I don't hear about any canadians dying in this so STFU canuck1963. Brits and americans dying so that canuck can enjoy ice cream and bon bons safely. Don't give me any shit about the sparce handful of canadians in afghanistan either.
The Afghan mission is the real mission against extremism and you don't want to hear about it? Typical.
Why do so many Americans have a fetish about Iraq when a terrorist organization based in a non-Arab country was responsible for the attack in New York? Wise up Barnsley. It is Canadians and other allies of the US which are fighting and dying in the real struggle agasint extremism. If any country has room to talk its Canada. They are risking their lives and reputation to follow the US into a conflict that is much more important than Iraq will ever be. It is the lack of American commitment to the true conflict that is causing Al Queda to flourish.
If the US was interested in stopping Al Queda they'd be much more involved in the Afghan conflict instead of pouring lives, alliances, and treasure into the sand in Iraq. Where are the WMDs? Why doesn't Iraq have a better electrical grid than before the US went there? Why are bombs going off every day? Why wasn't the US greeted with flowers and candy? Why is Al Queda in Iraq now? Why does anyone think that the current Iraqi government is capable or willing to make the political decesions necessary to end the conflict? Why did the US take the eye off of the ball in Afghanistan?
The answer to these questions is a combination is Bravado, Greed, Militarism, and many in the US who refuse to examine their policies around the world. So don't try to censor Canuck1963 or anyone else because you have been fooled.
Your point Canuck? So the British are reducing their forces in an armpit of an environment called the Middle East. Its no secret that they are so the references you posted was a weak attempt at quality research. You have completely skirted Barneys point about the issue of Canadian involvement. So go back to researching and see what you can post about their involvement before you spit out more verbal diarrhea.
Now then there are a lot of countries that are involved in both countries. There have been a lot of deaths primarily the US taking the brunt of it all and then the Brits.
Do your research and you'll see that Canada has lost 63 lives in Afghanistan.
Now do your research and post what the British and the US have lost. On second thought, don't utilize what mental capacity you have and recognize that other countries have allocated more resources to this fight. Other countries have had more soldiers lose their lives in this war than Canada.
As far as the US government not being dedicated, I'm sure they don't mind the fact that over 3600 sons and daughters have lost their lives in those countries. Since you are obviously a Canadian military commander, do your part and end the war, otherwise STFU.
useddouchebag- I find it interesting that you seem to think this is a contest about who's doing the most dying. Soldiers fight and sometimes die in war. That is why it is very important to make sure that when a war is started it is for a good reason.
The question isn't who is sacrificing more lives on these conflicts but which conflicts are worth fighting in the first place.
Douchebag...(lol)....put the flag away, and read what I write, ok? And show me you have an attention span greater than a bag of hammers:
I'm glad you wanna knock our troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan. But I must point out something to you: currently, there are 2,500 Canadian troops (including armour and air support) engaged in active ground combat there. Of course, that's not much ON ITS OWN. However, given the size of our military, which is NOT AT ALL near the size of what the U.S. has, that makes what we HAVE sent over A LOT. We're 35 million living in the worlds second-largest country, in terms of land mass. I'm even amazed we could send over what we DID. Be that as it may, we're there because THE U.S. was attacked...not us. And all you did was prove that most Americans (or "Brits") either don't know, or could care less. Okay, fine by me. Then I say bring our troops home NOW, and let YOU fine folks take care of it. Clearly, you don't need or appreciate whatever help we give you, or whatever form it may take.
(that was a cut-and-paste from another post, towards another puddin' head remarkably similar to you)
Having said that, arsehole, the whole point of my response was to EDOOCATE shitpokes like YOU, and give you a little perspective on some things. And what's the best you got? You give me a link confirming Canadian casualties?? What, you think I wouldn't know THAT? You're as much a dummy as your name implies. Now, do you REALLY want your brain to hurt? Read this, jerkwipe:
Honestly Douchebag, you turned the proof of involvement debate into a soldier death counter. Who ever has the most deaths contributes the most? It's just immature.
"The Afghan mission is the real mission against extremism and you don't want to hear about it?"
Wrong. The entire Middle East is the mission against extremism. There is no middle Eastern country free of Muslim extremists. More forces are in Iraq because this is where the major conflict is at this moment in time. We are also there because we promised to stay there. Additionally, we are handicapped against the war on terror because so many people are too biased against the war to see the real danger. The actions that need to be done can not be done because so much of the population disagrees with Bush and any further military action would be considered wrong.
I still do not understand the arguments saying that this is for greed, or oil, or building some unholy empire. If this were true, why would we be helping Iraq and Afghanistan rebuild their country? Why would we be training their armies and police forces?
9/11 happened without the war in Iraq; Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; the bloodsucker-extremist who was behind the 9/11 attacks was....is...maybe is...in Afghanistan. Therefore, Afghanistan SHOULD have been the focal point of "the war on terror", period. Also, if you truly believe that this is a war "against extremism across the entire Middle East", then maybe George shoulda taken out all those Saudi pricks, seeing as how Saudi Arabia has a long history of supporting/financing/exporting these animals; plus, 15 of the 19 hijackers were.....GASP!....Saudi.
My last post on this. Nice link Canuck it doesn't even work. The funny thing about this is that you continuously check back to see what others have typed after your dumbass posts. Now go masturbate to some Terrance
actionjoe: "More forces are in Iraq because this is where the major conflict is at this moment in time. We are also there because we promised to stay there."
This is incorrect. More forces are in Iraq because bush wrecked a sovereign SECULAR nation for profit and ambition. The extremism followed right behind the bombs the US dropped. Populations tend to turn to religion and hardline positions when they are under attack. Read Niccolo Machiavelli's 'The Prince' for the basics of how that works. For a recent example look at 9/11.
"Additionally, we are handicapped against the war on terror because so many people are too biased against the war to see the real danger."
Sorry Joe you can't going to blame the American people or the world for this. George Bush went into Iraq listening to people who were telling him the US would be greeted as liberators, showered with flowers and candy. He ignored the generals that gave them sober realistic advice like the fact that it would take a large number of troops just to secure Baghdad let alone the other cities. The invasion was the only thing that went well militarily speaking. The war quickly went to hell after that.
These are the mistakes that the US LEADERSHIP made. The soldiers don't make decesions they take orders and make due with the situation as best they can.
The US failed to prepare for the differences between the factions.
The US never found WMD's but there were caches of explosive material all around the country that they were slow to secure and destroy. Much of this material ened up in ieds.
The US let the population loot critical infrastructure things like offices, plumbing, wiring.
The US illogical disdain for all things related to the old regime rid key positions of any former Baath party members no matter how notorious or benign the position was. These were people who understand Iraq and its people.
Compounding the problem with gutting baath party members the US installed cronies who had little or no experience in government let alone the intricacies of Iraqi government.
The US dissolved the Iraqi military. Ok that is totally understandable. You don't want guys who know how to use guns to still be out there right? Well the idiotic US Leadership dissolved the army and let them WALK OFF WITH THEIR WEAPONS.
The US forces were sent into battle with old, or no body armor forcing them to have families buy it for them or go without. Vehicles were also under armored.
The US keeps allowing the Iraqis more time when they are doing things like going on vacation, allowing sectarian violence and supporting sectarian violence. It was only after the November 2006 election that Bush looked like he was phased by anything going on. he was stunned and couldn't believe that the American people didn't buy what he was selling. He quickly regrouped and vowed to change the course.With his surge he finally put more troops in. Its too late now. There is no group of people except the Iraqis who can change this situation.
"The actions that need to be done can not be done because so much of the population disagrees with Bush and any further military action would be considered wrong."
This is precisely why administration officials shouldn't lie when making the case war. If there is a needed war that comes up in the future who will want to give this group in the White House the benefit of the doubt? You seem to be blaming the wrong people for this one. Bush and company violated the trust.
"I still do not understand the arguments saying that this is for greed, or oil, or building some unholy empire. If this were true, why would we be helping Iraq and Afghanistan rebuild their country? Why would we be training their armies and police forces?"
Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it isn't so. There is an army of private contract groups on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. You act as if the rebuilding is done for free. Nothing can be further from the truth. Those companies have large no-bid contracts awarded to them and in many cases they don't do a good job. They are training those forces in part for cover to keep the whole thing going. If you we're paying attention over the course of the Iraq war you'd have noticed that the reasons for going to war have changed many times and its all about dragging this thing out. Bush is making money for his contributors, and running out the cloak. He thinks that God is behind him on this war and that historians will vindicate him. Had he said those things in the beginning there would have been no war.
world... great post. Except the last part about Bush thinking God is behind him. Bush is an atheist. It's obvious. Most politicians are... if they weren't do you think they would be so corrupt?
One think I'm surprised that no one has commented on yet (at least half way through the posts) is the fact that communication breakdown is the main reason for all the problems on the ground over there in Iraq. You can't yell at an Iraqi who speaks no english to "get the fuck up" or "stop your fucking car" and expect him to actually do it. All he sees is a bunch of soldiers waving guns at him and yelling blah blah blah. He also knows that most of the time when that happens, the person being yelled at dies. Would you stop?
There's a war going on? To tell you the truth guys, if it weren't on the news I wouldn't know there's a war going on because it has absolutely no effect on my life. I don't know anyone who died on 9/11, don't know anyone in Iraq, don't know anyone in Afghanistan, and don't really care who get's their panties tied up in a knot over it.
Yes, thanks for keeping Canada safe from the Iraqi insurgents. I hear they are coming to invade North America any day now, and are just waiting for the U.S. to pull out. Please God, don't leave our country undefended. Save us, brave warriors!
Fuckwad. You assholes got yourself into the shit in Iraq - don't blame other countries for having a modicum of common sense not to engage in an illegal war and join the bullshit Coalition of the Willing.
Americans aren't dedicated to the situation in Afghanistan? Then explain to me why my ex's stepbrother came out of retirement ( 25 yrs. in the Marine Corps.)
No one (least of all me) said that INDIVIDUAL Americans aren't dedicated to serving the cause in Afghanistan (your ex's stepbrother is a good example of this); rather, it's the American GOVERNMENT that is not dedicated to being there.......because the bulk of U.S. forces are in Iraq. THAT...is where the primary "dedication" is, as far as the government goes.
Personally, I'm still waiting for word of a "surge" in Afghanistan.
Not too optimistic, though.
Respect to your ex's stepbrother, though, or any other family you have that serve.
Let me make this clear for you. Soldiers don't set policy they do as they are ordered to do. The Lack of American dedication comes from the top. The bush administration took resources out of Afghanistan to use them in the war they always wanted. Iraq. If you can't grasp the thought process of that argument or why that could be a bad thing...well I think you have your answer as to why Iraq is going horribly and Afghanistan is floundering.
weather i agree with the monkey president or not, (NOT) being the case. because he is a fucking criminal who should charged with starting a war of aggression for his own personale greed and a number of other conspiracy crimes to numerous for me to spell out because to be honest im just to lazy. thay are my brothers and sisters over there and i love and support them and i alway will. (brush away tear) and thank you all .
Even at the end of our supposed pullout, we'll still have twice as many soliders (yes soldiers) in Iraq than you mounties will have peacekeepers (not soliders) in Afghanistan so again, STFU. On the other hand you canadians rarely step up to the plate, so I guess when you do, you have to blow it out of proportion and make it a bigger deal than it is.
Take off the blinders ok. Iraq was a war that the US went out of its way to will into existence. No country should have to "step up to the plate" when the US gets bored of tracking down those who attacked them only to bomb a weaponless nation. The whole thing was based on a pack of lies and head nodding from poeple who can't find many of their own states on a map. And just so you know Canada traditionally embarks on peacekeeping missions not breaking whole countries only to poorly "rebuild" for profit them as the US loves to do. I suppose those finer points are lost on you however.
As stated in an earlier response to similar drivel you've made elsewhere:
We (and the Americans) HAVE stepped up to the plate...many times...to bail out your pukey little island of tea-suckers, 'cuz you always seem to be in shite (not counting, of course, the Irish finally managing to tell you where to go).
Otherwise, a little twerp like yourself would be speaking fluent German right now, making strudel for the Camp Kommandant after you shine his boots.
Peacekeepers? Then why are our peacekeepers dying at an alarming rate. I have had MORE than enough of all this flag waving pissing contest. People (ours and yours) are dying for OIL! Fucking oil. So screw off with who has sent or lost more soldiers and focus on this... it is a giant waste of life. Worse than any I can remember. Civilized society my ass!
We need to quit pussy-footing around and treat this like a real war. For decades, we have handled wars as "police actions". We need to pull back to the borders, give 1 weeks warning and level the whole damn nation. Then go back in and rebuild while keeping every islamic psycho from entering the country. Anyone who doesn't like it dies on the spot - period. No tribunal, no judge, no jury. I am tired of America being the world's police force but only being allowed to carry a flashlight.
With what right would you commit genicide. How would you be the good guys. Why would you keep a population out of their own country. In what way wouldnt you be fascist empire builders ?
If you're tired of being world police then stop. But maybe it's not so easy if the president earns millions and millions of dollars on every war his country engages in... Get my drift?
The US has no one to blame but themselves for this mess.No one asked the US to "police" this situation because there was no situation until it was created by the US. As for your foreign policy, you have no idea how shooting everything that moves would be counter productive. Life isn't a video game.
Don't worry. American politicians are just flexing what little muscle they have left before India and China take over as the new super powers. Not being a dick, just stating fact. Not a big fan of the reality of this either, but while America et al is wasting time, life and money in this useless '"war", the rest of the world is making hay.
Sorry, but you sound like you've watched too many Rambo movies. We don't live in the old ages anymore, when whole nations could be subjugated. The problem of the middle east is far too complex for being solved by a few Rambos.
i dident ask my country to police anything but its own front yard nither did any of my friends . yet the monkey president and his masters were not going to here from us simple folks or better yet the citizens of the u.s and why should he ? he stole the presidency so we know he is a thief and murderous lier thats how all this started and thats who we need to focus on. not each other or who and how many of us are dying but why and how to stop the killing of are brothers sisters. to bring them home before 1 more dies or is horribly maimed(reson) to put more change in the monkey president and his master's pockets. and thats the fucking bottom line. so quit trying to out smart each other while thay stick it in yours then break it off because thats what thier doing.
i live in the u.s and i wouldent want to live anywhere else but it seem's lately other country's taking shots at us seem on target and there maybe some truth in what thay say . perhaps our country is getting away from us or more so we really never had a say so at the start.
If I wanted genocide, I would have called for nuking the area. The week warning is to let them get out. Shooting those who don't agree will take care of the Syrians and Iranians who keep this thing going.
The US is the only nation with balls enough to be the world's police. Europe has been castrated by the liberal factions that have slowly picked away at the backbone once seen in the European nations (France excepted of course). The problem is we react only when the corporation's feel their business is in jeopardy. We need to step up when wholesale slaughter occurs (Sudan comes to mind) but won't because there is no financial urgency in these nations. At this point, if we are not going to step up and do it right, we should just run away with our tail between our legs again.
Maybe this would be best. We need to close this nations borders down and get our own lives back together. We're the only nation on earth that doesn't use it military to guard its own but everyone else's borders and that would solve the illegal alien problem. We need to pull our military out of every nation except our own and let our "friend" nations feel the financial loss. Let the damn Brits and Frogs defend themselves. These people sure talk alot for never being able to defend themselves in the past. They deserve to suffer under an evil occupier.
Actually, ham, this may surprise you, but I think I might tend to agree with you (GASP!) EXCEPT for just a couple of minor points (and I'm serious here):
I know that your comments are spurred on by maybe a little bitterness, some frustration and maybe even some cynicism towards other nations whom you feel should really be more...I dunno...supportive of the U.S., or what it has historically done for them; hell, in many of my own posts I've berated others for failing to recognize what Canada has done for them in the past, and maybe we should just say "screw it....you're on your own", rather than keep getting shit on. So, on the surface, I don't blame you, as an American for feeling this way. But keep this in mind: while the idea of "shutting your borders down" may appeal to a kind of "fed up" mentality, I ask that you consider the following: in this era of globalization, or inter-connected economies......no way. The loss of American jobs would be devastating; the greenback would become a pariah and so forth. Sure, you might have gotten away with this kind of policy 1945-1948, when the U.S. was on top of the world with a robust economy. massive job growth and the only nation on the block with atomic weapons. Back then? Yeah. Easily. But now? Ummmmmm.....might be a little difficult.
