marcus Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Doesn't matter...Ike was yet another American president with the power to dominate the Canadian psyche...just like all the rest. Right now it is Trump, and he is driving Canada nuts ! To be proud of receiving attention at any cause is nothing to gloat about. How can one not turn away from a man that allows something like this to actually be enforced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, marcus said: To be proud of receiving attention at any cause is nothing to gloat about. How can one not turn away from a man that allows something like this to actually be enforced? It's easy...just like you have mastered America's Google / YouTube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Love live America. Although American military has been misused on occasions as means of mass crimes like in Vietnam however, in most cases it has been the source of good rather than evil especially in recent memory like standing up to the evil Soviet Empire and protecting Europe to be ran over by damn Russians (in fcat protecting rest of the world) and fighting against Nazi Germany resulting in defeat of fascism and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq for which the intention was to liberate them from state of absolute dictatorship under Taliban and Saddam Hussain but the goal was screwed and the result changed in both cases by a certain neighboring terrorist regime. US military should be put in good use only in future and that is to librate the nations who are under state of absolute dictatorship and end the sufferings and repressions if the economic and political pressures tried first and failed. May not necessarily be a military invasion as it will cause civilian casualties no matter how careful they will be but maybe the threat of military intervention should always be there to put fear in the evil black hearts of murderers and dictators that they must stop gross human rights violations which includes mass arrests of defenseless people demanding their rights and defenders of human rights, mass executions and torture and rapes and kip napping of oppositions and defenders of rights and many other violations. Edited July 10, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuzzKillington Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 Because in a modern nuclear war involving missiles, all that junk is useless "last-war" garbage. Might as well waste money re-starting a horse drawn Cavalry. I guess it would be okay for attacking some primitive 3rd world backwater that has yet to discover indoor plumbing, but we don't really want to do that. Just use drones. Get with the program, sonnyjim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, paxrom said: You're not addresing the point, if you want to talk about the ethics of giving preferential government contract to one company that's one thing but to not fund your MIC entirely is a whole different issue. One in which Canadians like your self seems to "conflate". This conflation you're trying to twist into a good thing is precisely what Eisenhower warned about. Of course funding your military is a whole different issue, I've said so myself a couple of times now. Edited July 10, 2018 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxamericana Posted July 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 31 minutes ago, eyeball said: This conflation you're trying to twist into a good thing is precisely what Eisenhower warned about. Of course funding your military is a whole different issue, I've said so myself a couple of times now. Answer the question, who are you going to pay to support the troops? Or are you only using eisenhower's name to justify the lack of spending for the military? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, paxrom said: Answer the question, who are you going to pay to support the troops? Or are you only using eisenhower's name to justify the lack of spending for the military? No, I'm recalling Eisenhower's warning to counter your notion that the military industrial complex is a good thing. I'm not going to pay anyone to support the troops. It's up to politicians to address underfunding and convince citizens to support and fund the military. Eisenhower was a politician who warned citizens to beware of the way politicians do this. He was basically a whistleblower. Edited July 10, 2018 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxamericana Posted July 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, eyeball said: I'm not going to pay anyone to support the troops Glad to know where you stand when it comes to people defending you. Don't hide behind Eisenhower to loosely justify a lack of spending. Edited July 10, 2018 by paxrom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxamericana Posted July 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 6 hours ago, marcus said: To be proud of receiving attention at any cause is nothing to gloat about. How can one not turn away from a man that allows something like this to actually be enforced? Can you post this in the immigration post, I started one for this reason......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 To compare Canada's situation with New Zealand's or Australia's is essentially ludicrous. Those two countries are effectively isolated Western outposts. An increasingly aggressive China clearly poses a security risk to both. The big difference between them and Canada, as in real estate, amounts to 'location, location, location'. As I've stated elsewhere, Canada has only one natural enemy, the U.S., which for the past century or more has also been its natural ally. No other foreign country is in a position to pose a serious challenge to Canadian security interests, other perhaps than Russia on the issue of Arctic sovereignty. (BTW, the U.S. doesn't respect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, either.) So, Canada should allocate its resources to best address its real security needs rather than try to ameliorate phantom risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 3 hours ago, paxrom said: Glad to know where you stand when it comes to people defending you. Don't hide behind Eisenhower to loosely justify a lack of spending. You know, what Eisenhower really warned about is the sort of mealy-mouthed bullshit you've put on display in this thread. Changing the subject, twisting the meaning and intent of what you initially posted. Saying whatever it takes to avoid being pinned down. Why would anyone need to be paid to support ones troops? Who are you suggesting should be paid to do this, you seem to be saying the public needs to be bribed. If you're referring to support for a mission, shouldn't that be based on the merits of the mission? