That's just it BS. Thats why this place is so chill. You can sincerely complement a fellow train member while simultaneously arguing about WMDs, And middle Eastern Nuclear capabilities.
Sounds about right.Carry on.
So true. It's actually my babies that turned me rightward. Curious to see if gambs has a similar experience.
Hahaha, unreal
As Churchill (allegedly) said: "If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 40 you have no brain."
I don't know about this one... Maybe for most, no...some people this is truth, but certainly not for all of us... I've been left wing political invested all my life... so were my parents. I rather have no brain, than no heart. I've been a mother for fifteen years by now, and just turned 40, but I've never had fear or greed leed my political views, and I probable never will be... but we'll see...
Well...the first problem is that you think conservative views are led by "fear and greed". Once you realize they are led by liberty and nothing else the change is much easier. You also must recognize that not all conservatives are the same. I am quite socially liberal with the caveat that I don't "fear" the social conservatives around me.
What Liberty? The liberty to hate? The liberty to be so convinced about your own world view, that you call everyone who disagrees with you, naive or brainwashed? I also strongly belief in my own worldview, but I don't belief it is the only right worldview, it only fits best for me. I try to stay open-minded for different worldviews. With the right argumentation, I might be convinced, of a different view, but so far you didn't give any arguments that give me any reason to question my own... Apparently neither did I give you any to change yours. However, what strikes me, is that in my post i try to ask you a lot of questions, which you seem to avoid. To bad, because if you don't answer them, i don't think you will ever be able to convince me...
Please. Everyone on here makes these posts about me and I answer as many people as I can. I looked back pretty briefly and I actually don't see a question from you...a lot of commentary for sure but no questions. If you come with a real question I'll answer it...if you come with barbrains commentary I'll probably hit the ignore button.
But that's just it, you don't hit the ignore. You think real hard of a comeback for a long time, and all you come up with is some pussy ass farts like my reading comprehension is shitty. Dude, you can deny all you want about not making that statement or advocating for war, your undertones are clearly for dropping bombs on Iran. I'm not the only one who thinks this. And you did in some thread somewhere, maybe not in this Iran one, but you most definitely were advocating for dropping bombs on Iran. You're trying to backtrack. look, it's obvious you and I are completely polar opposites. U don't like me and I sure as hell don't like you. So for the sake of not locking this thread or any future anti-Arab/Muslim thread, let's keep the debate about the subject. sound fair?
I accept the terms of your surrender.
Now see, you should've just left it alone. I'm gonna pull the offer off the table. I have no problem playing big Dick contest with you.
Edit-see you made that ass comment about me wanting pearl jam club members to wear yellow stars on the shoulders who support Israel. I let that slide and you still couldn't help yourself by making that lame ass surrender comment. Now, you're fair game, and I'll have no problem showing you how fair game you are.
I'm advocating for victory which might require a re-invasion of Iraq to surge levels. The surge was a success, the coalition can do it again and restore the peace to 2009-10 levels.
I am not advocating for the invasion or even the bombing of Iran. I said this earlier but apparently all of your reading skills are below poor. With respect to Iran I would end current negotiations as the Iranians have refused to move close enough to our desired position on non-proliferation. I would tighten international sanctions on anyone who does business or banks with the regime. I would make any Iranian militia present in Iraq, Yemen and possibly Syria fair game for attack. I would institute a massive naval blockade on Iran in order to make sure they don't receive or deliver any military supplies. I would fund and support the internal green movement in any way possible. I would do this all vocally and unapologetically as we (the west) represent what is good and their regime does not. Anyone who tries to equate the evils of our societies is not just wrong but is also a fool. With this kind of pressure we will hopefully encourage the internal Iranian opposition to force out the Mullahs.
In exchange for our pressure on Iran the Sunni states will have to crush the radicals among them be it ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. and will have to be prepared to accept a future with a large moderate and strong Shia presence in the region.
As far as Palestine is concerned I would support the Palestinian Authority in everyway possible while aligning with Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordan etc in ending Hamas. Israel will be brought to the table and will be forced to make concessions following the defeat of Hamas. The PA wants a free Palestine and the end of Hamas. We will help them achieve both.
This is leadership. It will cost us plenty in both money and blood. The alternative is further regional collapse, genocide, terrorism and probably nuclear war. We are in for dark days no matter what. Shouldn't we at least try to control them?
What is the cost of this fantasy victory? In lives? In dollars? In failed relations around the world? Who else is ponying up? Canadian dollars I might add? In case you haven't noticed, the last ME debacle cost us a trillion plus and well the $17 trillion in debt has gotten the republicans gun shy about spending money or raising taxes. So, how much would you like to see Canada spend to prevent Iran from getting a bomb? Please spare me the Condi Rice mushroom cloud reference as well.
The costs in dollars and lives will be high. There is no denying this. I just happen to believe that inaction will cost us all more. Lives are being lost now.
As far as my statement on nuclear war it appears this needs to be better explained to you. Saudi Arabia is already exploring obtaining nuclear weapons, neighbouring states are exploring getting nuclear weapons. Yes other countries have them as well but we are moving to a point where more, for a lack of a better term, unstable states are going to pursue this technology. The Sunni-Shia divide is real and growing and extremist elements in the region are rising. We already see chemical weapons being used in Syria with blatant disregard. Over the long term nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable regimes is something everyone should be concerned about.
You still didn't answer the questions. What is high to you may be low to me and vice versa. Do you really think that a region so full of instability is going to have their shit together to attain nuclear weapons? And when will that be? Tomorrow? 6 months? A year maybe?
You seem to lack an understanding of the technical skill, resources and skill needed to acquire nuclear weapons. Unless you think NK is exporting suitcase bombs to the drug cartels who are leaving them with the headless bodies in the desert by ISIS training camps.
Drilling for fear keeps the job simple.
I do the best I can with the civilian knowledge I have. Am I privy to intelligence estimates and government cost analysis? Of course not. If we all need an expertise to comment on here then we might as well shut down the forum. If Pakistan and North Korea can get nukes then Iran and Saudi can get one easy...timeline will depend on how much help they get.
I wasn't born on third but I most definitely hit a triple.
Are you sure you haven't confused the triple with third grade? I'll help you out and then see if you can comprehend the questions again. I want you to try really hard and give your best answer, okay?
At the peak of the Iraq surge, which you advocate for in a re-invasion, the US had 178,000 troops in Iraq in 2007. US troops in Afghanistan peaked in 2010 at 100,000. The CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, for those civilians too encumbered or ignorant to find out, estimates that the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will cost $2.3 Trillion dollars in 2017 when interest on the borrowed money to pay for them comes due. The US has been at war in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003, 14 and 12 years respectively. The US has lost 4,490 troops in Iraq and 2,357 in Afghanistan since the start of the conflicts.