Having an isolationist economy or immigration policy, for that matter, just won't fly. Not today. No way. Plus, even if you COULD pull it off, I tend to think that it would still be a shame; because even with all the bad press about U.S. foreign policy these days, I still believe America has many good things to offer, for a lot of common folk.
i have felt the same way in the past about becoming an isolationist nation reverting back to days of old or about 1916 somewheres theres about but canuck makes all valid points however (phrased) we have become to intergrated with the rest of the world to just pick up our ball and leave the sand box that wont work. this has to be worked out at home first . believe me when i say im not a flower child. i do believe in a lasting peace but let us fight a just cause like the battel of tora bora in the mountains of afghanistan against men who needed to die! i was here sep/11/01 and i watched and cried as thousands of americans lost thier lives in a matter of a few hours so when i say thay needed to die i mean it with all my conviction.... but this this war that are brothers and sisters are dying for is for the money suckers . and if you want to see arab blood, well when we leave (and we will)there will be plenty.. well i digress , we need to get rid of these lier thiefs and murders that currently residing in OUR capital in other words fire there asses and try again hopefully with the lesser of evils.
Who ever asked for you to be 'the world's police', let alone appoint you as worthy for policing the world? I don't remember doing that, nor do I remember our governments doing that. You're insane. Suffering from delusions of grandeur. Luckily the US dollar is at its lowest in history, and your well-being will come to an end without a doubt, because you can't fake it all much longer. The only think you can do is blame everything bad on others, which we will see a lot of in the coming years, no doubt.
The only good thing about the US might be its stand against religion, but then, its government and military are the most christian institutions in the country, almost, so there: that's not really giving us hope for your future, is it? You will definitely not succeed in killing one religion with another. If you want to fight retarded and evil leaders, you need to be against ALL religion, including the one your leaders think is "OK". It isn't. Religion = War. Religion is by and for the stupid and uninformed.
You're right ham. If only the rest of the world would follow in the US heavy handed tactics and balck and white rhetoric then everything would be A-OK. Oh wait...I think that's called violent extremism.
Typical canuck. Someone makes a counterpoint above that he can't respond to, so he goes off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the counterpoint. Yet again Barney, he fires at you, you fire back (# brit troops), he loses, and and runs for the hills of profanity.
Plus he's repreating himself again "are you a Stephne King fan".
2. Wrong; BARNEY-BOY fired, THEN I fired back, then I put him in his place, and squashed his miserable hide with my Yukon Boot.
3. The Stephen King question was repeated because I never got an answer the first time (figured maybe he missed it)
4. The profanity is reserved STRICTLY for YOU from now on (remember, dipwad?), and now Barney-Boy. So stick THAT in your gaping fuckin' pie-holes, Fatboy.
5. See what YOU and Barney-Boy have done above? You made my pal Bill upset. I hold the BOTH of you responsible for this. You shall both pay a grim price for this transgression. Your suffering on these threads shall be legendary. In that vein, I shall be making examples of BOTH of you.
Not surprisingly, by using these simple four words and three dots, it's carried more solemnity and weight, than anything ANYONE has said on these threads.
the stand was a book i read when i was in the marines 20 some odd years ago. it gave me my faith back in man kind. mr. king writes some wild n scary shit and i love all that i read. but he is a red sox fan and that my good sir i will not tolerate!!!
See what happens when I stay away...and just watch?? LMFAO Quite....predictable. And soooooo....entertaining.
No matter. I shall more than happily put a certain few out of their misery; I realize my tactic may have been cruel, with regards to their limited patience (sure was fun checking back into this thread periodically though...lol):
mako100: Thank you for the "bright" compliment; though, the crack about being a "51st stater" cannot apply here: I wasn't conquered; I wasn't a slave; nor am I a survivor of a massacred Indian tribe. Plus, I think your government should be hauled away and locked up for high crimes and misdemeanors. As to why up to that point I made "30%" of the posts on this thread, I've already answered. Please feel free to check it out. I have quite a healthy personal life (and I am richer for it), thanks, and that's about as far as I'll go into that. Plus, as soon as you say "Throbmystick is right", that leaves YOUR judgement immediately suspect. The poor lad has been right about nothing. At all. His contributions consist predominantly of playing childish games, hurling juvenile insults, throwing tantrums....shall I go on? Barney-Boy? Same thing. And if you'll notice a pattern here, I have saved my whimsical venom specifically for them (or the odd moron who can't seem to formulate a convincing argument). Other than that, I think I've been quite witty; I have some fun; I strive to make a sincere point; I try to back it up...and if anyone can convince me that I'm wrong or mistaken, I'll actually come away a happy man, having learned something. Until then, individuals such as the two I've mentioned, shall be relegated to the darkest corners of the classroom. Further, yes they were WORLD wars, and yes, there were other nations involved on a global scale....BUT....(and I cite this as just the most glaring example).....it was the U.S. and Canada who were instrumental in "bailing the U.K. out". If it wasn't for the fact that significant numbers of Yank and Canuck pilots enlisted in the R.A.F. during the "Battle of Britain"...then you'd have had it. Look, history can sometimes be tough to swallow. I understand. But facts are facts, nonetheless (and please, let's not forget the MONEY and resources North America sent there, okay?). "Go with Germany"?? Of course not. But sometimes an appreciation for the efforts of others, even if it culminates in a grudging acknowledgement, would actually make me believe they're not completely illiterate or dead from the neck up. So who's responsible for me thinking they're a couple of idiots? Me? Or them? Think about it carefully.
dirtysanchez: Personal question, if I may: what was your rank and unit, as well as last posting? Also, you are mistaken: it's not "jealousy"; it's CONCERN for where your nation has gone...and what it's become.....and where it's heading. Maybe you should think about that, instead of berating your country's friends instead of supporting your current government when suck up to Saudi Arabia (you know..the ones who create---and have CREATED-- "the enemy"). Plus, maybe you can ALSO explain to me why the Iraqi army/police units that the U.S. is SUPPOSED to be training....are turning on U.S. forces? Just last week or the week before, American forces engaged fire with an Iraqi police unit! Like...WTF?? If you WERE there...then by all means..please do explain.
Chaz: As pointed out many times by myself and others on various threads (billboat, worldcitizen, etc)...there is NO rancor between Canadians and Americans, per se. However, there IS "rancor" (if you like) between Canadians and the American GOVERNMENT. Now, if I tell you I think that Bush or Cheney are such-and-such pukes....then does THAT make me "anti-American"? Or "anti-U.S."? Again, stating what I've said many times: if you have a sincere, well-founded argument, or point of view that you can convey without resorting to those tired, worn-out labels AND you can put your neat-looking flag away and square off with me INTELLIGENTLY....please do. I refer you to the exchange between Streamlined and myself on the "Angry American" thread; I disagree vehemently with the man...but I greatly enjoy my discourse with him.
"The U.S. (despite the sometimes expressed views of our northern neighbor posters) is in fact tasked with being the world monitor of injustice."
You're kidding me...right? So how come it continues to befriend, support and otherwise slide into bed with some of the worlds vilest murderers and dictators, with human rights abuses that would make Hitler cringe? (Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Saddam Hussein? Osama Bin Laden? The Shah? Noriega? Pinochet? Okay...well..I want the "world monitor of justices" resignation...NOW. And I DO mean....NOW. Does that make me "anti-U.S."? After reading your post, you DO seem to have the capability of providing a rational argument...please do not ruin it by fleeing into a cave surrounding and blinding yourself with fireworks and speakers blaring out "The Star Spangled Banner"....ok? Otherwise, you'll sound no better than a certain two simpletons, whom I have now placed on complete ignore mode; the games were fun while they lasted (even for me), but it gets boring when all you have to deal with is name-calling, petty insults and NO cohesive argument from the other party.
worldcitizen: "I'm saving America.....one soul at a time." (EXACT quote, verbatim, from President George W. Bush)
randalflagg: I knew it! GREAT book! GREAT character! Loyd was a helluva character as well! And you're right...S.K. rules.
