Topaz Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Such sad news again for Canadians and the loved ones of those who have died. The journalist, a 34 year old woman died Wednesday by an IED once more. At the end of the following article of this story its says that the Afghan National Army is siding on the side of the Taliban and making NATO the enemy. How can we stay in a country when we don't know who are the enemy??????? When the government is/was so corrupt itself. The US also lost 8 CIA agents in a seperate bombing. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091231/world/afghan_cda_soldiers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Such sad news again for Canadians and the loved ones of those who have died. The journalist, a 34 year old woman died Wednesday by an IED once more. At the end of the following article of this story its says that the Afghan National Army is siding on the side of the Taliban and making NATO the enemy. How can we stay in a country when we don't know who are the enemy??????? When the government is/was so corrupt itself. The US also lost 8 CIA agents in a seperate bombing. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091231/world/afghan_cda_soldiers I really have no sympathy. In war people die. That is the reality. And those who must profit from it also risk being killed. The original occupation of Afghanistan was a mistake since history has shown that you cannot take on an invisible enemy, nor can you route out the goats from the mountain. They have always had the upper hand. Just ask the Russians. So the only reasons for being there are to make money or to justify spending it. There are no other reasons. Edited December 31, 2009 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I really have no sympathy. In war people die. That is the reality. And those who must profit from it also risk being killed. The original occupation of Afghanistan was a mistake since history has shown that you cannot take on an invisible enemy, nor can you route out the goats from the mountain. They have always had the upper hand. Just ask the Russians. So the only reasons for being there are to make money or to justify spending it. There are no other reasons. Charter.Rights, we very seldom agree. Yet on this you and I seem to be in agreement. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I really have no sympathy. In war people die. That is the reality. And people whine when I point out the contempt many on the Left have for Canada's soldiers. And those who must profit from it also risk being killed. Profit? You mean the fantasy the crazed drooling Left have developed about some kind of magical pipeline through Afghanistan? Only the conspiracy set have any belief in that one. And btw, how were Canadian soldiers supposed to profit from that? The original occupation of Afghanistan was a mistake since history has shown that you cannot take on an invisible enemy, nor can you route out the goats from the mountain. They have always had the upper hand. Just ask the Russians. I've previously noted the irony of a person who takes the name "Charter Rights" repeatedly demonstrated their wholesale lack of understanding of the Charter. I now observe that a person who recoils with disdain at all things military and clearly has not the slightest acquaintance with military tactics or science now pronouncing himself with the certainty of General Clusterfuck on military matters. So the only reasons for being there are to make money or to justify spending it. There are no other reasons. Well, you can pretend to yourself that your gross ignorance is general, but I'm afraid that doesn't make it reality. Simply because you don't know why we're there doesn't mean others who are considerably smarter than you haven't realized the point long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 And people whine when I point out the contempt many on the Left have for Canada's soldiers. Profit? You mean the fantasy the crazed drooling Left have developed about some kind of magical pipeline through Afghanistan? Only the conspiracy set have any belief in that one. And btw, how were Canadian soldiers supposed to profit from that? I've previously noted the irony of a person who takes the name "Charter Rights" repeatedly demonstrated their wholesale lack of understanding of the Charter. I now observe that a person who recoils with disdain at all things military and clearly has not the slightest acquaintance with military tactics or science now pronouncing himself with the certainty of General Clusterfuck on military matters. Well, you can pretend to yourself that your gross ignorance is general, but I'm afraid that doesn't make it reality. Simply because you don't know why we're there doesn't mean others who are considerably smarter than you haven't realized the point long ago. Just a second. Please tell us why you think Canada is involved in Afghanistan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Just a second. Please tell us why you think Canada is involved in Afghanistan? Please do....and leave out the myths... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Just a second. Please tell us why you think Canada is involved in Afghanistan? Well, we were first there to support the Americans. Now we're there because it's the right thing to do. We're trying to clean up the country so that the people that live there don't have to live in fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Well, we were first there to support the Americans. Now we're there because it's the right thing to do. We're trying to clean up the country so that the people that live there don't have to live in fear. We went there to support America? But that has since changed to be there because its the right thing to do? Are you serious? Surely we had a better excuse to wage war with a foreign nation than to simply hang onto the coat tails of the Americans. That is not a very damned good excuse to start killing people and destroying the infrastructure of a nation. We followed the Americans off of the cliff....that is what you are saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 A NATO country was attacked, so we went to war. We were helping our friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 And people whine when I point out the contempt many on the Left have for Canada's soldiers. Profit? You mean the fantasy the crazed drooling Left have developed about some kind of magical pipeline through Afghanistan? Only the conspiracy set have any belief in that one. And btw, how were Canadian soldiers supposed to profit from that? I've previously noted the irony of a person who takes the name "Charter Rights" repeatedly demonstrated their wholesale lack of understanding of the Charter. I now observe that a person who recoils with disdain at all things military and clearly has not the slightest acquaintance with military tactics or science now pronouncing himself with the certainty of General Clusterfuck on military matters. Well, you can pretend to yourself that your gross ignorance is general, but I'm afraid that doesn't make it reality. Simply because you don't know why we're there doesn't mean others who are considerably smarter than you haven't realized the point long ago. There is a pipeline throught Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 A NATO country was attacked, so we went to war. We were helping our friends. A NATO country was retaliated against, so we should have asked ourselves what is it that our friend has done to provoke such a thing. Friends don't let friends drink and drive. I fail to see why friends would let friends make enemies either. If we did we're probably the sort of friend one could do without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 A NATO country was retaliated against What a despicable thing to say. America isn't some kind of saint, but they certainly didn't deserve that....I don't even need a citizens assembly to tell me that such an attack against the United States of America was wrong on so many levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 What a despicable thing to say. America isn't some kind of saint, but they certainly didn't deserve that....I don't even need a citizens assembly to tell me that such an attack against the United States of America was wrong on so many levels. I didn't say it was right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No, you didn't say it was right, but you're not supposed to make any analytical attempt at causes or reasons. Evil attacked Good. Freedom-haters attacked Freedom-lovers. That's all you need to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Just a second. Please tell us why you think Canada is involved in Afghanistan? We went under our NATO obligations given the premedited and wholly unprovoked terrorist attack on the Americans launched by an organization headquartered in Afghanistan, protected by, and in league with the Taliban, who refused to turn them over. We were honoring our obligations then, and continued to honor them when NATO decided that it could not simply leave and let the shithole which was Afghanistan fall back into the hands of the crazed lunatics who had 'run' it before, because if we did it would once again become the world's terrorism central. We also stayed because the UN had a mandate to try and build that shithole into a real nation which could look after its own people. All of which should be clearly understood by anyone who has the temerity to even speak on the subject and does not wich to draw derision and contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 There is no reason to do something like that. There is no possible justification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdogfood Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) No, you didn't say it was right, but you're not supposed to make any analytical attempt at causes or reasons. Evil attacked Good. Freedom-haters attacked Freedom-lovers. That's all you need to know. : Proroguing parliament because of bad news out of Afghanistan http://pcneedtogo.blogspot.com/ Edited December 31, 2009 by msdogfood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 There is no reason to do something like that. There is no possible justification. there's no need to conflate "reason" and "justification." Everybody has reasons for everything they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 A NATO country was retaliated against, so we should have asked ourselves what is it that our friend has done to provoke such a thing. Retaliated against for what reason again? Because they had some soldiers in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi government? Because they occasionally support their friends? One assumes you're using the term "retaliated" in the same context as, say, a guy who beats another guy to death with an iron pipe because he brushed against him in a bar, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Everybody has reasons for everything they do. What I was implying is that there's no justifiable reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No, you didn't say it was right, but you're not supposed to make any analytical attempt at causes or reasons. Evil attacked Good. Freedom-haters attacked Freedom-lovers. That's all you need to know. Unfortunately I'm afflicted with moral dissonance. Like tinnitus, there's no cure for it. Its ironic how ear protection prevents the one while bullshit filters result in the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Unfortunately I'm afflicted with moral dissonance. Like tinnitus, there's no cure for it. Its ironic how ear protection prevents the one while bullshit filters result in the other. True, true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 There is no reason to do something like that. There is no possible justification. Clearly though there was still a motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 And clearly, we responded to that motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 One assumes you're using the term "retaliated" in the same context as, say, a guy who beats another guy to death with an iron pipe because he brushed against him in a bar, right? No, more in the context of a guy who retaliates against someone for aiding and abetting the torture, imprisonment and oppression of many other family members, friends, co-workers etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.