Political Crossfire Forums

[URallIgnorant]

Chronic Thinker wrote: URallIgnorant wrote: Tough talk... unfortunately the US can do little more than take on little nations right now
Dude, get over yourself. Seriously. No one was seriously talking about invading Canada. We were exploring a hypothetical scenario. Rather than even try make a legitimate contribution to the discussion, you spit out some childish, playground trashtalk. :roll:

URallIgnorant wrote: and it isn't doing a very good job at that.
Read my post on the last page and come back when you know what you're talking about. :wink:

Sorry but the myth of American might just doesn't stand up to the tasks....not neccessarily through the manpower or the technology aspect, there is no doubt that it is the best in the world right now. But winning wars aren't done solely on that. They had the advantage in Vietnam too...won practiacally every battle...and still lost.

Why do you think that is?

You should rad up on things before you come here trying to be Mr. know-it-all (don't make me bring up Iran!)

[Boondoggle]

Well it's not that Bush would be arrested, but that there is a double standard, which is what the article points out. In order to have stability in the world, the rules should apply to all. People won't accept hypocrisy. That is why turning a blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons while going after other countries in the region over alleged WMD is bad policy.

Here's a clear example:

"The massive files on Saddam's crimes show he was already using poison gas in the early '80s when Reagan twice sent Donald Rumsfeld as special envoy to reassure Saddam of America's interest in better relations. Washington not only ignored abuses, it vetoed United Nations moves to condemn Iraq for using chemical weapons."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/skeletonscloset.html

Just to emphasize a question, I'll use bold text: If the US blocked UN moves to condemn Iraq for use of chemical weapons when it was happening, how can they now honestly use that as a case for war over a decade after it happened?

They're now enforcing resolutions that the UN was unwilling to enforce? Give me a break. If they cared so much they should have let the resolutions pass when they mattered. One could try to argue that it was a different administration, but many of the people in Bush's administration came from Reagan's administration. Anyone that can't see a little bit of hypocrisy and dishonesty going on there is blind as a bat.

In reality, Canada had record high security for Bush's visit, and protestors aside, he was treated well. They closed off the air space over Ottawa, blocked off streets, had lots of police in riot gear, etc. It's a carefully controlled event, but I'm sure Bush feels the heat. He thanked the Canadians that "waved with all five fingers."

You can check out news coverage here:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101842642309_26/?hub=TopStories
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101820453372_40/?hub=TopStories
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/30/bush-briefing041130.html

[Chronic Thinker]

URallIgnorant wrote: Sorry but the myth of American might just doesn't stand up to the tasks....not neccessarily through the manpower or the technology aspect, there is no doubt that it is the best in the world right now.
The myth? Go ask the Taliban and the Iraqis if American might is a myth. :lol:

And exactly what tasks has it not stood up to?

URallIgnorant wrote: But winning wars aren't done solely on that. They had the advantage in Vietnam too...won practiacally every battle...and still lost.

Why do you think that is?
To begin with, we didn't lose the Vietnam War. We didn't fight it as well as we could have (mainly because we had military operational decisions being made by politicians worried about re-election), but we still won the war. A cease-fire was signed in 1973. South Vietnam lasted for two years after we left. Our goal of preserving South Vietnam had been accomplished at the time that we withdrew. As far as the American involvement in this conflict is concerned, this was another Korean war. Hell, it was even better than Korea (we only took one-third of the casualties). Unfortunately, the North Vietnamese judged (correctly) that Vietnam had weighed so heavily on us politically that we would not come back if they invaded. Thus, we won the Vietnam War. We just didn't come back for the new war two years later because of the political fallout.

URallIgnorant wrote: You should rad up on things before you come here trying to be Mr. know-it-all (don't make me bring up Iran!)
I never said that I know it all. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything. I just happen to know more than you in this area. Seriously, you are the one who needs to "rad" up before making the ignorant posts that you do (using the SpelChek feature wouldn't hurt either :wink: ).

BTW, what the hell does Iran have to do with this discussion? I remember having one debate with you about Iran, to which stopped responding (after you had stopped responding to the rest of the debate, of which Iran was just a small facet).

Boondoggle wrote: Well it's not that Bush would be arrested, but that there is a double standard, which is what the article points out. In order to have stability in the world, the rules should apply to all. People won't accept hypocrisy. That is why turning a blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons while going after other countries in the region over alleged WMD is bad policy.
I don't have time to read or respond to the rest of your post, but this part of it caught my eye.

It's true that countries should be judged equally. However, some countries are under different sets of rules because they put themselves under those rules.

You bring up the example of Israel and her neighbors. Here is the difference between Israel having nuclear weapons and Iraq and Iran having nuclear weapons:

Iran is under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. As a result, they have banned themselves from increasing their nuclear stockpile. Since they had no nuclear weapons at the time that the treaty was signed, for them to possess nuclear weapons would be a violation of the treaty. If Iran had never signed that treaty, their current situation would still be a concern for us, but it wouldn't be the huge issue that it is right now.