Canuk; you're obviously fairly bright for a 51st Stater but can you stop the catty pedantry. Your response to reddwarf16 is fair enough until you realise YOU made 30% of the posts on this thread. One guy spouting that much is impressive. Do you have a g/f, b/f or moose in your life? :-)
Yet again you lie canuck. You did not respond to barney's point. Yuo gave him grief about the brtis pulling out, posting dailytelegraph drivel. He came back with the fact that even at the end of the supposed pullout, they'll have more soldiers in iraq than you guys have in afghan. That is what you dind't respond. I don't know whether he's right or not, but it's very suspicious that 1) you didn't respond and 2) you say that you did!!!!
What a bunch of idiots. I'm surprised how all these soldiers have lost their own free will to think for themselves. Just unite and say "No, I'm not going to do this." and it will not happen. Simple as that. I have no respect for these soldiers whatsoever. Protecting me my ass. Go save some people in hurricanes, earth-quakes and the likes, that's the only thing army-people are good for.
I have often found that people like yourself who are fond of childish insults like this are just attempting to throw off suspicion that THEY may be homosexual.
Throbstick's right. That said, it's really not worth a pissing match over who's got how many troops where. They're all fighting and dying for a just cause in Afghanistan (imho), and a totally fucked one in Iraq. The 'peacekeeping' mission for those troops tasked with that in Afg is anything but, and the Canuk troops out there do a good job. Bottom line, they're fighting shoulder to shoulder with Yanks, Brits, Ozzies, Germans - a genuine multinational force. Nuff said! Stop bitchin and support us. In Afg at least!
However I do take umbrage at the inane shite I see posted about Canada and the US bailing the tea-suckers out. You're so right, however you're also hugely naive. I'm guessing the 'bail out's' you refer to are primarily WW1 and 2, these were, guess what... WORLD wars. Yep. WORLD. Everyone was at it! Nations...take... sides. With 51% of your populace comprised of Brit or French descent, what were Canada's options Canuck? Go with Germany..?
Everybody look for a video called Loose Change on the internet, if you live in the United States u might not be able to find it because the president or whatever doesn't allow it but it prooves that 9/11 and a bunch of stuff was all an inside job, all lies, all just to get money, Iraq is innocent.
inside job? you give them too much credit, too many people would have to be involved for it to be plausible. Even if it was an inside job, theres something to be said for waking the public from its complacency on defense and strategic issues. as for the Iraq thing, the Americans arrogance got them in and it will get them out, except that the leaving part will not be by choice. Good luck there guys, hopefully you will give more thought to your next major engagement, im not opposed to war exactly, just unnecessary ones. you guys are better at retaking then taking.
Armchair quarterbacks criticizing stuff they know nothing about. Unless you've been there, then you don't know s%#t. I fought in both theaters, and I have been face to face with the people, and the enemy. You freekin knobs get all your info from liberal, socially irresponsible CNN, and you suck it up like the sheep that you are. So STFU, or sign up and go find out for yourself.
What "enemy"? Explain to me how this is a fight against "the enemy". It's an enemy because who says so? Oh yes, I forgot, the same one who collects all the money to just uphold these lies about enemies, that's the one you're following orders from. You've all lost your common sense.
The "you don't know if you haven't served argument is dishonest and needs to be put to rest. First it assumes that everyone would see things as you do simply because they've been a soldier. Its not true. Many military people have different opinions on wars, how they start, how they should end etc. As I said before soldiers don't set policy the governments do that. Governments in the western world more or less have to answer to the people who elect them. This is why governments make the case for policy including war. So the power to decide who is an enemy and what should be done about it rest ultimately with the people of a nation. All of them not just those who put on a uniform.
"And, as far as being called arrogant Americans, yeah, I guess we are. But, what the eff are you euro-trash going to do about it? Sick the UN on us? A bunch of blue helmeted Paki or other screwed- up- country peacekeepers? I'm shakin in my boots....The world is jealous of the US, so you have to try to criticize us. Grow up. And piss off."
To tell you the truth there isn't much to be jealous of these days. And what you and many others don't seem to understand is that no army needs to do the US in. The US is doing itself in with its policies both foreign and domestic.
And, as far as being called arrogant Americans, yeah, I guess we are. But, what the eff are you euro-trash going to do about it? Sick the UN on us? A bunch of blue helmeted Paki or other screwed- up- country peacekeepers? I'm shakin in my boots....The world is jealous of the US, so you have to try to criticize us. Grow up. And piss off.
This has nothing to do with Americans or jealousy, it has to do with idiots making decisions based on BS. They are everywhere on this planet. What they need to do is learn how to think for themselves, and use some logic.
I just recently signed on to this site and have posted a few items over the last week or two. What is so surprising is the rancor between U.S. and Canadian posters.
They are allowed their opinions, of course. But making inflamatory comparisons of one country against the other, as to their international involvements, is totally unproductive. The U.S. (despite the sometimes expressed views of our northern neighbor posters) is in fact tasked with being the world monitor of injustice. They are that way because so many of the world's free nations look to the U.S. for help to improve their fortunes, it being viewed on the world stage as owing to the rest of humanity the benefits they inherited with the accident of their American birth.
Of course, the U.S. will fail at that effort...whatever it might do on one side of an issue will provoke outrage on the other side of that same issue. And of course, our famous ineffiency at government levels assures that whatever good might happen will be far less than hoped for.
So........show me another country that does better at world affairs, or cares more about them, or has its citizens more involved intellectually, economically, socially, than our wonderfully and widely faulted America?
Iraq? My feeling is like many others....questionable involvement. But I and they have only the input of the media...not what our leaders had...and they differ in their views.
I see no basis for upset between Canada and the U.S., though I do think than Canuck has too much time on his hands...and needs to use his obvious literal skills more than his scatological skills.
Vulgarity and ad hominem invective does little to inform, and has a very short entertainment value...but it is alway a damaging to one's credibility/tolerability.
I turned his own argument on him and he ran away with his nob between his legs. I see that he's posted to other threads much more recently than his last post here. Point proven.
What enemy??? Like I said, sign up and find out. Or be a victim in the next terror attack. Or, get kidnapped and beheaded by savages and cowards. I bet julius has no idea of what Afghanistan was like b4 we went in. I bet julius has never had Afghan and Iraqi citizens come and thank you for freeing them (and that was just a side benefit). I have experienced it. When I met young Iraqi men who were flocking to sign up to be Army, National Guard and Iraqi Police, to fight the oppressive insurgents, I knew we were right. When I operated with hardened Iraqi men who singularly and determinedly risked themselves for their idea of freedom against the insurgents, I knew we were right. Don't lecture me, julius. You are a typical, selfish, closed-minded America basher.
imthebigbadwolf: "world... great post. Except the last part about Bush thinking God is behind him. Bush is an atheist. It's obvious. Most politicians are... if they weren't do you think they would be so corrupt?"
Wolf, I'm agnostic and if really pressed I'd tell you there probably isn't a God.(In other words I'd say I'm closer to being and Atheist than a Theist.) I do not believe that Humans take their cues on morality from religion but rather from a movement of priorities of what it takes to survive. Basically an idea that says "I don't want to live in a society that steals and kills so I wont behave that way." Its a bit deeper than that and it may not sound as sexy as "An all powerful being tells us whats right or wrong." but those are the basics in my view. Simply put humans be they Atheist and Theist are corruptible. Depending on where you live in the world you'll have advantages and disadvantages for claiming to be part of either group.
Bush was asked if he consulted his biological father when it came to the war in Iraq. He gave some BS answer paraphrased as " I consulted a higher father." It can be argued yea or nay that he was playing on the American publics religious streak with that statement. I believe he is a theist and he thinks hes linked in with divine will.
It turns my stomach to read people argue body counts of fellow citizens, go ahead and round up or down to the nearest hundred for your convienance. For you to throw around that statistic shows you don't give a damn about them, what they've done or why they did it.