Questions:
1. How much are you willing to spend in Canadian dollars to finance your re-invasion of Iraq, strikes against Iranian aligned militias in Yemen and Syria and for the naval blockade of Yemen?
2. How long will it take to accomplish the mission of stabilizing Iraq to where they can defend themselves from external and internal threats?
3. How many Canadian troops will it take to accomplish the mission in question #2?
4. Will Canadian ground forces be necessary to accomplish the mission you stated in Yemen and Syria? If so, how many would be required? What is the time frame for these missions to be considered a success?
5. As a Canadian citizen, do you believe Canada has a moral obligation to accept and re-settle refugees from the conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq? If so, how many should Canada accept? If not, what should be done about the growing humanitarian crisis?
6. You espouse support for the Iranian Green Revolution to undermine the current government. How many Canadian dollars are you willing to spend and what form would the support take?
7. How will the Canadian government pay for these military conflicts? Would you be in favor of raising taxes or cutting social programs, or a combination of the two?
8. Do you think Canada should implement a draft to raise the military necessary to be successful in the missions you promote? Would you support a military draft in Canada?
9. How many Canadian wounded and killed will you accept as a cost of winning the conflicts with the strategies you've described?
By my count, there are 15 questions as some of them have more than one. The number you eventually answer, if at all, depends on how you answer. Take your time, I'm patient but I'm not holding my breath.
Ah yes. another interesting debate on "liberal" vs "conservative". Of course we all know these never reach resolution. And besides, the labels change faces.
Remember, once upon a time conservative meant "to conserve" which meant your were a conservationist. How many conservatives today consider themselves conservationist?
The term "liberal" originally meant a worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Now the word liberty is used to mean conservative and liberals are viewed in a more broad sense to be either emo or hippy or green freaks or God knows what.
But what are we really after? To prove our label is better than others? Or to do what makes sense to make the world a better, more livable place.
The way I see it is that the environment is being trashed and if we don't fix what we humans do to stop our negative impact we will wipe ourselves and wipe many other species out. Wars rage on over religious differences and resources and if we don't find a better way to resolve things, we wipe ourselves out. Racism is still a problem among many whites but most of the world is non-white. Racism in inherently wrong but if for no other reason, if we don't stop being racist, whites will get themselves wiped out. Social and economic inequality always results in conflict which leads to large numbers of people getting wiped out.
So if all of that is true, in general and based on current concepts of the labels, liberals tend to want to do things that will help preserve our species and our planet and conservatives in general support things that are more likely to get us wiped out. But rather than labels, can we just do what makes sense? Get rid of the labels, and for the sake of saving ourselves and for the sake of letting other life on earth continue on, lets do what makes sense.
Overly simplified and generalized as that all might be, it's my take and I stand by it.
Nicely said Mr. Lux. I'll meet you in the Lounge Car to clink glasses to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah yes. another interesting debate on "liberal" vs "conservative". Of course we all know these never reach resolution. And besides, the labels change faces.
Remember, once upon a time conservative meant "to conserve" which meant your were a conservationist. How many conservatives today consider themselves conservationist?
The term "liberal" originally meant a worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Now the word liberty is used to mean conservative and liberals are viewed in a more broad sense to be either emo or hippy or green freaks or God knows what.
But what are we really after? To prove our label is better than others? Or to do what makes sense to make the world a better, more livable place.
The way I see it is that the environment is being trashed and if we don't fix what we humans do to stop our negative impact we will wipe ourselves and wipe many other species out. Wars rage on over religious differences and resources and if we don't find a better way to resolve things, we wipe ourselves out. Racism is still a problem among many whites but most of the world is non-white. Racism in inherently wrong but if for no other reason, if we don't stop being racist, whites will get themselves wiped out. Social and economic inequality always results in conflict which leads to large numbers of people getting wiped out.
So if all of that is true, in general and based on current concepts of the labels, liberals tend to want to do things that will help preserve our species and our planet and conservatives in general support things that are more likely to get us wiped out. But rather than labels, can we just do what makes sense? Get rid of the labels, and for the sake of saving ourselves and for the sake of letting other life on earth continue on, lets do what makes sense.
Overly simplified and generalized as that all might be, it's my take and I stand by it.
Nicely said Mr. Lux. I'll meet you in the Lounge Car to clink glasses to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cheers HalifaxMax.
And cheers everyone!
A guy in the post office saw me about to put mail in the slot ahead of him and I thought maybe he was in a hurry so I started to back off and he looked at me and said, "No, go ahead, you like to win." He must have mistaken me for another local hemorrhoid. I said, "Only if everybody wins."
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Everybody winning sort of lowers / erases standards, though.
I mean, the concept itself is great but not realistic, in general.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
Jesus H., H, it was just the first thing that came to my head that seemed like a nice way to defuse someone being pissed off in the post office. He was cool with it, we both won. I'm not so naive as to think everyone WILL win all the time. But making an effort to defuse is winning in-of-itself.
But look, you respond to most everything I say in a contrary manner lately. Not sure what's up with that but really, it would be much simpler just to ignore my lame ass posts. Win/win.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm advocating for victory which might require a re-invasion of Iraq to surge levels. The surge was a success, the coalition can do it again and restore the peace to 2009-10 levels.
I am not advocating for the invasion or even the bombing of Iran. I said this earlier but apparently all of your reading skills are below poor. With respect to Iran I would end current negotiations as the Iranians have refused to move close enough to our desired position on non-proliferation. I would tighten international sanctions on anyone who does business or banks with the regime. I would make any Iranian militia present in Iraq, Yemen and possibly Syria fair game for attack. I would institute a massive naval blockade on Iran in order to make sure they don't receive or deliver any military supplies. I would fund and support the internal green movement in any way possible. I would do this all vocally and unapologetically as we (the west) represent what is good and their regime does not. Anyone who tries to equate the evils of our societies is not just wrong but is also a fool. With this kind of pressure we will hopefully encourage the internal Iranian opposition to force out the Mullahs.
In exchange for our pressure on Iran the Sunni states will have to crush the radicals among them be it ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. and will have to be prepared to accept a future with a large moderate and strong Shia presence in the region.
As far as Palestine is concerned I would support the Palestinian Authority in everyway possible while aligning with Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordan etc in ending Hamas. Israel will be brought to the table and will be forced to make concessions following the defeat of Hamas. The PA wants a free Palestine and the end of Hamas. We will help them achieve both.
This is leadership. It will cost us plenty in both money and blood. The alternative is further regional collapse, genocide, terrorism and probably nuclear war. We are in for dark days no matter what. Shouldn't we at least try to control them?