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxamericana Posted July 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, eyeball said: You know, what Eisenhower really warned about is the sort of mealy-mouthed bullshit you've put on display in this thread. Changing the subject, twisting the meaning and intent of what you initially posted. Saying whatever it takes to avoid being pinned down. Why would anyone need to be paid to support ones troops? Who are you suggesting should be paid to do this, you seem to be saying the public needs to be bribed. If you're referring to support for a mission, shouldn't that be based on the merits of the mission? Once again you're making up make believe position that you think I stand for. I have been loud and clear, I support the military and their industrial complex. Not because there is financial gain to be had but because it gives the war fighter the tools to safe guard their lives and accomplish the mission. Your only position so far is to be wary of the Military industrial complex because they're evil capitalist? Because Eisenhower says so? What exactly is your position? Do you support the troops? If so how? Just pay them lip service? How do you intend to equip, train and deploy said troop without proper funding? Funding by definition has to be paid to the MIC. Troops need housing, tools, weapons, transportation all of whom are subcontractors to the military and are by definition now part of the MIC. How do you support the troops without supporting the MIC? You can't have your cake and eat it too. My point is stop using the MIC as an excuse to not fund your military. Edited July 10, 2018 by paxrom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 55 minutes ago, paxrom said: My point is stop using the MIC as an excuse to not fund your military. Eisenhower's was to not let the MIC come up with excuses to go to war. I'll take the whistle-blower in chiefs advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxamericana Posted July 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, eyeball said: Eisenhower's was to not let the MIC come up with excuses to go to war. I'll take the whistle-blower in chiefs advice. So you have no valid argument is that your point? Look I'm not here to beat you up for it but I will attack ideas I see as unjust and illogical. Something liberal snowflakes love to bring up and not defend. The politician are the one that decides who goes to war, you me and everybody in the freeworld have the power to vote them in and out of office. But as my other post pointed out war is a failure of our politician to negotiate with one another on points of conflict. Having a strong Military and by associations strong MIC allows diplomats to negotiate from a position of strength. The MIC are not the root cause of conflict. They are only tools, like our military. If you don't have said tools then your chances to get into a conflict is that much more because now there is a weakeness for the adversary/competitor to exploit. Edited July 10, 2018 by paxrom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 This troll post should be in US Politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxamericana Posted July 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 35 minutes ago, GostHacked said: This troll post should be in US Politics. Well yes, partly trolling but I was hoping the discussion would turn into the NATO Summit coming up this week. Anybody want to put their 2cent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 President Trump just rolled into Brussels on his big honking 747....he surely will take some time to criticize NATO deadbeats like Canada and Germany. Meeting Putin will be a lot more fun ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 55 minutes ago, GostHacked said: This troll post should be in US Politics. DOP would sure be proud of our new member wouldn't be? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: DOP would sure be proud of our new member wouldn't be? Yeah I reported and moved on. Nothing good with come from this poster. And we simply have enough of this asshatery on this forum. Edited July 10, 2018 by GostHacked 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 11 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: Love live America. Although American military has been misused on occasions as means of mass crimes like in Vietnam however, in most cases it has been the source of good rather than evil especially in recent memory like standing up to the evil Soviet Empire and protecting Europe to be ran over by damn Russians (in fcat protecting rest of the world) and fighting against Nazi Germany resulting in defeat of fascism and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq for which the intention was to liberate them from state of absolute dictatorship under Taliban and Saddam Hussain but the goal was screwed and the result changed in both cases by a certain neighboring terrorist regime. US military should be put in good use only in future and that is to librate the nations who are under state of absolute dictatorship and end the sufferings and repressions if the economic and political pressures tried first and failed. May not necessarily be a military invasion as it will cause civilian casualties no matter how careful they will be but maybe the threat of military intervention should always be there to put fear in the evil black hearts of murderers and dictators that they must stop gross human rights violations which includes mass arrests of defenseless people demanding their rights and defenders of human rights, mass executions and torture and rapes and kip napping of oppositions and defenders of rights and many other violations. Are you an acid-head or something? Must be electric koolaid your swilling back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 7 hours ago, turningrite said: To compare Canada's situation with New Zealand's or Australia's is essentially ludicrous. Those two countries are effectively isolated Western outposts. An increasingly aggressive China clearly poses a security risk to both. The big difference between them and Canada, as in real estate, amounts to 'location, location, location'. As I've stated elsewhere, Canada has only one natural enemy, the U.S., which for the past century or more has also been its natural ally. No other foreign country is in a position to pose a serious challenge to Canadian security interests, other perhaps than Russia on the issue of Arctic sovereignty. (BTW, the U.S. doesn't respect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, either.) So, Canada should allocate its resources to best address its real security needs rather than try to ameliorate phantom risks. What are our real security risks? and are they are already addressed by our military ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 2 hours ago, GostHacked said: This troll post should be in US Politics. This troll thread should have been deleted and the troll himself suspended for rules violations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 2 hours ago, paxrom said: Well yes, partly trolling but I was hoping the discussion would turn into the NATO Summit coming up this week. Anybody want to put their 2cent? Here's a clue for you. When you engage in obvious stupid trolling and mocking of Canadians, people are likely to just dismiss you and put you into their ignore file like they do that other guy American here who does the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxamericana Posted July 11, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Argus said: Here's a clue for you. When you engage in obvious stupid trolling and mocking of Canadians, people are likely to just dismiss you and put you into their ignore file like they do that other guy American here who does the same thing. If people can't take a joke then its a fine shame all around. Hence the snowflakes. Edited July 11, 2018 by paxrom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted July 11, 2018 Report Share Posted July 11, 2018 2 hours ago, eyeball said: Are you an acid-head or something? Must be electric koolaid your swilling back. Is that how you debating issues by personal attacks? lefty extremist. Long live America and Down with the leftist commies. 1 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.