(Apologies. This pasted above, when it SHOULD have gone here; we now return you to your regular programing "Canuck Reclaims Maine and Lousiana", already in progress)
LOL
I knew it.
See what happens when I stay away...and just watch?? LMFAO Quite....predictable. And soooooo....entertaining.
No matter. I shall more than happily put a certain few out of their misery; I realize my tactic may have been cruel, with regards to their limited patience (sure was fun checking back into this thread periodically though...lol):
mako100: Thank you for the "bright" compliment; though, the crack about being a "51st stater" cannot apply here: I wasn't conquered; I wasn't a slave; nor am I a survivor of a massacred Indian tribe. Plus, I think your government should be hauled away and locked up for high crimes and misdemeanors. As to why up to that point I made "30%" of the posts on this thread, I've already answered. Please feel free to check it out. I have quite a healthy personal life (and I am richer for it), thanks, and that's about as far as I'll go into that. Plus, as soon as you say "Throbmystick is right", that leaves YOUR judgement immediately suspect. The poor lad has been right about nothing. At all. His contributions consist predominantly of playing childish games, hurling juvenile insults, throwing tantrums....shall I go on? Barney-Boy? Same thing. And if you'll notice a pattern here, I have saved my whimsical venom specifically for them (or the odd moron who can't seem to formulate a convincing argument). Other than that, I think I've been quite witty; I have some fun; I strive to make a sincere point; I try to back it up...and if anyone can convince me that I'm wrong or mistaken, I'll actually come away a happy man, having learned something. Until then, individuals such as the two I've mentioned, shall be relegated to the darkest corners of the classroom. Further, yes they were WORLD wars, and yes, there were other nations involved on a global scale....BUT....(and I cite this as just the most glaring example).....it was the U.S. and Canada who were instrumental in "bailing the U.K. out". If it wasn't for the fact that significant numbers of Yank and Canuck pilots enlisted in the R.A.F. during the "Battle of Britain"...then you'd have had it. Look, history can sometimes be tough to swallow. I understand. But facts are facts, nonetheless (and please, let's not forget the MONEY and resources North America sent there, okay?). "Go with Germany"?? Of course not. But sometimes an appreciation for the efforts of others, even if it culminates in a grudging acknowledgement, would actually make me believe they're not completely illiterate or dead from the neck up. So who's responsible for me thinking they're a couple of idiots? Me? Or them? Think about it carefully.
dirtysanchez: Personal question, if I may: what was your rank and unit, as well as last posting? Also, you are mistaken: it's not "jealousy"; it's CONCERN for where your nation has gone...and what it's become.....and where it's heading. Maybe you should think about that, instead of berating your country's friends instead of supporting your current government when suck up to Saudi Arabia (you know..the ones who create---and have CREATED-- "the enemy"). Plus, maybe you can ALSO explain to me why the Iraqi army/police units that the U.S. is SUPPOSED to be training....are turning on U.S. forces? Just last week or the week before, American forces engaged fire with an Iraqi police unit! Like...WTF?? If you WERE there...then by all means..please do explain.
Chaz: As pointed out many times by myself and others on various threads (billboat, worldcitizen, etc)...there is NO rancor between Canadians and Americans, per se. However, there IS "rancor" (if you like) between Canadians and the American GOVERNMENT. Now, if I tell you I think that Bush or Cheney are such-and-such pukes....then does THAT make me "anti-American"? Or "anti-U.S."? Again, stating what I've said many times: if you have a sincere, well-founded argument, or point of view that you can convey without resorting to those tired, worn-out labels AND you can put your neat-looking flag away and square off with me INTELLIGENTLY....please do. I refer you to the exchange between Streamlined and myself on the "Angry American" thread; I disagree vehemently with the man...but I greatly enjoy my discourse with him.
"The U.S. (despite the sometimes expressed views of our northern neighbor posters) is in fact tasked with being the world monitor of injustice."
You're kidding me...right? So how come it continues to befriend, support and otherwise slide into bed with some of the worlds vilest murderers and dictators, with human rights abuses that would make Hitler cringe? (Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Saddam Hussein? Osama Bin Laden? The Shah? Noriega? Pinochet? Okay...well..I want the "world monitor of justices" resignation...NOW. And I DO mean....NOW. Does that make me "anti-U.S."? After reading your post, you DO seem to have the capability of providing a rational argument...please do not ruin it by fleeing into a cave surrounding and blinding yourself with fireworks and speakers blaring out "The Star Spangled Banner"....ok? Otherwise, you'll sound no better than a certain two simpletons, whom I have now placed on complete ignore mode; the games were fun while they lasted (even for me), but it gets boring when all you have to deal with is name-calling, petty insults and NO cohesive argument from the other party.
worldcitizen: "I'm saving America.....one soul at a time." (EXACT quote, verbatim, from President George W. Bush)
randalflagg: I knew it! GREAT book! GREAT character! Loyd was a helluva character as well! And you're right...S.K. rules.
I appreciate your avoiding vulgarity. I did not need a response from you.
We will not engage in discussion here...I have seen how you have handled it with others, and have no desire to join some sort of endless posting-debate.
You are well spoken. I suggest continuing in that vein, sans ad hominem, sans scat. It would make your postings more digestible.
Does anyone think the "you're a douchebag" stuff is helping anything?
The absolute worst way to convince someone your point of view is worth entertaining, is to create an environment of defensiveness.
If you actually have any interest in the war, either pro, or con, and you care about your beliefs, then you should be respectful, and explanatory with your opinion.
OK Canuck. I'll humor you, within reason. For my last posting, I was a military protective services agent assigned to USCENTCOM. I conducted missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, other Arab nations, and Europe. During these missions, I interacted closely with host nation forces, and coalition forces. Prior to that, I was in a different unit as security forces in Afghanistan in late 2001-2002.
As far as other countries being "concerned" as to where my country has gone, well, too bad. As far as I am concerned, every nation in the world is subordinate to us. We don't have to answer to you.
Iraqi police units fighting with US forces. Shit happens. There is corruption in every government organization in the world. You deal with it as it is detected.
And sucking up? What about Canada and the pathetic immigration control your country has in place? You let anyone in, then give them documentation, and because of agreements with the US, we have to be more tolerant....And, how do you explain all of the freakin British Columbia license plates I see down here in Washington State? If Canada is so wonderful, and we are so evil, why are we inundated by Canadians? And, on a side note, you guys can't drive for poop...Tell your countrymen to start obeying the damn speed limit. It's common courtesy.
As far as human rights violations.. [Canuck: "So how come it continues to befriend, support and otherwise slide into bed with some of the worlds vilest murderers and dictators, with human rights abuses that would make Hitler cringe? (Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Saddam Hussein? Osama Bin Laden? The Shah? Noriega? Pinochet? Okay...well..I want the "world monitor of justices" resignation...NOW. And I DO mean....NOW. " ] Isn't Canada a major contributer and participant in UN "peacekeeping" missions? How do you explain your beloved UN standing by and allowing atrocities like RWANDA to occur?????? Funny, you leave that out when you talk about human rights... From what I recall, the UN didn't do ANYTHING to avert that. So don't bother lecturing us, Canuck. Clean up your own backyard before you try mine...
Hey Dirty, go easy regards Rawanda. Of all the forces in place there it was... wait for it... a Canadian guy Gen Romeo Dallaire who hung in there with a bunch of ghanan and bangladeshi peacekeepers. The rest of the forces (and I single the French and Belgians out for most of the blame) were pulled out as soon as they'd evac'd their nationals.
Unfortunately it was then Washington who called for a complete withdrawal of peacekeepers, with dear Maddy Albright agreeing to a small force who'd "show the will of the international commmunity". I think the number was somewhere around 300 troops!! At the time some recent shenanigans with a few of your Ranger and spec ops boys in Mogadishu had understandably dented the US wish to project power in the region (this is not meant as a cheap shot so don't take it that way please, simply a fact).