What is the cost of this fantasy victory? In lives? In dollars? In failed relations around the world? Who else is ponying up? Canadian dollars I might add? In case you haven't noticed, the last ME debacle cost us a trillion plus and well the $17 trillion in debt has gotten the republicans gun shy about spending money or raising taxes. So, how much would you like to see Canada spend to prevent Iran from getting a bomb? Please spare me the Condi Rice mushroom cloud reference as well.
The costs in dollars and lives will be high. There is no denying this. I just happen to believe that inaction will cost us all more. Lives are being lost now.
As far as my statement on nuclear war it appears this needs to be better explained to you. Saudi Arabia is already exploring obtaining nuclear weapons, neighbouring states are exploring getting nuclear weapons. Yes other countries have them as well but we are moving to a point where more, for a lack of a better term, unstable states are going to pursue this technology. The Sunni-Shia divide is real and growing and extremist elements in the region are rising. We already see chemical weapons being used in Syria with blatant disregard. Over the long term nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable regimes is something everyone should be concerned about.
You still didn't answer the questions. What is high to you may be low to me and vice versa. Do you really think that a region so full of instability is going to have their shit together to attain nuclear weapons? And when will that be? Tomorrow? 6 months? A year maybe?
You seem to lack an understanding of the technical skill, resources and skill needed to acquire nuclear weapons. Unless you think NK is exporting suitcase bombs to the drug cartels who are leaving them with the headless bodies in the desert by ISIS training camps.
Drilling for fear keeps the job simple.
I wasn't born on third but I most definitely hit a triple.
Are you sure you haven't confused the triple with third grade? I'll help you out and then see if you can comprehend the questions again. I want you to try really hard and give your best answer, okay?
At the peak of the Iraq surge, which you advocate for in a re-invasion, the US had 178,000 troops in Iraq in 2007. US troops in Afghanistan peaked in 2010 at 100,000. The CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, for those civilians too encumbered or ignorant to find out, estimates that the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will cost $2.3 Trillion dollars in 2017 when interest on the borrowed money to pay for them comes due. The US has been at war in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003, 14 and 12 years respectively. The US has lost 4,490 troops in Iraq and 2,357 in Afghanistan since the start of the conflicts.
Questions:
1. How much are you willing to spend in Canadian dollars to finance your re-invasion of Iraq, strikes against Iranian aligned militias in Yemen and Syria and for the naval blockade of Yemen?
2. How long will it take to accomplish the mission of stabilizing Iraq to where they can defend themselves from external and internal threats?
3. How many Canadian troops will it take to accomplish the mission in question #2?
4. Will Canadian ground forces be necessary to accomplish the mission you stated in Yemen and Syria? If so, how many would be required? What is the time frame for these missions to be considered a success?
5. As a Canadian citizen, do you believe Canada has a moral obligation to accept and re-settle refugees from the conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq? If so, how many should Canada accept? If not, what should be done about the growing humanitarian crisis?
6. You espouse support for the Iranian Green Revolution to undermine the current government. How many Canadian dollars are you willing to spend and what form would the support take?
7. How will the Canadian government pay for these military conflicts? Would you be in favor of raising taxes or cutting social programs, or a combination of the two?
8. Do you think Canada should implement a draft to raise the military necessary to be successful in the missions you promote? Would you support a military draft in Canada?
9. How many Canadian wounded and killed will you accept as a cost of winning the conflicts with the strategies you've described?
By my count, there are 15 questions as some of them have more than one. The number you eventually answer, if at all, depends on how you answer. Take your time, I'm patient but I'm not holding my breath.
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
I think all off us are trying to teach one another... That's the beauty of different worldviews, there is something to talk about. But once again, I don't think one is better than the other, but one is more suitable for you than the other. Being convinced of your own one as the only right one, is the main problem in most conflicts.
Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
What is the cost of this fantasy victory? In lives? In dollars? In failed relations around the world? Who else is ponying up? Canadian dollars I might add? In case you haven't noticed, the last ME debacle cost us a trillion plus and well the $17 trillion in debt has gotten the republicans gun shy about spending money or raising taxes. So, how much would you like to see Canada spend to prevent Iran from getting a bomb? Please spare me the Condi Rice mushroom cloud reference as well.
The costs in dollars and lives will be high. There is no denying this. I just happen to believe that inaction will cost us all more. Lives are being lost now.
As far as my statement on nuclear war it appears this needs to be better explained to you. Saudi Arabia is already exploring obtaining nuclear weapons, neighbouring states are exploring getting nuclear weapons. Yes other countries have them as well but we are moving to a point where more, for a lack of a better term, unstable states are going to pursue this technology. The Sunni-Shia divide is real and growing and extremist elements in the region are rising. We already see chemical weapons being used in Syria with blatant disregard. Over the long term nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable regimes is something everyone should be concerned about.
You still didn't answer the questions. What is high to you may be low to me and vice versa. Do you really think that a region so full of instability is going to have their shit together to attain nuclear weapons? And when will that be? Tomorrow? 6 months? A year maybe?
You seem to lack an understanding of the technical skill, resources and skill needed to acquire nuclear weapons. Unless you think NK is exporting suitcase bombs to the drug cartels who are leaving them with the headless bodies in the desert by ISIS training camps.
Drilling for fear keeps the job simple.
I wasn't born on third but I most definitely hit a triple.
Are you sure you haven't confused the triple with third grade? I'll help you out and then see if you can comprehend the questions again. I want you to try really hard and give your best answer, okay?
At the peak of the Iraq surge, which you advocate for in a re-invasion, the US had 178,000 troops in Iraq in 2007. US troops in Afghanistan peaked in 2010 at 100,000. The CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, for those civilians too encumbered or ignorant to find out, estimates that the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will cost $2.3 Trillion dollars in 2017 when interest on the borrowed money to pay for them comes due. The US has been at war in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003, 14 and 12 years respectively. The US has lost 4,490 troops in Iraq and 2,357 in Afghanistan since the start of the conflicts.
Questions:
1. How much are you willing to spend in Canadian dollars to finance your re-invasion of Iraq, strikes against Iranian aligned militias in Yemen and Syria and for the naval blockade of Yemen?
2. How long will it take to accomplish the mission of stabilizing Iraq to where they can defend themselves from external and internal threats?
3. How many Canadian troops will it take to accomplish the mission in question #2?
4. Will Canadian ground forces be necessary to accomplish the mission you stated in Yemen and Syria? If so, how many would be required? What is the time frame for these missions to be considered a success?
5. As a Canadian citizen, do you believe Canada has a moral obligation to accept and re-settle refugees from the conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq? If so, how many should Canada accept? If not, what should be done about the growing humanitarian crisis?
6. You espouse support for the Iranian Green Revolution to undermine the current government. How many Canadian dollars are you willing to spend and what form would the support take?
7. How will the Canadian government pay for these military conflicts? Would you be in favor of raising taxes or cutting social programs, or a combination of the two?
