Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

really? It was asking you to draw distinction between the outcome of the illegal 2003 invasion and the causal tie/linkage that's once again precipitated another go-around... or you could just read the earlier Chomsky comment I posted earlier and respond to it:

Rather simplistic, but I agree, likewise (as confirmed by Obama's former Defense Secretary on tonight's Factor) could have been prevented by keeping a small force in Iraq to further train the Iraqi military, with provisions for more technical support in place if required.

  • Replies 343
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Jeezus...it's not like this is first time Canada has bombed something in Iraq. The democratic process has spoken....much more than can be said about PM Chretien "illegally" dropping bombs before (Kosovo War). Iraq has requested the assistance...all legal like.

You just can't seem to get over Chretien thumbing his nose at your buddy who later became a war criminal for his troubles. It's all history now. Get over it is the best thing to do.

Posted

The reason(s) for war are quite clear....

These are just excuses otherwise we'd also be bombing Saudi Arabia along with a number of other countries.

I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical,
a liberal, oh fanatical criminal

Posted

Without a doubt, the Hornet presently is a modern combat aircraft, and combined with the men and women that fly and service them, just as capable as those being currently flown by the USN against ISIS........again baseless talking point.

Perhaps by intent, but comparisons drawn around such quips are offensive to a great many.........And no "cover" is required, my eldest is in the RCAF.

that's quite the tune shift you're making... have you conveniently taken off your F-35 cheerleader's hat to allow you to speak favourably of the Hornet? Of course, the word "aging" is a most appropriate reference for the CF-18s life cycle... given perpetual F-35 delays, $2 billion had to spent to keep them flying. Given the latest decision by Harper Conservatives to "defer" purchase on the F-35, by your own supplied numbers, another $350 million will be required to keep the aging Hornets flying. You see how I did that, hey? Again, you're just making something out of nothing! The same way you are with the "whipping out" reference.

Posted

Rather simplistic, but I agree, likewise (as confirmed by Obama's former Defense Secretary on tonight's Factor) could have been prevented by keeping a small force in Iraq to further train the Iraqi military, with provisions for more technical support in place if required.

talk about a simplistic comment! That, "keeping a small force in Iraq" comment is pure speculative wishful thinking; rather, it's become nothing more than a partisan Republican talking point. As has been repeatedly mentioned, those billions of U.S. dollars spent training the Iraqi military were on full display when the Iraqi army refused to fight, dropped their guns/uniforms and high-tailed it.

Posted

that's quite the tune shift you're making... have you conveniently taken off your F-35 cheerleader's hat to allow you to speak favourably of the Hornet? Of course, the word "aging" is a most appropriate reference for the CF-18s life cycle... given perpetual F-35 delays, $2 billion had to spent to keep them flying. Given the latest decision by Harper Conservatives to "defer" purchase on the F-35, by your own supplied numbers, another $350 million will be required to keep the aging Hornets flying. You see how I did that, hey? Again, you're just making something out of nothing! The same way you are with the "whipping out" reference.

No, I understand both current and future threat requirements.........nor have I disparaged the capability of the current fleet in terms of meeting the requirements of the elected Government.......our Hornets are more then able to contend with the (low) threat matrix that ISIS poses in Iraq, that is not to say that in a differing environment there would be no issues to contend with, likewise future threat environments.

Posted

talk about a simplistic comment! That, "keeping a small force in Iraq" comment is pure speculative wishful thinking; rather, it's become nothing more than a partisan Republican talking point. As has been repeatedly mentioned, those billions of U.S. dollars spent training the Iraqi military were on full display when the Iraqi army refused to fight, dropped their guns/uniforms and high-tailed it.

Not quite, the result was the making of both incomplete training, coupled with the gutting of the Sunni officer corps by the Shia majority Government.