Ultimately analysis paralysis and a total lack of political backbone by the world's political leaders caused the deaths of nearly a million. A fuck up of huge proportions which the ENTIRE WORLD has to accept blame for. No one nation on that one I'm afraid. It's also potentially happening again as we speak in Darfhur just slower paced and better hidden
Canuck I was not being unappreciative of Canadian or US assistance. I was simply making the point that in each horrific period, one way or another you'd have been on the Allied / Brit side anyway! Yep, your flyboys were good. As were the Poles, Czechs, Kiwis and apparently the one Jamaican who flew with the RAF back then. You're a little out on the Yanks joining the BoB. Their war didn't start until the following year later so perhaps a little fact checking might have been the order of the day! :-)
Also Canuck, not quite sure what other occasions the US or Canada have actually come militarily to British aid. Post empire they have a tiny army so normally tack on the back of larger operations! Thought the basic rule of thumb was for both nations to gain independence from British rule, retain it, develop economically then go forward as allies, whilst taking the piss out of the erstwhile colonialists from that point forward? That's the way the Ozzies and Kiwis deal with the Brits, and it works. Think Dirty'll tell you with his years in theater there are a few operators from Oz and NZ who give not one shit about your nationality as long as you're good, and on their side. If not you then you won't feel a thing!
Further to your point about bail outs, I know certainly the Yanks numbered around 35,000 in the Canadian army BEFORE the US even got drawn into WW1 so there's some brotherhood there bud! Brits fought alongside US and yourselves in Korea, and Vietnam. Not sure where you or the Yanks were in Malaya but then the Brits seemed to sort that one out themselves with a couple of Ozzies and Kiwis thrown in! It was probably in a very grubby and nasty way if we look behind the scenes coz this was during their post empire fall from grace, but nonetheless they sorted it. Oh no, hang on... that's where the term 'hearts and minds' was coined was it not?
WW1 or 2 aside enlighten me please with your tales of daring Candian or US swashbuckling rescue. Or alternatively just tell it like it is. The US, UK and Canada are all allies numbnuts! Until the French wanna gain some 'leibensraum' outside Quebec it'll surely stay that way! :-)
PS Slightly tangential but IMHO the UN should be given a mandate to kick the living shit out of any scummy dictator / despot / tribal faction meting out hate. Screw peacekeeping, coz the situations the UN are dropped in mean they're almost always never actually doing that (ref Afghanistan). Bottom line should be, if the blue helms (better equipped and prob lead by the main power in that region with US assistance no doubt) turn up, EVERYONE needs to put guns down or die. Then start the talking. That said, this is never going to happen as the UN apparently can't organise it's way out a paper bag
PPS without wishing to stoke fires and no doubt failing, anyone seen this:
Please post some new videos glumbert, this comment war is getting out of hand. Put your ego's aside boys, please, flaming and going off topic shouldn't be what glumbert is about. Your not doing yourself any justice by putting other people down, especially over the internet. If you feel so obliged to retaliate to any nonsense, stand up, absolve from posting and go for a walk, the fresh air will do you some good. Would be nice if more people would just STOP for one moment to think about thier actions.
PS. Can someone please sum up george bush's current political agenda, he seems like he's going off course somewhat.
My-my-my...so much to to give a decent respose to...so much RANCOR.
sanchez: you're dodging the question, dude. What UNIT were you with? Or, let me make it simpler: Did you wear a UNIFORM and were you a DIRECT member, of any branch of the United States Armed Forces? (You KNOW what I'm getting at here, don't you?) IF you give me an honest answer and "yes" to both...then as I said..all due respect, and we'll carry on our discussion. If not...then I look forward to a SPECIAL discourse with YOU. Ball's in your court (painful as it is, I must agree with you on my fellow citizens driving habits...they're no better here in Ontario, sad to say). Plus, I give you examples of some your ADMINISTRATIONS efforts towards these pukes..and what's you're retort? You start yapping about the U.N.!! (lol) You'd better start putting together a DECENT, COHERENT argument...and fast, and stop shovelling Cheneys crap. (and like your friend there pointed out, WE did have an active General on the ground in Rwanda, who tried to stop the slaughter, and screamed at the U.S. and everyone else to send help...but didn't; please go to the library sometime, ok?)
mako100: Forget about any far-flung nations during the war...the ISLE of Great Britain ITSELF was in danger of being strangled to death, and almost was; that was my entire point. NO way the Brits got out of that on their own. At all. Plus, as a side note, there were three nations represented on the beaches of Normandy: U.S. (Omaha and Utah beaches), Canada (Juno beach) and what was left of the British Army (Sword beach). Kudos to Eisenhower for orchestrating that operation. This was the assault on "Fortress Europe", and the beginning of the end for the krauts. Simply put, I laugh when I read certain posters here actually ACT like no other nation had a hand in their assistance. THAT IS WHAT STARTED THIS MESS! That, I suppose is my main point AND an example of a Canuck/U.S. "swashbuckling rescue", as you put it (otherwise, you'd need a German passport today, to cross the English Channel).
Oh, and that video link you posted? That was a comedian named Colin Mochrie on there (from Toronto); the video was intended as a playful tweak/satire on how SOME Americans view us, and how little they tend to be aware of north of the 49th parallel , i.e., see sanchez above as an example. It's similar to Jon Stewart....hilarious, but not mean-spirited. See? You shoulda just asked me about it.
Like I said...put the flag away when you're engaged in debate (whether it's a Union Jack, or has stars on it). It flutters so damn much, that it covers your eyes (and that goes DOUBLE for sanchez).
I give you more credit than that - don't disappoint young man!
1. You mentioned the Battle of Britain and I explained your error with regard to the US (with no rancor I hasten to add). This was 10th July to 31st October 1940. The US joined battle in 1941. Would you have the decency to accept that?
Perhaps you were confusing this with the Normandy Beach landings in which case fair enough, your diversion towards that is fairly transparent but I fully accept your points on the subject. That Hitler had NO plans OR ability to invade at the time of the Normandy landings is moot? I think not... :-)
Check the good ol wiki for some much needed info on your part and, as you do, you'll see why I also implore you - DON'T PASS off the 'far flung' nations.
You'll see these far flung nations had, certainly in the case of the Czechs and Poles, as much, or greater motivation than the Brits did in the Battle of Britain, and were hugely effective. As I said in my post, many nations fought together against what was perceived as a common cause.
THE WHOLE POINT OF MY POST was to correct you in your assumption that the Yanks played a major part in that particular battle. They did not. Canada did in so far as they provided decent, brave and effective aircrew. In addition I wanted to make clear that we are all allies and I'm not sure you kinda got that message? RE-READ my post. At no point did I mention that the Brits managed to prevail during the BoB WITHOUT help.
Does the devils advocate in you need to take a sabatical perhaps?
2. I would also suggest you re-check your facts on the importance of BoB. It was vital in ensuring Hitler could not invade and would not invade across the Channel.This is an albeit brief but farly accurate assessment of a battle that changed the course of war in Europe. Read it.
Yes, the invasion was important, be mindful though, our entire invasion force was facing 20% of the German (not Kraut) army. They were diverted against the Russians who were happily and effectively kicking the living shit out of the Nazis all the way to Berlin. Geo-politically the Allied rush to land was arguably as much to prevent Russia getting it's hands on all of Europe and extending the reach of communism, as it was in prevailing against Germany. Think bigger!
3. The Mochrie clip has his name on it. I can hear and see, and therefore understand fully what it's about, hence the posting of it. It's amusingly arrogant of you to suggest I need to ask you about it! Back to my point about the devils advocate in you. Oh well.
4. Not sure why you think I'm waving any flag. I am only posting views which, as you yourself say, anybody is welcome to disagree with. Just back it up with proven fact not assumptions. You seem to raise ire in people Canuck. Not me though. I find you quite funny. Keep it up. I WILL bounce you when you're wrong tho! :-)
FYI I was born and raised in Zambia, lived and worked in Kenya, Tanzania, the UK, US and Europe, and currently live in South East Asia. I travel. I see the world and I comment on it. I don't flag wave.