8. Do you think Canada should implement a draft to raise the military necessary to be successful in the missions you promote? Would you support a military draft in Canada?
9. How many Canadian wounded and killed will you accept as a cost of winning the conflicts with the strategies you've described?
By my count, there are 15 questions as some of them have more than one. The number you eventually answer, if at all, depends on how you answer. Take your time, I'm patient but I'm not holding my breath.
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
I think its time for both of us that we agree to have a disagreement. We do have a different opinion on this subject. You try to teach me yours, I try to teach you mine. You can't convince me with your argumentation so far, to reconsider and neither will you, reconsider mine... So be it....
Jesus H., H, it was just the first thing that came to my head that seemed like a nice way to defuse someone being pissed off in the post office. He was cool with it, we both won. I'm not so naive as to think everyone WILL win all the time. But making an effort to defuse is winning in-of-itself.
But look, you respond to most everything I say in a contrary manner lately. Not sure what's up with that but really, it would be much simpler just to ignore my lame ass posts. Win/win.
Yikes - on re-reading it just now, I don't see how it was contrarian...more of commentary. Genuinely not meant to offend or bristle you, Brian.
I'm advocating for victory which might require a re-invasion of Iraq to surge levels. The surge was a success, the coalition can do it again and restore the peace to 2009-10 levels.
I am not advocating for the invasion or even the bombing of Iran. I said this earlier but apparently all of your reading skills are below poor. With respect to Iran I would end current negotiations as the Iranians have refused to move close enough to our desired position on non-proliferation. I would tighten international sanctions on anyone who does business or banks with the regime. I would make any Iranian militia present in Iraq, Yemen and possibly Syria fair game for attack. I would institute a massive naval blockade on Iran in order to make sure they don't receive or deliver any military supplies. I would fund and support the internal green movement in any way possible. I would do this all vocally and unapologetically as we (the west) represent what is good and their regime does not. Anyone who tries to equate the evils of our societies is not just wrong but is also a fool. With this kind of pressure we will hopefully encourage the internal Iranian opposition to force out the Mullahs.
In exchange for our pressure on Iran the Sunni states will have to crush the radicals among them be it ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. and will have to be prepared to accept a future with a large moderate and strong Shia presence in the region.
As far as Palestine is concerned I would support the Palestinian Authority in everyway possible while aligning with Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordan etc in ending Hamas. Israel will be brought to the table and will be forced to make concessions following the defeat of Hamas. The PA wants a free Palestine and the end of Hamas. We will help them achieve both.
This is leadership. It will cost us plenty in both money and blood. The alternative is further regional collapse, genocide, terrorism and probably nuclear war. We are in for dark days no matter what. Shouldn't we at least try to control them?
What is the cost of this fantasy victory? In lives? In dollars? In failed relations around the world? Who else is ponying up? Canadian dollars I might add? In case you haven't noticed, the last ME debacle cost us a trillion plus and well the $17 trillion in debt has gotten the republicans gun shy about spending money or raising taxes. So, how much would you like to see Canada spend to prevent Iran from getting a bomb? Please spare me the Condi Rice mushroom cloud reference as well.
The costs in dollars and lives will be high. There is no denying this. I just happen to believe that inaction will cost us all more. Lives are being lost now.
As far as my statement on nuclear war it appears this needs to be better explained to you. Saudi Arabia is already exploring obtaining nuclear weapons, neighbouring states are exploring getting nuclear weapons. Yes other countries have them as well but we are moving to a point where more, for a lack of a better term, unstable states are going to pursue this technology. The Sunni-Shia divide is real and growing and extremist elements in the region are rising. We already see chemical weapons being used in Syria with blatant disregard. Over the long term nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable regimes is something everyone should be concerned about.
You still didn't answer the questions. What is high to you may be low to me and vice versa. Do you really think that a region so full of instability is going to have their shit together to attain nuclear weapons? And when will that be? Tomorrow? 6 months? A year maybe?
You seem to lack an understanding of the technical skill, resources and skill needed to acquire nuclear weapons. Unless you think NK is exporting suitcase bombs to the drug cartels who are leaving them with the headless bodies in the desert by ISIS training camps.
Drilling for fear keeps the job simple.
I wasn't born on third but I most definitely hit a triple.
Are you sure you haven't confused the triple with third grade? I'll help you out and then see if you can comprehend the questions again. I want you to try really hard and give your best answer, okay?
At the peak of the Iraq surge, which you advocate for in a re-invasion, the US had 178,000 troops in Iraq in 2007. US troops in Afghanistan peaked in 2010 at 100,000. The CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, for those civilians too encumbered or ignorant to find out, estimates that the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will cost $2.3 Trillion dollars in 2017 when interest on the borrowed money to pay for them comes due. The US has been at war in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003, 14 and 12 years respectively. The US has lost 4,490 troops in Iraq and 2,357 in Afghanistan since the start of the conflicts.
Questions:
1. How much are you willing to spend in Canadian dollars to finance your re-invasion of Iraq, strikes against Iranian aligned militias in Yemen and Syria and for the naval blockade of Yemen?
2. How long will it take to accomplish the mission of stabilizing Iraq to where they can defend themselves from external and internal threats?
3. How many Canadian troops will it take to accomplish the mission in question #2?
4. Will Canadian ground forces be necessary to accomplish the mission you stated in Yemen and Syria? If so, how many would be required? What is the time frame for these missions to be considered a success?
5. As a Canadian citizen, do you believe Canada has a moral obligation to accept and re-settle refugees from the conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq? If so, how many should Canada accept? If not, what should be done about the growing humanitarian crisis?
6. You espouse support for the Iranian Green Revolution to undermine the current government. How many Canadian dollars are you willing to spend and what form would the support take?
7. How will the Canadian government pay for these military conflicts? Would you be in favor of raising taxes or cutting social programs, or a combination of the two?
8. Do you think Canada should implement a draft to raise the military necessary to be successful in the missions you promote? Would you support a military draft in Canada?
9. How many Canadian wounded and killed will you accept as a cost of winning the conflicts with the strategies you've described?
By my count, there are 15 questions as some of them have more than one. The number you eventually answer, if at all, depends on how you answer. Take your time, I'm patient but I'm not holding my breath.
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
wow, looks like the professors eating bath salts again.
I am not advocating for the invasion or even the bombing of Iran. I said this earlier but apparently all of your reading skills are below poor. With respect to Iran I would end current negotiations as the Iranians have refused to move close enough to our desired position on non-proliferation. I would tighten international sanctions on anyone who does business or banks with the regime. I would make any Iranian militia present in Iraq, Yemen and possibly Syria fair game for attack. I would institute a massive naval blockade on Iran in order to make sure they don't receive or deliver any military supplies. I would fund and support the internal green movement in any way possible. I would do this all vocally and unapologetically as we (the west) represent what is good and their regime does not. Anyone who tries to equate the evils of our societies is not just wrong but is also a fool. With this kind of pressure we will hopefully encourage the internal Iranian opposition to force out the Mullahs.
