Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Quick, simple and direct. I know I won't get a better answer than this. What I will get is lots of general garbage rhetoric that I have already heard. Ahh, so you mean you did read the replies but since you didn't agree with them you decided to ask your questions again in hopes of getting a rely which agreed with you? Quote "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
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Going to war is not a "vote getting idea" Riiight. I don't know any Tory supporters that just LOVE the idea of going to war. That's practically unheard of. Quote
Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Because folks there dont get along and never will. I guess Canada needs to be partitioned then too. Quote "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
Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Your post had contents? I hadn't noticed. I"m trying to think of the last time you contributed anything of value on this web site and failing... Maybe you should just go have another toke. Quote "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
Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 I have to wonder why Harper has avoided allowing opp. leaders to be sworn into the Privy Council and allowed to hear whatever the gov. has got. Is he just chickenshit/arrogant as usual, or is there just no info to share? Or he doesn't trust them. Quote "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
Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Let me be clear, I certainly don't support IS. I would happilly see them long gone. I would have thought perhaps Harper could leave the vote getting idea alone for once, in such an important issue, and at least tried to bring the other two leading reperesentatives of the Canadian people on board with what the plan, assumin gther is one, actually is. We're not talking new parking meters here. I think it was clear from the start that Trudeau and Mulcair were going to take whichever position they felt would e most likely to garner them votes, especially in Quebec. I think that's clear to just about everyone, in fact. Interesting you accuse Harper of it instead. Quote "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
Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Harper is taking a big risk. Heaven forbid, but when the first F 18 gets shot down and/or the first CF soldier dies, those polls will begin to swing. Mulcair and JT will be in a perfect position to say "I told you so". So you're basically acknowledging Mulcair and Trueau's position is based strictly on their personal political ambitions. Quote "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
Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) I've just pulled away from a couple of U.S. political boards I check out on occasion. There's some very critical... but respective exchanges going on over differing opinions on the U.S. bombing of Syria. Is there any particular reason you feel a need to share your poorly exhibited excuse for contributing here... rather than showcasing your "insightful" comments on a U.S. discussion board? Jesus, do you ever stop whining about other posters!? Edited October 8, 2014 by Argus Quote "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
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 The democratic Government of Iraq has requested for such intervention presently......Saddam, not so much. What kind of intervention did they ask for? Because from the sounds of it they simply want more arms and humanitarian aid for refugees. They don't want foreigners coming in and dropping bombs all over the country, indiscriminately killing innocent people in the process. Quote
Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 What kind of intervention did they ask for? Because from the sounds of it they simply want more arms and humanitarian aid for refugees. They don't want foreigners coming in and dropping bombs all over the country, indiscriminately killing innocent people in the process. What have you been reading? They've been trying to get the US to bomb ISIS for a long while but the US refused until the Iraqi government started making some accommodations with the Suunis. It wasn't until a new PM took power that the US began to agree to bombing. Quote "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
GostHacked Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Ahh, so you mean you did read the replies but since you didn't agree with them you decided to ask your questions again in hopes of getting a rely which agreed with you? No, the replies were of little real substance and context. As I said I expected the same government rhetoric that is trotted out here. Proof of that is what we see with your reply below. 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. I wish all you god loving people would simply go away. All religions suck. You are all brainwashed to follow something and bash the others who do not agree with or follow your religion. But really in the end it is not about religion, it is about constant meddling in an area that we should not be in. If it was not for oil and other resources, there would be no reason to go there. But if you want to talk about ideology and influencing children, I went grocery shopping the other day and there were two young boys in uniform (air cadets) that were asking for donations. I did not ask them if they supported air strikes on ISIS, for I had the feeling they were more interested in other things. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 It's rediculous that the opposition parties say that Harper has not made "the case for war" when numerous other coalition partners - many with left-leaning governments - have made the same case to receptive parliaments. If anything, the case for military engagement is even stronger today than when these countries explained their positions over a month ago. Just look at what's being done while the opposition whines that there is no "clarity": When they get to the Middle East they will join an air armada that includes at least 150 other attack aircraft. Australia began several weeks ago to move forces to its base in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) to support its eight F-18 Super Hornets. However, it was not until Monday that the RAAF began combat missions. Denmark took 10 days for its seven F-16 Fighting Falcons to move to Kuwait and become operational. Similarly, the Dutch and Belgians took more than one week to set up shop in Jordan before their F-16 Fighting Falcons began bombing. The French, who were the first country to join the U.S. in bombing Islamic State targets, are operating Rafale fighters from their base in the U.A.E. The British are flying Tornados from their base in Cyprus. The Americans are using at least five different types of warplanes to hit ISIS. The U.S. is using bases in several countries, including the U.A.E., as well as launching strike aircraft from the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush nuclear aircraft carrier and the U.S.S. Makin Island amphibious ship. Another carrier, the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, is to arrive in the region soon. Link: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/07/canadian-attacks-on-isis-will-operate-out-of-a-kuwait-airfield-but-the-planes-wont-get-there-for-at-least-a-week/ Quote Back to Basics
