War take on new significance in the light of Septeber 11, 2001. He said, "Until the last great war, a general expectation of material improvement was an idea peculiar to Western man. Now war and its aftermath have made economic and social progress a political imperative in every quarter of the globe." ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke Edited January 18, 2008 by james rahn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james rahn Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 I actually thought Bombardier did have a SAR version of the 415, but that it was a bit limited range-wise and more suited to a marine environment.http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0.../3_3/3_3_0.html Glad to hear the 138's in Yellowknife will be replaced with new ones. That little airplane does a whole lot for Canadian sovereignty in the high arctic. Worth it's payload in gold, IMO. Sure wish the CG had some of those when I was in Hay River. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james rahn Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 You can jump out of perfectly good ones? Ask any AME (or parachutist), there's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane. I'm just glad I never signed a mantenance release for one that went down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 I have no idea, but I suspect they have lots of accountants, lawyers and politicians who do the really hard work. Sound like anyone you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaponeer Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Okay, here's the long answer. Bear with me...If what you mean when you say 'island continent' is that we are geographically separated from many of the world's hot spots by vast oceans, yes, you are correct. The pertinent question is, so what? We might not be in danger form foreign invasion, but nuclear weapons can cross oceans quite easily. The vastness of the Atlantic Ocean did nothing to stop 9/11. Just because we are surrounded by water doesn't mean we are isolated socially, politically or economically from the rest of the world. In fact with modern technology, the world is getting much smaller. Sometimes there is very little that can be done to improve a bad situation in world affairs, but that doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to the rest of the planet and the people who live on it to at least try. With regard to the age of empires being behind us, that won't happen until tyranny itself becomes just a part of our past. From quick scan of world news headlines, that hasn't happened yet -- isn't anywhere near happening -- and political isolationism won't make it happen. The people in Iraq, Palestine and in Afghanistan who are committed to blowing up anything they interpret as being western (and often themselves in the process) must be given other options. We've got soldiers fighting to bring stability to Afghanistan and hopefully to reduce the threat of terrorism here in North America. You cannot separate the two interests. It takes military action and also economic reforms and both will take time. Canada developed over several centuries into the relatively peaceful society it is today, and part of the reason for that is that we did get involved in two world wars and fought them before the turmoil could reach our own shores. Neither can we expect Afghanistan or Palestine or Iraq to magically turn into peaceful, tolerant societies overnight or even over a single decade. It takes a high level of involvement over a long period of time. It'd be nice if we could fly off to Mars and leave everything behind, but right now that isn't an option. We're all pretty much stuck here on this planet. Even if we could go to Mars, how long do you think it would be before we'd have the same problems there? So instead of focusing on the oceans that separate us, the solution, I believe, is to focus on the things that bring nations together. I've always felt that people in the Middle East, Africa, People's Republic of China, etc. all ultimately want some of the same things out of life as we do: a certain level of personal significance and perhaps a better life for our children. At least that way, we have a starting point for change. Finally, there is no need to speculate about history, for it often repeats itself. Former Prime Minister Lester Pearson's words concerning the Second World War take on new significance in the light of Septeber 11, 2001. He said, "Until the last great war, a general expectation of material improvement was an idea peculiar to Western man. Now war and its aftermath have made economic and social progress a political imperative in every quarter of the globe." ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke Well said.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Sound like anyone you know? Not personally but they sound suspiciously like CEO's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Okay, here's the long answer. Bear with me...If what you mean when you say 'island continent' is that we are geographically separated from many of the world's hot spots by vast oceans, yes, you are correct. The pertinent question is, so what? I wanted to counter up front, the ridiculous fearmongering about Islamofascists trying to take over the world and marching up Main Street soon if we don't fight them over there. We might not be in danger form foreign invasion, but nuclear weapons can cross oceans quite easily. The vastness of the Atlantic Ocean did nothing to stop 9/11. No the Atlantic didn't stop 9/11, neither did conventional or nuclear forces. The police are the only real defence that works against terrorists and in the case of 9/11, they missed. In the meantime the west has spent a few trillion dollars to counter a $20 investment in box-cutters. Fear and over-reaction is the biggest danger the west faces. I'd say the wests nuclear weapons are a far greater threat to the world. Especially given the west's irrational fear and pre-emptive mind-set. Just because we are surrounded by water doesn't mean we are isolated socially, politically or economically from the rest of the world. In fact with modern technology, the world is getting much smaller. Sometimes there is very little that can be done to improve a bad situation in world affairs, but that doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to the rest of the planet and the people who live on it to at least try. Distance and isolation apply to many other things besides just geography. The rapidly growing gap between wealthy people and common people for example or the back rooms where corporate and government interests isolate themselves from the public's domain. More often than not it only takes a handfull of powerful wealthy people to make a bad situation in world affairs worse, especially when governments pay more attention to them than the people they claim to be representing. With regard to the age of empires being behind us, that won't happen until tyranny itself becomes just a part of our past. From quick scan of world news headlines, that hasn't happened yet -- isn't anywhere near happening -- and political isolationism won't make it happen. Tyranny will never be a thing of the past a long as its being aided and abetted. I don't draw too much distinction between tyranny and terror myself and when I see George Bush talking about state sponserd terror I know I'm looking at a classic case of a pot calling a kettle black. The people in Iraq, Palestine and in Afghanistan who are committed to blowing up anything they interpret as being western (and often themselves in the process) must be given other options. I think they just need to be left alone. Not isolated, just left alone. We've got soldiers fighting to bring stability to Afghanistan and hopefully to reduce the threat of terrorism here in North America. You cannot separate the two interests. It takes military action and also economic reforms and both will take time. I don't buy your argument. We (the west) originally went to Afghanistan and then Iraq because of 9/11. We were led to think the 9/11 terrorists trained in Afghanistan but the fact is they actually trained in America, the flight simulators were not in Tora Bora and I doubt very much that you'd have to travel all the way to the boondocks of Afghanistan to learn how to wield a box-cutter. 