In exchange for our pressure on Iran the Sunni states will have to crush the radicals among them be it ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. and will have to be prepared to accept a future with a large moderate and strong Shia presence in the region.
As far as Palestine is concerned I would support the Palestinian Authority in everyway possible while aligning with Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordan etc in ending Hamas. Israel will be brought to the table and will be forced to make concessions following the defeat of Hamas. The PA wants a free Palestine and the end of Hamas. We will help them achieve both.
This is leadership. It will cost us plenty in both money and blood. The alternative is further regional collapse, genocide, terrorism and probably nuclear war. We are in for dark days no matter what. Shouldn't we at least try to control them?
What is the cost of this fantasy victory? In lives? In dollars? In failed relations around the world? Who else is ponying up? Canadian dollars I might add? In case you haven't noticed, the last ME debacle cost us a trillion plus and well the $17 trillion in debt has gotten the republicans gun shy about spending money or raising taxes. So, how much would you like to see Canada spend to prevent Iran from getting a bomb? Please spare me the Condi Rice mushroom cloud reference as well.
The costs in dollars and lives will be high. There is no denying this. I just happen to believe that inaction will cost us all more. Lives are being lost now.
As far as my statement on nuclear war it appears this needs to be better explained to you. Saudi Arabia is already exploring obtaining nuclear weapons, neighbouring states are exploring getting nuclear weapons. Yes other countries have them as well but we are moving to a point where more, for a lack of a better term, unstable states are going to pursue this technology. The Sunni-Shia divide is real and growing and extremist elements in the region are rising. We already see chemical weapons being used in Syria with blatant disregard. Over the long term nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable regimes is something everyone should be concerned about.
You still didn't answer the questions. What is high to you may be low to me and vice versa. Do you really think that a region so full of instability is going to have their shit together to attain nuclear weapons? And when will that be? Tomorrow? 6 months? A year maybe?
You seem to lack an understanding of the technical skill, resources and skill needed to acquire nuclear weapons. Unless you think NK is exporting suitcase bombs to the drug cartels who are leaving them with the headless bodies in the desert by ISIS training camps.
Drilling for fear keeps the job simple.
I wasn't born on third but I most definitely hit a triple.
Are you sure you haven't confused the triple with third grade? I'll help you out and then see if you can comprehend the questions again. I want you to try really hard and give your best answer, okay?
At the peak of the Iraq surge, which you advocate for in a re-invasion, the US had 178,000 troops in Iraq in 2007. US troops in Afghanistan peaked in 2010 at 100,000. The CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, for those civilians too encumbered or ignorant to find out, estimates that the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will cost $2.3 Trillion dollars in 2017 when interest on the borrowed money to pay for them comes due. The US has been at war in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003, 14 and 12 years respectively. The US has lost 4,490 troops in Iraq and 2,357 in Afghanistan since the start of the conflicts.
Questions:
1. How much are you willing to spend in Canadian dollars to finance your re-invasion of Iraq, strikes against Iranian aligned militias in Yemen and Syria and for the naval blockade of Yemen?
2. How long will it take to accomplish the mission of stabilizing Iraq to where they can defend themselves from external and internal threats?
3. How many Canadian troops will it take to accomplish the mission in question #2?
4. Will Canadian ground forces be necessary to accomplish the mission you stated in Yemen and Syria? If so, how many would be required? What is the time frame for these missions to be considered a success?
5. As a Canadian citizen, do you believe Canada has a moral obligation to accept and re-settle refugees from the conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq? If so, how many should Canada accept? If not, what should be done about the growing humanitarian crisis?
6. You espouse support for the Iranian Green Revolution to undermine the current government. How many Canadian dollars are you willing to spend and what form would the support take?
7. How will the Canadian government pay for these military conflicts? Would you be in favor of raising taxes or cutting social programs, or a combination of the two?
8. Do you think Canada should implement a draft to raise the military necessary to be successful in the missions you promote? Would you support a military draft in Canada?
9. How many Canadian wounded and killed will you accept as a cost of winning the conflicts with the strategies you've described?
By my count, there are 15 questions as some of them have more than one. The number you eventually answer, if at all, depends on how you answer. Take your time, I'm patient but I'm not holding my breath.
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
See that's the thing. These are the questions that we all answer among others that makes policing Middle East unfathomable. It's so easy to sit in safety of your home and play armchair quarterback allowing your instinctual fears to guide your positions.
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
Sorry, Professor Chickenhawk but I graduated from the third grade. And here I thought you might be interested in an honest debate. A typical Neocon response, intellectually lazy, avoiding direct questions and belittling those with whom you disagree. Any one of the 19 republican candidates, although you might fit in best with Chris Christie's team, has a job for you as press officer, handling Middle Eastern affairs.
Let me know in a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year, two years, five years or ten years how effective that blockade was and after the Houthis have been vanquished. Good luck with that. How many ships did Canada send? Sorry, I forgot, you don't answer simple, direct questions.
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
Sorry, Professor Chickenhawk but I graduated from the third grade. And here I thought you might be interested in an honest debate. A typical Neocon response, intellectually lazy, avoiding direct questions and belittling those with whom you disagree. Any one of the 19 republican candidates, although you might fit in best with Chris Christie's team, has a job for you as press officer, handling Middle Eastern affairs.
Let me know in a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year, two years, five years or ten years how effective that blockade was and after the Houthis have been vanquished. Good luck with that. How many ships did Canada send? Sorry, I forgot, you don't answer simple, direct questions.
Even with my "limited reading comprehension" I understood this.