5. To Randalflagg a 51st Stater is a faintly derogatory term that can be applied to Canadians (and also to the UK for that matter). See:
I didn't reply to Canuck's 'smary retort' as I thought he dealt in wit and I didn't want to get him going! It was meant to get his attention. It worked. Apols for any offence
Some time ago, on another thread (go look it up) I commented on the nationalistic fervor Americans had (have?) towards George Bush; I compared it to the same fervor that helped Stalin and Hitler come to power; now I submit this, for your own perusal:
Canuck, you obviously don't understand much about military. Yes, as I said, I was in a military unit...USCENTCOM is U.S. Central Command. Every other unit in the middle east, horn of africa and central asia is subordinate to CENTCOM (maybe YOU should visit a library). Yes, I was a military non-commissioned officer in the US Armed Forces. Not a poser, and not a contractor. I'd draw a picture, but I don't have "crayon" mode for this forum....
I know you had an officer on the ground in Rwanda (I may be mistaken, but I believe he was a Colonel, not a General). I also know that he made moves to get help. I also know that the UN refused to allow him to act, or give support. And, as far as I was concerned, at the time that mess was occurring, I was upset that the US did not get involved. But, it was a UN operation. And who was our president at the time??? Yeah, Slick Willy. He was probably "busy".... Sadly, it seems nobody really cares about what happens in Africa, unless there are some big resources involved.
And, I'll use whatever tactic or argument style I choose when I'm posting, thank you.
Thank you for somewhat answering the question (I didn't ask what over-all, generalized command beaurocracy you served under, but specifically what UNIT ----so I'll use a crayon for YOU and give you an examples: 1st Air Cav? 101st Airborne? 82nd Airborne? Big Red One? Marine Expeditionary? 10th Mountain? Or were you in a....logistics unit? You know...at a desk? I asked for a simple, specific answer----not generalities. The longer you obfuscate, the more your credibility degrades (kinda like Bush). So once more, ok? And please....make it good. As for Rwanda, I'll cut and paste what I wrote in response to another of one of your countrymen:
"America CAN...and SHOULD..be a power for good on the planet, because out of all the nations on this topsy-turvy planet of ours.....only THEY are capable of it. I believe what another poster above trying to tell you, was "With great power...comes great responsibility". I'm proud of what my own country has accomplished; VERY proud. But because we do not have the resources at our disposal that YOUR country has....it's not enough. We try; but it's not enough. In Rwanda, we had a Brigadier-General on the ground, trying to stop the slaughter; screaming for help from the U.N., the U.S., ANYBODY. But no one came, not even us, even as ten men under his command were butchered. But to our defence, as I've said, we COULD NOT, for resons stated above; however, the U.S. COULD HAVE. There's a big difference. And lest you think I'm blinded by Clintons term in office, HE was the President while all this was happening. A pity. He could have added that to Kosovo as one of Americas shining moments. Ever see the movie "Hotel Rwanda"? Remember the character Nick Nolte played? He played a Canadian army officer; THAT was based on Brig.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire. Today, he serves as a Senator in parliament. Good for him, at least."
And yes, you ARE free to use whatever tactic you see fit in making a point.
But if you use the tactic I mentioned above, don't cry "foul" when you look foolish.
"I may be mistaken, but I believe he was a Colonel, not a General"
SEE??? This is my whole point about people like YOU; here you have a Canadian telling you the guy was a GENERAL and you STILL sit there "well, no, I could be wrong, but I DO believe he was this other thing"....like....
WTF????
Okay. Like I said many times...to many others..I enjoy debate..I enjoy discussion....and if I'm wrong..well then I'm wrong..and I'll say so...but YOU, man..are coming perilously close to wasting my time; so smarten the F up, and gimme something SENSIBLE to work with here, awright??
Dude, were you even IN the military? I don't know how much more I can describe freekin CENTCOM. If you know anything about the US in the Middle East, you know about CENTCOM. It is a major command. It is a joint command, with all service branches assigned, as well as troops from other countries. I already told you, I was a protective services agent. THat means I was assigned to J3 (operations) in the security directorate. If you don't know what protective services is, well, I'll type slow so you can follow....
I...was...on...General...Abizaid's (please tell me you know who he is)...body-guard...detail. Geez...
As far as giving you something sensible to work with...I can only simplify things so much for you before it gets to the level of neanderthal grunting....Maybe your cognitive abilities need some honing...
Thank you for FINALLY giving me a SPECIFIC answer. And as I said, all due respect to you, then.
I will henceforth give you every benefit of a doubt, re: your viewpoints and opinions.
Word of advice, though: Given your experience and life-skills, you do YOURSELF a grave disservice, when you resort to simplistic, jingoistic sabre-rattling, like you've mildly done. It does not befit you, I think.
Still...much respect to you for what you have undertaken thus far. May not have much respect for your political leaders, but I ALWAYS have respect for the uniform (yours OR ours).
Everyone's boots on the ground, including but not limited to the US ones, deserve our utmost respect - and with rare exceptions they have it. Which makes focusing on that particular point a bit of a red herring.
The Specialist in the film segment railing against the politicians in Washington who should come out there and ride with him for a few months - was that guy not respecting US boots on the ground? Was he not supporting the troops?
When domestic chickenhawk political leaders make idiotic geopolitical decisions that put our troops in harm's way, and then deflect appropriate policy criticism with noise about "Support Our Troops," they are effectively using our troops as hostages.
This is not the first disastrous war of choice the US has dragged out over years - that honor probably goes to the Philippines a century ago. But the scale is so vast. The whole thing is just disheartening.
Hawthorn - the best posting on this thread by a country mile. So disheartening. Think everyone's in agreement with you on that one. If not they should be
Noting the current You Tube presedential debates it would be a great video to post? would it not?!!
I would ask posters, what is the common consensus:
1. Withdraw totally from Iraq asap?
2. Apply total concentration to finishing the task properly?
We can bicker all day along about indivdual battles, dates, agree on some, disagree on some....but my point has ALWAYS been simple:
NO NATION EVER PLAYED IN A ONE-MAN BAND ( least of all in the 20th century, and let alone was successful at it); THAT is what I LOVE to point out to the narrow-minded few; look above...you'll see my point. So thank you FINALLY for backing up the main thrust of my argument.
And just for your information, wiseguy: that "51st state" crack is an old one; I've got many good-natured American friends who zip that one by me. I just kinda figured you'd at LEAST appreciate my retort.
Subjective humor, I suppose.
Keep'em coming, though.
As I've said before...I'm a sucker for spirited debate.
Im abit awestruck about why some seem surprised that people might think that americans are arrogant.
dirtysanchez: "As far as other countries being "concerned" as to where my country has gone, well, too bad. As far as I am concerned, every nation in the world is subordinate to us. We don't have to answer to you."
I realy like "we dont have to awnser to you" part.
But on another note Im not at all surprised the US uses its miltary power to gain political/economical goals.
I mean theres no nation on earth that can stand up to the us in conventional military means. The US spends allmost as much on military spending as the rest of the world combined. I cant realy blame the Us for using this uniqe tool to do what it wants. Most every other nation on earth have done the same thing when it had the means. I guess what realy bugs me is that they try to take the moral high ground by saying "we're the good guys" "this i all to help YOU"
Its like the burglar breaking in to your home busting you over the head, stealing you TV set saying this is only to get you out of the tv couch and get some exersice.
Either you act moraly and then you can make moral arguments.
Or you say:We have all the tanks and carriers we're gonna FUCK you up. what are you going to do about it, post on glumbert ?
All of our Canadian soldiers have names and left behind family. When a soldier dies in Afganistan the entire country mourns each loss so please don't dare say that Canadian's don't fight for the same freedoms.
April 17, 2002: Sgt. Marc D. Leger, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer, Pte. Richard A. Green and Pte. Nathan Smith were killed by friendly fire when an American fighter jet dropped a laser-guided 225-kilogram bomb on the soldiers during a training exercise near Kandahar. All served with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group.
Oct. 2, 2003: Sgt. Robert Alan Short and Cpl. Robbie Christopher Beerenfenger were killed and three others injured when their Iltis jeep struck a roadside bomb outside Camp Julien near Kabul. They were from the Third Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment.
Jan. 27, 2004: Cpl. Jamie Murphy died and three soldiers were injured by a suicide bomber while patrolling near Camp Julien in an Iltis jeep. All were members of the Royal Canadian Regiment.
Nov. 24, 2005: Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, Royal Canadian Regiment, was killed in a traffic accident involving his light-armoured vehicle (LAV III) northeast of Kandahar. Three others soldiers suffered serious injuries.