PIK Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2544792964/ Talk about being confused, and this guy is advising JT. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 It's rediculous that the opposition parties say that Harper has not made "the case for war" when numerous other coalition partners - many with left-leaning governments - have made the same case to receptive parliaments. If anything, the case for military engagement is even stronger today than when these countries explained their positions over a month ago..... I think that was part of the political strategy...to put Canada in a trailing position that would bring more pressure on engagement. Running guns and supplies was one thing, but strike missions would take a bit more lubrication. ISIL helped out with a few more high profile beheadings. The framework was sweetened with "no boots on the ground", just boots in the air for a limited six months. Well played Mr. Harper ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 It's rediculous that the opposition parties say that Harper has not made "the case for war" when numerous other coalition partners - many with left-leaning governments - have made the same case to receptive parliaments. If anything, the case for military engagement is even stronger today than when these countries explained their positions over a month ago. Just look at what's being done while the opposition whines that there is no "clarity": I'll drop this one here. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23269-iraq-and-its-al-queda-problem/ What makes you think they have clarity now compared to when I posted this back in January? Why was it that f'n predictable. Why was it called an 'Iraq Problem' then but now it is imperative that military action is needed to combat ISIS? What changed? And more importantly , why it changed? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 I'll drop this one here. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23269-iraq-and-its-al-queda-problem/ What makes you think they have clarity now compared to when I posted this back in January? Why was it that f'n predictable. Why was it called an 'Iraq Problem' then but now it is imperative that military action is needed to combat ISIS? What changed? And more importantly , why it changed? Because good or bad, nothing happens without US leadership - sorely lacking and belatedly being provided. It's not as simple as that but mostly true. If you think there was clarity back then, I guess you have no problem now - except for the delay? Quote Back to Basics
GostHacked Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Because good or bad, nothing happens without US leadership - sorely lacking and belatedly being provided. It's not as simple as that but mostly true. If you think there was clarity back then, I guess you have no problem now - except for the delay? My stance is the same, we should never have been there in the first place. And that goes back to the first Gulf War back in 1991. Why would Obama call it an 'Iraq problem' back in January but then change his tune only after US military were being attacked by this ISIS/Al-Queda group? Our leaders were very hands off early on in the year, but many have changed their view and jumped on the bandwagon to start striking ISIS. What was the reasons for their delay in acting? They need to be taken to task on these matters, not me. I am not the one being inconsistent. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 My stance is the same, we should never have been there in the first place. And that goes back to the first Gulf War back in 1991. Why would Obama call it an 'Iraq problem' back in January but then change his tune only after US military were being attacked by this ISIS/Al-Queda group? Our leaders were very hands off early on in the year, but many have changed their view and jumped on the bandwagon to start striking ISIS. What was the reasons for their delay in acting? They need to be taken to task on these matters, not me. I am not the one being inconsistent. Obama was warned and encouraged to act - but he waffled. You can't act if your President is unwilling. As frustrating as it might be for you - and others - it mostly doesn't matter what happened before - it matters what we do now. I think it's painfully obvious to all participants that you can't remake the middle east to even remotely mirror the West- you can only hope to encourage governments to lay a framework for non-violent discussion and compromise - but first, they have to fight for it! Nothing simple about the Middle East. Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 So you're basically acknowledging Mulcair and Trueau's position is based strictly on their personal political ambitions. Maybe but its still the correct position. This is going to turn into a cluster&^%@ and in the end we will waste a bunch of time, money, and probably lives... but ISIS will still be there. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 My stance is the same, we should never have been there in the first place. And that goes back to the first Gulf War back in 1991. The first war was because Iraq invaded Kuwait and took it over. Now I don't have much sympathy for Kuwaitis, but Iraq was a US enemy and Kuwait a US ally, and the continuity of oil supplies to the west was important. So was the concept that you can't inade someone and take over their country. Why would Obama call it an 'Iraq problem' back in January but then change his tune only after US military were being attacked by this ISIS/Al-Queda group? It was an Iraqi problem. It should have been dealt with but the government and military were too incompetent. The Obama administration thought military action wasn't going to be worthwhile unless there were accommodations made with the Sunnis, something the Iraqi government had steadfastly refused to do. Only after the Iraqi PM al-Malaki was replaced did the US agree to help. Quote "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
On Guard for Thee Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 So you're basically acknowledging Mulcair and Trueau's position is based strictly on their personal political ambitions. And do you think for a second Harper's is not? What I am saying is Harper, by not at least attempting to bring the opposition on in a meaningful way has set himself up for a big fail if/when this mission goes bad. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 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. Not a good idea. Arabs don't mind bombing other Arabs in certain conditions, but they get a little miffed when Israeli's do it. Quote
PIK Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Not a good idea. Arabs don't mind bombing other Arabs in certain conditions, but they get a little miffed when Israeli's do it.Ya I understand that but if only................ Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 And do you think for a second Harper's is not? What I am saying is Harper, by not at least attempting to bring the opposition on in a meaningful way has set himself up for a big fail if/when this mission goes bad.Going to war in a election yr is not good. It just shows the difference between man and boy. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Going to war in a election yr is not good. It just shows the difference between man and boy. I see, so you're saying that somehow going to war makes Harper more of a man? Not a good yardstick. Quote
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.