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
funny guy. And a total dodge. Those are some pretty stand-up nations the US has aligned with, no? Saving Yemen from the Iranian scourge....by aligning with the house of saud and other brutal gulf monarchies? The US makes the biggest arms deal in history with what everyone considers one of (if not the) worst offenders of human rights in the world, then use them as figureheads of foreign policy in the region. "Leading from behind" as Obama put it in Libya. Does it never strike you as odd that we somehow have managed to become increasingly aligned with Sunni extremists in the middle east? You were complaining that they'd taken over cities and ports in Yemen...what cleared the way for this? Air strikes by our allies, coordinated by the US. FUnny how there seem to be increasingly frequent instances of either 'accidents', or 'unintended consequences' that benefit these groups, all over the middle east. We all know AQ is funded by the house of Saud (the country leading the charge against the Houthis)...and we all know we oversee every move the Saudis make....so really....YOU are aligning yourself with Sunni extremists as a means to isolate Iran. We are putting them on an island - that is not of their own doing. And when the people helping us put them there decide to bite the hand that feeds, I hope it shocks you out of this dream world you live in, where people and ideas can be controlled by violence. You say that there is little opposition to military action in the middle east here in Canada...you seem proud that our wannabe dictator has managed to use the neocon playbook to stir support for war. I don't know what's worse - people who espouse an ignorant stance on foreign policy, learning only from corporate news media in 30 second stories and ten paragraph articles....Or people like you, who spend time looking for more in-depth government/corporate talking points, as a means of dealing with their severe cognitive dissonance....ignoring history, and offering the blood of others to finance the maintenance of western lifestyle..... Because that is what this is really all about. I don't give a flying fuck what you claim as justification for war - the humanitarian approach is bullshit when we're aligned with SA and doing nothing about human rights abuses in powerless or non-strategic nations. The security approach is bullshit when you look at how our support for the mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Syrian/Iraq rebels (al nusra and isis) has turned out (esp in relation to the humanitarian angle!). And the fact that anyone truly interested in national security would be an isolationist - fortify the borders, stop immigration, and get the fuck out of the middle east altogether. But again...that would hurt your pocketbook, right? We need to maintain our dominance in the region in order to keep our capitalist machine rolling. The MIC, the banks, the oil companies, they all need to continue to grow or our economy tanks.....our economy tanks hard enough and these countries will be able to self-govern and gain power...or other nations can step in and take our position of power. The ultimate in wealth re-distribution. Neither scenario is acceptable to the capitalist megalomaniacs. That's the big picture here. You can muddy the waters with your reactionary ideals and political doublespeak, but in reality, it all boils down to support of murder for monetary gain.
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
funny guy. And a total dodge. Those are some pretty stand-up nations the US has aligned with, no? Saving Yemen from the Iranian scourge....by aligning with the house of saud and other brutal gulf monarchies? The US makes the biggest arms deal in history with what everyone considers one of (if not the) worst offenders of human rights in the world, then use them as figureheads of foreign policy in the region. "Leading from behind" as Obama put it in Libya. Does it never strike you as odd that we somehow have managed to become increasingly aligned with Sunni extremists in the middle east? You were complaining that they'd taken over cities and ports in Yemen...what cleared the way for this? Air strikes by our allies, coordinated by the US. FUnny how there seem to be increasingly frequent instances of either 'accidents', or 'unintended consequences' that benefit these groups, all over the middle east. We all know AQ is funded by the house of Saud (the country leading the charge against the Houthis)...and we all know we oversee every move the Saudis make....so really....YOU are aligning yourself with Sunni extremists as a means to isolate Iran. We are putting them on an island - that is not of their own doing. And when the people helping us put them there decide to bite the hand that feeds, I hope it shocks you out of this dream world you live in, where people and ideas can be controlled by violence. You say that there is little opposition to military action in the middle east here in Canada...you seem proud that our wannabe dictator has managed to use the neocon playbook to stir support for war. I don't know what's worse - people who espouse an ignorant stance on foreign policy, learning only from corporate news media in 30 second stories and ten paragraph articles....Or people like you, who spend time looking for more in-depth government/corporate talking points, as a means of dealing with their severe cognitive dissonance....ignoring history, and offering the blood of others to finance the maintenance of western lifestyle..... Because that is what this is really all about. I don't give a flying fuck what you claim as justification for war - the humanitarian approach is bullshit when we're aligned with SA and doing nothing about human rights abuses in powerless or non-strategic nations. The security approach is bullshit when you look at how our support for the mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Syrian/Iraq rebels (al nusra and isis) has turned out (esp in relation to the humanitarian angle!). And the fact that anyone truly interested in national security would be an isolationist - fortify the borders, stop immigration, and get the fuck out of the middle east altogether. But again...that would hurt your pocketbook, right? We need to maintain our dominance in the region in order to keep our capitalist machine rolling. The MIC, the banks, the oil companies, they all need to continue to grow or our economy tanks.....our economy tanks hard enough and these countries will be able to self-govern and gain power...or other nations can step in and take our position of power. The ultimate in wealth re-distribution. Neither scenario is acceptable to the capitalist megalomaniacs. That's the big picture here. You can muddy the waters with your reactionary ideals and political doublespeak, but in reality, it all boils down to support of murder for monetary gain.
Yep, I think we all have to try to convince him from our point off view...But he has a different one, and isn't willing to reconsider... I like your arguments, bye the way...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
funny guy. And a total dodge. Those are some pretty stand-up nations the US has aligned with, no? Saving Yemen from the Iranian scourge....by aligning with the house of saud and other brutal gulf monarchies? The US makes the biggest arms deal in history with what everyone considers one of (if not the) worst offenders of human rights in the world, then use them as figureheads of foreign policy in the region. "Leading from behind" as Obama put it in Libya. Does it never strike you as odd that we somehow have managed to become increasingly aligned with Sunni extremists in the middle east? You were complaining that they'd taken over cities and ports in Yemen...what cleared the way for this? Air strikes by our allies, coordinated by the US. FUnny how there seem to be increasingly frequent instances of either 'accidents', or 'unintended consequences' that benefit these groups, all over the middle east. We all know AQ is funded by the house of Saud (the country leading the charge against the Houthis)...and we all know we oversee every move the Saudis make....so really....YOU are aligning yourself with Sunni extremists as a means to isolate Iran. We are putting them on an island - that is not of their own doing. And when the people helping us put them there decide to bite the hand that feeds, I hope it shocks you out of this dream world you live in, where people and ideas can be controlled by violence. You say that there is little opposition to military action in the middle east here in Canada...you seem proud that our wannabe dictator has managed to use the neocon playbook to stir support for war. I don't know what's worse - people who espouse an ignorant stance on foreign policy, learning only from corporate news media in 30 second stories and ten paragraph articles....Or people like you, who spend time looking for more in-depth government/corporate talking points, as a means of dealing with their severe cognitive dissonance....ignoring history, and offering the blood of others to finance the maintenance of western lifestyle..... Because that is what this is really all about. I don't give a flying fuck what you claim as justification for war - the humanitarian approach is bullshit when we're aligned with SA and doing nothing about human rights abuses in powerless or non-strategic nations. The security approach is bullshit when you look at how our support for the mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Syrian/Iraq rebels (al nusra and isis) has turned out (esp in relation to the humanitarian angle!). And the fact that anyone truly interested in national security would be an isolationist - fortify the borders, stop immigration, and get the fuck out of the middle east altogether. But again...that would hurt your pocketbook, right? We need to maintain our dominance in the region in order to keep our capitalist machine rolling. The MIC, the banks, the oil companies, they all need to continue to grow or our economy tanks.....our economy tanks hard enough and these countries will be able to self-govern and gain power...or other nations can step in and take our position of power. The ultimate in wealth re-distribution. Neither scenario is acceptable to the capitalist megalomaniacs. That's the big picture here. You can muddy the waters with your reactionary ideals and political doublespeak, but in reality, it all boils down to support of murder for monetary gain.