9/11 was a criminal act carried out by civilians, with not a single report of any Afghani in the bunch, it was NOT a military operation. Canada developed over several centuries into the relatively peaceful society it is today, and part of the reason for that is that we did get involved in two world wars and fought them before the turmoil could reach our own shores. I wasn't aware of the Kaiser's designs on North America, do you have a link that indicates otherwise? As I suggested the 2nd world war may have never occured had Europe been left to settle its issues on its own. We'll never know of course but in any case this constant referral to the past and comparing the scope of WW 1 and WW2 to the present War on Terror is just utterly ridiculous. Its pure fearmongering of the worst kind. OBL is not Hitler and neither is Bush. Neither can we expect Afghanistan or Palestine or Iraq to magically turn into peaceful, tolerant societies overnight or even over a single decade. It takes a high level of involvement over a long period of time. It took the west a few thousand years of evolution to develop peaceful, tolerant societies ,which are still very fragile and tenuous at best. The degree to which we are involved will be magnified by our level of interferance. It'd be nice if we could fly off to Mars and leave everything behind, but right now that isn't an option. We're all pretty much stuck here on this planet. Even if we could go to Mars, how long do you think it would be before we'd have the same problems there? They'd always be there as long as we keep behaving the way we do. The west still has a lot of evolving to do yet. Superstition still runs rampant throughout our society which cripples many people's ability to connect cause to effect, our economy is essentially oblivious to the fact that it is liquidating the natural capital that is underwriting it and we still haven't got a clue how to effectively control our governments or prevent power and wealth from abusing their priviledges. So instead of focusing on the oceans that separate us, the solution, I believe, is to focus on the things that bring nations together. I've always felt that people in the Middle East, Africa, People's Republic of China, etc. all ultimately want some of the same things out of life as we do: a certain level of personal significance and perhaps a better life for our children. At least that way, we have a starting point for change. I think what 99.9 percent of human beings really don't want the most, is someone on their back all the time. This is why the claim that people hate freedom is the most ridiculous of all and it is why our aiding and abetting tyrants has caused so much hatred, fear and terrorism. Finally, there is no need to speculate about history, for it often repeats itself. Former Prime Minister Lester Pearson's words concerning the Second World War take on new significance in the light of Septeber 11, 2001. He said, "Until the last great war, a general expectation of material improvement was an idea peculiar to Western man. Now war and its aftermath have made economic and social progress a political imperative in every quarter of the globe." The speculative references I've made to WW 1 and 2 are in response to the silly comparisons that are often made between OBL, Islamofacism, Hitler and Chamberlain whenever someone like me suggests we should just mind our own business. Pearson was correct unfortunately his political imperative was co-opted by economic imperialism and its just pure bad luck that most of the oil fueling that is found under the people being subjected to it the most. ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke Yes, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Among the things that Eyeballs refuses to believe is that the hijackers dodn't receiev any training in afghanistan. And that the Kaiser didn 't have plans here in NA http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/ Is there any excuse for tis kind of thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 You're presenting intell that's been exchanged bewteen Britain and the US for the purposes of picking a fight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 You're presenting intell that's been exchanged bewteen Britain and the US for the purposes of picking a fight? You are questioning accepted documentary evidence that has been in the public for over 90 years? Can we add revisionist crack pot to your qualifications? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Among the things that Eyeballs refuses to believe is that the hijackers dodn't receiev any training in afghanistan. And that the Kaiser didn 't have plans here in NA http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/ Is there any excuse for tis kind of thinking? a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Minister to Mexico, von Eckhardt, offering United States territory to Mexico in return for joining the German cause. An enticement for Mexican expansion - but no indication of the Kaisers dreams of North American involvement (beyond stealing our word for twenty) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 We were led to think the 9/11 terrorists trained in Afghanistan but the fact is they actually trained in America, the flight simulators were not in Tora Bora and I doubt very much that you'd have to travel all the way to the boondocks of Afghanistan to learn how to wield a box-cutter. Only a few of them did flight training and they did do it in the US. If you check their bios, all but a few of the hijackers trained and or fought in Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 I don't buy your argument. We (the west) originally went to Afghanistan and then Iraq because of 9/11. We were led to think the 9/11 terrorists trained in Afghanistan but the fact is they actually trained in America, the flight simulators were not in Tora Bora and I doubt very much that you'd have to travel all the way to the boondocks of Afghanistan to learn how to wield a box-cutter. 9/11 was a criminal act carried out by civilians, with not a single report of any Afghani in the bunch, it was NOT a military operation.The indoctrination occurred in Afghanistan.I wasn't aware of the Kaiser's designs on North America, do you have a link that indicates otherwise? As I suggested the 2nd world war may have never occured had Europe been left to settle its issues on its own. This is just breathtaking. Germany "peacefully" takes over Austria and Czechoslovakia, and with Soviet help carves up Poland. What non-Europeans were involved in those hijinks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 (edited) You are questioning accepted documentary evidence that has been in the public for over 90 years? I question everything that is presented to the public. Can we add revisionist crack pot to your qualifications? I'm simply speculating, Morris. I think having an imagination and an open mind is a good qualification. If there is anything to be learned from history its that its often written by the winners. Is there any excuse for tis kind of thinking? What kind of thinking, skepticism and doubt? Since when did these things need to be excused in Canada? Aren't these amongst the many things that tens of thousands of Canadians are supposed to have fought and died for? Edited January 20, 2008 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.