Jan. 15, 2006: Diplomat Glyn Berry was killed and three soldiers injured by a suicide bomber in Kandahar. They were patrolling in a G Wagon.
March 2, 2006: Cpl. Paul Davis died and six others were injured when their LAV III collided with a civilian taxi just west of Kandahar during a routine patrol. The soldiers were with the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.
March 5, 2006: Master Cpl. Timothy Wilson of Grande Prairie, Alta., succumbed to injuries suffered in the LAV III crash on March 2 in Afghanistan. Wilson died in hospital in Germany.
March 28-29, 2006: Pte. Robert Costall was killed in a firefight with Taliban insurgents in the desert north of Kandahar. A U.S. soldier and a number of Afghan troops also died and three Canadians were wounded. Costall was a member of 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, based in Edmonton.
April 22, 2006: Four soldiers were killed when their armoured vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb near Gombad, north of Kandahar. They were Cpl. Matthew Dinning, stationed at Petawawa, Ont.; Bombardier Myles Mansell, based in Victoria; Lieut. William Turner, stationed in Edmonton, and Cpl. Randy Payne of CFB Wainwright, Alta.
May 17, 2006: Capt. Nichola Goddard, a combat engineer with the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and Canada's first female combat death, killed during battle against Taliban forces in the Panjwai region, 24 kilometres west of Kandahar.
July 9, 2006: Cpl. Anthony Joseph Boneca, a reservist, with the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment based in Thunder Bay, Ont., was killed as Canadian military and Afghan security forces were pushing through an area west of Kandahar City that had been a hotbed of Taliban activity.
July 22, 2006: A suicide bomber blows himself up in Kandahar, killing two Canadian soldiers and wounded eight more. Cpl. Francisco Gomez, an anti-armour specialist from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in Edmonton, was driving the Bison armoured vehicle targeted by the bomber's vehicle. Cpl. Jason Patrick Warren of the Black Watch in Montreal was riding in the vehicle.
Aug. 3, 2006: Cpl. Christopher Jonathan Reid, with the 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, based in Edmonton, died overnight when a Canadian Light Armoured Vehicle, or LAV-3, was struck by a roadside bomb. Later the same say, three more Canadian soldiers were killed during a separate attack with rocket propelled grenades near Kandahar city. According to a DND website late Thursday, Sgt. Vaughn Ingram of the 1st Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, and Cpl. Bryce Jeffrey Keller of the 1st Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry were also killed. The fourth dead soldier was not identified. Several other Canadian soldiers were injured in the attack.
Aug. 5, 2006: Master Cpl. Raymond Arndt, of the Edmonton-based Loyal Edmonton Regiment, was killed Aug. 5 when a G-Wagon making a supply run collided with a civilian truck.
Aug. 9, 2006: Master Cpl. Jeffrey Scott Walsh, based out of Shilo, Man. with the second batallion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, was conducting routine operations along Highway One near the Zhari district centre, about 20 kilometres west of Kandahar city was he was shot in a "weapons related accident" unrelated to enemy fire about noon Wednesday, just days after arriving in Kandahar to begin his tour of duty.
August 11, 2006: Cpl. Andrew James Eykelenboom with the 1st Field Ambulance based in Edmonton, was killed when his vehicle was hit by a suicide bomber.
August 22, 2006: Canadian Corp. David Braun, a recently arrived soldier with the second battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, was killed by a suicide bomber outside the gates of Camp Nathan Smith in Kandahar City. The soldier, in his 20s, was a native of Raymore, Sask. Three other Canadian soldiers were injured in the afternoon attack.
September 3, 2006: Warrant Officer Richard Francis Nolan, Warrant Officer Frank Robert Mellish, Sergeant Shane Stachnik, and Pte. William Jonathan James Cushley, all based at CFB Petawawa, west of Ottawa, were among four soldiers killed in fierce fighting in southern Afghanistan. Several more soldiers were wounded.
September 4, 2006: Pte. Mark Anthony Graham, a member of 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, based at CFB Petawawa, Ont., killed and dozens of others wounded in a friendly fire incident involving an American A-10 Warthog aircraft.
September 18, 2006: Four soldiers were killed when a suicide bomber riding a bicycle detonated explosives in the Panjwai area. Cpl Shane Keating, Cpl Keith Morley and Pte. David Byers, 22, all members of the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry from Shilo, Man and Cpl. Glen Arnold, a member of the 2 Field Ambulance, from Petawawa, Ont. were killed in the attack that wounded several others.
September 29, 2006: Pte. Josh Klukie was killed by an improvised explosive device, while he was conducting a foot patrol in the Panjwaii district in Kandahar province.
October 3, 2006: Sgt. Craig Gillam and Cpl. Robert Mitchell of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, based in Petawawa, Ont., killed in series of mortar, rocket attacks just west of Kandahar city
October 7, 2006: Mark Andrew Wilson of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, based in Petawawa, Ont., was killed when his armoured vehicle was hit by a roadside explosion in the Panjwaii district.
October 14, 2006: A storm of gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades killed Sgt. Darcy Tedford of Charles Company, 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, based in Petawawa, Ont. and Pte. Blake Williamson, also based in Petawawa, in southern Afghanistan. Three others are expected to recover from their wounds.
November 27, 2006:Two Canadian soldiers, Chief Warrant Officer Albert Storm and Sgt. Maj. Bob Girouard, were killed on the outskirts of Kandahar on Monday when a suicide car bomber attacked a convoy of military vehicles. The soldiers were members of the Royal Canadian Regiment based in Petawawa, Ont. They were in an armoured personnel carrier that had just left the Kandahar Airfield base when a vehicle drove up to it and detonated explosives.
March 6, 2007: Cpl. Kevin Megeney, 25, a reservist from Stellarton, N.S., and a member of 1st Battalion Nova Scotia Highlanders is the 45th Canadian military death in Afghanistan since 2002. Megeney was shot through the chest and left lung in what's believed to be a "friendly fire" incident.
April 8, 2007 : Six Canadian soldiers died in southern Afghanistan as a result of injuries sustained when the vehicle they were travelling in hit an explosive device. The men were identified as Sgt. Donald Lucas, 31, of Burton, N.B., Pte. Kevin Kennedy, 20, of St. Lawrence, Nfld., Cpl. Aaron E. Williams, 23, of Lincoln, N.B., and Pte. David R. Greenslade, 20, of Saint John, N.B., Cpl. Christopher P. Stannix, 24, of Dartmouth, N.S., and Cpl. Brent Poland, 37, of Sarnia, Ont.
April 11, 2007 : Master Cpl. Allan Stewart, 30, and Trooper Patrick James Pentland, 23 - both of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, based in Petawawa, Ont. - died after their vehicle hit a roadside bomb in an area about 38 km west of Kandahar City.
April 18, 2007: Master Cpl. Anthony Klumpenhouwer. A special operations soldier died in an accident when he fell while climbing a communications tower.
May 25, 2007: Corp. Matthew McCully. An infantryman killed when a road-side bomb exploded near him during Operation Hoover, a major operation to clear out Taliban.
May 30, 2007 : Master Cpl. Darrell Jason Priede was the 56th Canadian service member killed since 2002 in Afghanistan, his death coming less than a week after another corporal lost his life to a roadside bomb.
June 11, 2007 : Trooper Darryl Caswell, 25, was killed when the armoured vehicle he was driving was ripped apart by an improvised explosive device en route to a remote NATO base in Afghanistan since 2002.
June 20, 2007: Sgt. Christos Karigiannis, Cpl. Stephen Frederick Bouzane and Pte. Joel Vincent Wiebe, all of 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, were killed when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb near a forward-operating base at Sperwan Ghar, west of Kandahar.
July 4, 2007: Six Canadian soldiers were killed when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle. Capt. Matthew Johnathan Dawe, Cpl. Cole Bartsch ,Cpl. Jordan Anderson , Capt. Jefferson Francis and Pte. Lane Watkins, all of 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, based in Edmonton, and Master-Cpl. Colin Bason, a reservist from The Royal Westminster Regiment. The identity of the other casualty has not been released
Comments (116)