Again, "limited reading comprehension" and I fully understood this. Damn, I'm on a roll.
you crack me up, bb. And thanks Aafke. I know it's like talking to a brick wall, but I don't pretend I'm any more open to his ideals, either.
Well, me neither, but all off us can try to convince one another...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
I am happy to be your collective foil for all that is wrong in the world. Today we find out that Iran's nuclear breakout time is shorter then Obama let on.
I am happy to be your collective foil for all that is wrong in the world. Today we find out that Iran's nuclear breakout time is shorter then Obama let on.
I'm getting a little tiered of repeating myself, but i'll give it another try... Isn't the shorter nuclear breakout time, proof enough, that sanctions don't do the job, not even a little bit. Isn't this one more reason, why it is so essential to open the dialogue? A method with Iran which has been out of order for a very long time, since let's say 1979? If they will get a bomb so quickly, isn't it better to be on speaking terms with them, then isolate them? Isolation might only fuel up the hatred...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
all good, I take it as a compliment that you've got nothing to say to me. Besides, checking the local media the last few days, Connor McDavid is going to save the world next year. I'll keep thinking big picture, you keep heading down the same old path. We both think the other is howling at the moon. We won't convince each other of shit....but...in my experience, the disenfranchised, apathetic, and ignorant are more easily swayed to peace and diplomacy than to war. I counter your bullshit for that reason, and because it's therapeutic to me. Without you here, my masturbatory idealist rants wouldn't be possible. Thanks BS, you're a champ.
I am happy to be your collective foil for all that is wrong in the world. Today we find out that Iran's nuclear breakout time is shorter then Obama let on.
I'm getting a little tiered of repeating myself, but i'll give it another try... Isn't the shorter nuclear breakout time, proof enough, that sanctions don't do the job, not even a little bit. Isn't this one more reason, why it is so essential to open the dialogue? A method with Iran which has been out of order for a very long time, since let's say 1979? If they will get a bomb so quickly, isn't it better to be on speaking terms with them, then isolate them? Isolation might only fuel up the hatred...
As I said, I am for dialogue but as it stands Iran is rejecting all inspections of their facilities and they also want sanctions ended immediately. I don't see how we continue dialogue under this scenario when they essentially won't change their behaviour in any way. I also agree with you that sanctions have not stopped them, although they did definitely bring them to the bargaining table. This doesn't mean though that sanctions should be lifted...if anything they should be made tougher if such a thing is even possible? The goal should be to convince Iran that producing a bomb or conducting a nuclear test would be a grave mistake.
all good, I take it as a compliment that you've got nothing to say to me. Besides, checking the local media the last few days, Connor McDavid is going to save the world next year. I'll keep thinking big picture, you keep heading down the same old path. We both think the other is howling at the moon. We won't convince each other of shit....but...in my experience, the disenfranchised, apathetic, and ignorant are more easily swayed to peace and diplomacy than to war. I counter your bullshit for that reason, and because it's therapeutic to me. Without you here, my masturbatory idealist rants wouldn't be possible. Thanks BS, you're a champ.
Love ya brother...serious...no sarcasm. I can handle all the criticism. The only thing I ever ask people to consider is that a normal, flesh and blood person, with absolutely no ulterior motive can hold my views.
all good, I take it as a compliment that you've got nothing to say to me. Besides, checking the local media the last few days, Connor McDavid is going to save the world next year. I'll keep thinking big picture, you keep heading down the same old path. We both think the other is howling at the moon. We won't convince each other of shit....but...in my experience, the disenfranchised, apathetic, and ignorant are more easily swayed to peace and diplomacy than to war. I counter your bullshit for that reason, and because it's therapeutic to me. Without you here, my masturbatory idealist rants wouldn't be possible. Thanks BS, you're a champ.
Love ya brother...serious...no sarcasm. I can handle all the criticism. The only thing I ever ask people to consider is that a normal, flesh and blood person, with absolutely no ulterior motive can hold my views.
all good, I take it as a compliment that you've got nothing to say to me. Besides, checking the local media the last few days, Connor McDavid is going to save the world next year. I'll keep thinking big picture, you keep heading down the same old path. We both think the other is howling at the moon. We won't convince each other of shit....but...in my experience, the disenfranchised, apathetic, and ignorant are more easily swayed to peace and diplomacy than to war. I counter your bullshit for that reason, and because it's therapeutic to me. Without you here, my masturbatory idealist rants wouldn't be possible. Thanks BS, you're a champ.
Love ya brother...serious...no sarcasm. I can handle all the criticism. The only thing I ever ask people to consider is that a normal, flesh and blood person, with absolutely no ulterior motive can hold my views.
Looks like the professor is waving the white flag.
all good, I take it as a compliment that you've got nothing to say to me. Besides, checking the local media the last few days, Connor McDavid is going to save the world next year. I'll keep thinking big picture, you keep heading down the same old path. We both think the other is howling at the moon. We won't convince each other of shit....but...in my experience, the disenfranchised, apathetic, and ignorant are more easily swayed to peace and diplomacy than to war. I counter your bullshit for that reason, and because it's therapeutic to me. Without you here, my masturbatory idealist rants wouldn't be possible. Thanks BS, you're a champ.
Love ya brother...serious...no sarcasm. I can handle all the criticism. The only thing I ever ask people to consider is that a normal, flesh and blood person, with absolutely no ulterior motive can hold my views.
I've never thought you have ulterior motive but those that successfully feed your brain do.
all good, I take it as a compliment that you've got nothing to say to me. Besides, checking the local media the last few days, Connor McDavid is going to save the world next year. I'll keep thinking big picture, you keep heading down the same old path. We both think the other is howling at the moon. We won't convince each other of shit....but...in my experience, the disenfranchised, apathetic, and ignorant are more easily swayed to peace and diplomacy than to war. I counter your bullshit for that reason, and because it's therapeutic to me. Without you here, my masturbatory idealist rants wouldn't be possible. Thanks BS, you're a champ.
Love ya brother...serious...no sarcasm. I can handle all the criticism. The only thing I ever ask people to consider is that a normal, flesh and blood person, with absolutely no ulterior motive can hold my views.
I've never thought you have ulterior motive but those that successfully feed your brain do.
This is exactly what I am talking about. A rational person can't believe what I believe unless my brain is being fed. I couldn't possibly have come to these conclusions on my own.
Comments
Edit-see you made that ass comment about me wanting pearl jam club members to wear yellow stars on the shoulders who support Israel. I let that slide and you still couldn't help yourself by making that lame ass surrender comment. Now, you're fair game, and I'll have no problem showing you how fair game you are.