Posted

No, I understand both current and future threat requirements.........nor have I disparaged the capability of the current fleet in terms of meeting the requirements of the elected Government.......our Hornets are more then able to contend with the (low) threat matrix that ISIS poses in Iraq, that is not to say that in a differing environment there would be no issues to contend with, likewise future threat environments.

huh! The Hornets are aging... they've needed one $2 billion upgrade to reset their best before date... and now they need another. That sir... is aging on display! That you would focus in on a single word, within a comment not even directed at the military, speaks volumes on just how desperate you are to attempt to make points... to attempt to deride JT over a most innocuous one word reference!

Posted

huh! The Hornets are aging... they've needed one $2 billion upgrade to reset their best before date... and now they need another. That sir... is aging on display! That you would focus in on a single word, within a comment not even directed at the military, speaks volumes on just how desperate you are to attempt to make points... to attempt to deride JT over a most innocuous one word reference!

Make points? What was JT doing in his reference to them?

Posted

Not quite, the result was the making of both incomplete training, coupled with the gutting of the Sunni officer corps by the Shia majority Government.

who cares... not even me to the point of even contesting your "not quite". It's not relevant either way... the point being, billion dollar U.S. training time/effort resulted in an Iraqi military that turned tail at the first sign of combat. In any case, the U.S. populace had its fill of war... it did not want (and does not now want) "boots on the ground". Which is, of course, the reason for this current charade that presumes on 'resident countries' stepping up and actually fighting a ground campaign.

Posted

"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want .." - Sec'y Don Rumsfeld

Yes we all hang on the illustrious words of old Mr. Rumsfeld. I especially like the "we don't know what we dont know and we know we don't know waht we dont know..................

Posted

Make points? What was JT doing in his reference to them?

yes - you are attempting to make points... again, over a single word used; the word "aging". You know, the current state of CF-18s - aging!

Posted

Yes we all hang on the illustrious words of old Mr. Rumsfeld. I especially like the "we don't know what we dont know and we know we don't know waht we dont know..................

geezaz! The guy actually trots out a Rummy comment! :lol: He's living out his past (presumed) glories! Again, what goes around, comes around!!!

Posted

Stop wasting your time whining about it....get over there before the Americans, British, Danes, Aussies, and French blow everything up !

hey now... where are the Germans, the Italians, the Norwegians, etc. I think it was 2.0 that was repeatedly running down the list of countries primed to bomb; of course, with the underlying implication of, "look at these countries... Canada just has to step up". And yet we have a whole cadre of NATO countries (and other), that aren't participating in that regard. Go figure, hey!

Posted

I've always figured those people who like peace must be clueless. What the hell can they be thinking?

yes, that is a most contradictory response from a guy who repeatedly states he could care less about what Canada does/'thinks' (35K posts of "not caring"); this from a guy with a posting history that shows his absolute disdain for Canada, that shows his perpetual want to denigrate Canada at any opportunity. He just writes a number of posts emphasizing Canada will have little impact in the bomb-fest and flips on that with his "can't wait for the Canadian news cycle/peacemongers" comment. Such contradiction... which is the real guy here? :lol:

Posted

Is Israel taking part in this? They do have a very good Air Force.

That would be nice to see. Put the BS away and let them help out. It could be a way to defuse some of the crap in ME, Israel helping out the arabs.

Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.

Posted

This government can go piss up a rope. If Trudeau was behind this, he'd be in over his head too.

Well he has some liberals disagreeing with him. And we are not in over our head.

Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.

Posted (edited)

Several pages and no one has managed to address my questions.

I shall repeat.

1 - What are the national interests in the region?

2 - What are the direct threats to this nation from ISIS?

All these fanatic groups seem to do their best to influence young people throughout the Muslim world, and succeed, to some extent. The Muslim world is dedicated to proselytizing and preaching, to influencing others to their way of God. It is not in our interests to have such a group prosper and spread. It is not in the interests of the middle east nor of the world at large.

The danger to Canada is in the spread of the influence of this group among Canadian Muslims.

Edited by Argus

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,017
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    taylor66
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...