At the peak of the Iraq surge, which you advocate for in a re-invasion, the US had 178,000 troops in Iraq in 2007. US troops in Afghanistan peaked in 2010 at 100,000. The CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, for those civilians too encumbered or ignorant to find out, estimates that the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will cost $2.3 Trillion dollars in 2017 when interest on the borrowed money to pay for them comes due. The US has been at war in Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003, 14 and 12 years respectively. The US has lost 4,490 troops in Iraq and 2,357 in Afghanistan since the start of the conflicts.
Questions:
1. How much are you willing to spend in Canadian dollars to finance your re-invasion of Iraq, strikes against Iranian aligned militias in Yemen and Syria and for the naval blockade of Yemen?
2. How long will it take to accomplish the mission of stabilizing Iraq to where they can defend themselves from external and internal threats?
3. How many Canadian troops will it take to accomplish the mission in question #2?
4. Will Canadian ground forces be necessary to accomplish the mission you stated in Yemen and Syria? If so, how many would be required? What is the time frame for these missions to be considered a success?
5. As a Canadian citizen, do you believe Canada has a moral obligation to accept and re-settle refugees from the conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Iraq? If so, how many should Canada accept? If not, what should be done about the growing humanitarian crisis?
6. You espouse support for the Iranian Green Revolution to undermine the current government. How many Canadian dollars are you willing to spend and what form would the support take?
7. How will the Canadian government pay for these military conflicts? Would you be in favor of raising taxes or cutting social programs, or a combination of the two?
8. Do you think Canada should implement a draft to raise the military necessary to be successful in the missions you promote? Would you support a military draft in Canada?
9. How many Canadian wounded and killed will you accept as a cost of winning the conflicts with the strategies you've described?
By my count, there are 15 questions as some of them have more than one. The number you eventually answer, if at all, depends on how you answer. Take your time, I'm patient but I'm not holding my breath.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And cheers everyone!
A guy in the post office saw me about to put mail in the slot ahead of him and I thought maybe he was in a hurry so I started to back off and he looked at me and said, "No, go ahead, you like to win." He must have mistaken me for another local hemorrhoid. I said, "Only if everybody wins."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I mean, the concept itself is great but not realistic, in general.
But look, you respond to most everything I say in a contrary manner lately. Not sure what's up with that but really, it would be much simpler just to ignore my lame ass posts. Win/win.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Bushleaguer questions, all so obviously answerable, with a distorted premise from the begininning. I understand the costs of war and you think I don't...this is not an argument that can be won. I am sorry but you are not the professor on this thread and I am not required to complete your assignment.
Also...A little while back you tried to educated me on Iran "not being an Island" and here we are this morning with Saudi, Egypt, UAE, and the US instituting a naval blockade so that Iran doesn't re-supply Yemen. I guess a blockade isn't so far fetched after all?
It is time for you to recognize that you are the student and I am the teacher.
Sorry, Professor Chickenhawk but I graduated from the third grade. And here I thought you might be interested in an honest debate. A typical Neocon response, intellectually lazy, avoiding direct questions and belittling those with whom you disagree. Any one of the 19 republican candidates, although you might fit in best with Chris Christie's team, has a job for you as press officer, handling Middle Eastern affairs.
Let me know in a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year, two years, five years or ten years how effective that blockade was and after the Houthis have been vanquished. Good luck with that. How many ships did Canada send? Sorry, I forgot, you don't answer simple, direct questions.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Let me know in a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year, two years, five years or ten years how effective that blockade was and after the Houthis have been vanquished. Good luck with that. How many ships did Canada send? Sorry, I forgot, you don't answer simple, direct questions.
Even with my "limited reading comprehension" I understood this.
Those are some pretty stand-up nations the US has aligned with, no? Saving Yemen from the Iranian scourge....by aligning with the house of saud and other brutal gulf monarchies?
The US makes the biggest arms deal in history with what everyone considers one of (if not the) worst offenders of human rights in the world, then use them as figureheads of foreign policy in the region. "Leading from behind" as Obama put it in Libya.
Does it never strike you as odd that we somehow have managed to become increasingly aligned with Sunni extremists in the middle east? You were complaining that they'd taken over cities and ports in Yemen...what cleared the way for this? Air strikes by our allies, coordinated by the US. FUnny how there seem to be increasingly frequent instances of either 'accidents', or 'unintended consequences' that benefit these groups, all over the middle east. We all know AQ is funded by the house of Saud (the country leading the charge against the Houthis)...and we all know we oversee every move the Saudis make....so really....YOU are aligning yourself with Sunni extremists as a means to isolate Iran. We are putting them on an island - that is not of their own doing. And when the people helping us put them there decide to bite the hand that feeds, I hope it shocks you out of this dream world you live in, where people and ideas can be controlled by violence.
You say that there is little opposition to military action in the middle east here in Canada...you seem proud that our wannabe dictator has managed to use the neocon playbook to stir support for war. I don't know what's worse - people who espouse an ignorant stance on foreign policy, learning only from corporate news media in 30 second stories and ten paragraph articles....Or people like you, who spend time looking for more in-depth government/corporate talking points, as a means of dealing with their severe cognitive dissonance....ignoring history, and offering the blood of others to finance the maintenance of western lifestyle..... Because that is what this is really all about. I don't give a flying fuck what you claim as justification for war - the humanitarian approach is bullshit when we're aligned with SA and doing nothing about human rights abuses in powerless or non-strategic nations. The security approach is bullshit when you look at how our support for the mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Syrian/Iraq rebels (al nusra and isis) has turned out (esp in relation to the humanitarian angle!). And the fact that anyone truly interested in national security would be an isolationist - fortify the borders, stop immigration, and get the fuck out of the middle east altogether. But again...that would hurt your pocketbook, right?
We need to maintain our dominance in the region in order to keep our capitalist machine rolling. The MIC, the banks, the oil companies, they all need to continue to grow or our economy tanks.....our economy tanks hard enough and these countries will be able to self-govern and gain power...or other nations can step in and take our position of power. The ultimate in wealth re-distribution. Neither scenario is acceptable to the capitalist megalomaniacs. That's the big picture here. You can muddy the waters with your reactionary ideals and political doublespeak, but in reality, it all boils down to support of murder for monetary gain.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
And thanks Aafke. I know it's like talking to a brick wall, but I don't pretend I'm any more open to his ideals, either.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-21/obama-kept-iran-s-short-breakout-time-a-secret
The point of no return is coming.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
I'll keep thinking big picture, you keep heading down the same old path. We both think the other is howling at the moon. We won't convince each other of shit....but...in my experience, the disenfranchised, apathetic, and ignorant are more easily swayed to peace and diplomacy than to war. I counter your bullshit for that reason, and because it's therapeutic to me. Without you here, my masturbatory idealist rants wouldn't be possible. Thanks BS, you're a champ.