Iraq was prohibited from having nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that it signed to end Gulf War I. This was reinforced by seventeen United Nations Security Council resolutions. Thus, for Iraq to possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is a violation of a cease-fire that Iraq signed, and makes it subject to war.

Israel is not under any legal condition that prevents it from possessing nuclear weapons. Thus, there is no legitimate reason to punish Israel for having them.

[loyalist]

Chronic, i don't want to joust with you...my apologies if it seems that way. I'm just sick of hearing ignorant people (not you, but others) openly describe the Canadian military as incompetent, and the US as this all-powerful miltary machine, which it is not.

No hard feelings, eh?

[timmtc]

The Canadian military is a joke, but its not as bad as people think.

[URallIgnorant]

What do you people know about the Canadian military?!

Quote: The myth? Go ask the Taliban and the Iraqis if American might is a myth.

Yeah, they are doing a great job there aren't they? Is it over yet? no? why not? You need to get a clue buddy...read into some history...the locals almost always win. The invaders get beaten up and the US has a low tolerance for casualties (that's why we don't hear much about them)...the supply of insurgents is endless.

History will show the way

Chronic...my reference to Iran was in regards to your "thinking" you were right on that subject too...it turned out you didn't know your ass from a hole in the ground...much like this topic too!

[Chronic Thinker]

loyalist wrote: Chronic, i don't want to joust with you...my apologies if it seems that way. I'm just sick of hearing ignorant people (not you, but others) openly describe the Canadian military as incompetent, and the US as this all-powerful miltary machine, which it is not.

No hard feelings, eh?
None at all. I don't have anything personal against you or anyone else on this board. Despite what some people have (unfortunately) made it to be, the point of these forums is to have civil discussions about issues on which we have opinions, not to "joust" with each other. Yes, we may disagree on a particular issue, but that doesn't mean that I have any hard feelings against you. 8)

In fact, I agree with what you just said. The U.S. military is not all-powerful. It is currently more powerful than any other military on Earth (thank God), but it won't be all-powerful as long as it is run by fallable human beings. And, no, the Canadian military is not incompetent (at least to my knowledge). Your military served very competently in World War II. I apologize if it appears that I was degrading the Canadian armed forces in any way.

URallIgnorant wrote: What do you people know about the Canadian military?!
Well, considering that timmtc lives in Vancouver, I would say that he just might be in a position to know. :wink:

URallIgnorant wrote: Yeah, they are doing a great job there aren't they? Is it over yet? no? why not?
Because war takes time, Einstein, especially a guerrilla war where the enemy has no compunction against killing civilians. It always pisses me off when people take the attitude that we are losing a war because it has taken longer than we had hoped for. And, yes, they are doing a great job over there. That's why two terrorist-supporting regimes have been taken out of power, the vast majority of those countries are peaceful, and those terrorist elements that try to fight us are taking heavy casualties.

URallIgnorant wrote: You need to get a clue buddy...
I have a clue. That's why I'm not screaming defeat when we're winning. :roll:

URallIgnorant wrote: read into some history...the locals almost always win.
Not in Iraq, buddy. The British encountered the same situation in Iraq in the 1920s and handled that one quite well. Come to think of it, I can't think of one guerrilla war in the last century where the "locals" have won, at least not without American intervention. Furthermore, most of the "local" insurgents in Iraq are not locals, but Arabs from foreign countries.

URallIgnorant wrote: History will show the way
If that's the case, then I'd say that we're doing pretty well in Iraq. :lol:

URallIgnorant wrote: Chronic...my reference to Iran was in regards to your "thinking" you were right on that subject too...it turned out you didn't know your ass from a hole in the ground...
No, I just decided that you weren't worth my time. It's kind of funny that you would bring up one part of a thread that I didn't respond to, when you didn't respond to three-fourths of my argument in that thread. You truly don't get it. This forum is not some debating competition where we keep score. Whether you are right or wrong depends on the topic of this thread, not another thread where you think you might have won.

URallIgnorant wrote: much like this topic too!
Then prove me wrong on this topic. :-|

[Nico]

Chronic Thinker wrote:
Come to think of it, I can't think of one guerrilla war in the last century where the "locals" have won, at least not without American intervention.

Cuba

Vietnam [even with american intervention]

[Chronic Thinker]

Anaximander wrote: Vietnam [even with american intervention]
We won that war. See my first post from yesterday.

Anaximander wrote: Cuba
Technically, you're right. I stand corrected. But, then again, to be fair, they were fighting against locals, as well. :wink:

[SpartanPhalanx]

Chronic Thinker wrote:-

Quote: To begin with, we didn't lose the Vietnam War.



Try telling that to the NVA Tank commanders as they bulldozed their way into Saigon in the final days of the war in 1975 while US choppers were ferrying the last collaborators out of the US embassy there.

You guys believe anything if you tell yourselves often enough ...... Americans don't need to be fed propaganda....you're highly competent at generating your own......:-)

[URallIgnorant]

Quote: Well, considering that timmtc lives in Vancouver, I would say that he just might be in a position to know.

So!? Living in Canada doesn't auotmatically make someone aware of the military capability...I spent 10 years with the Canadian Forces dumbass! I know it far better than some kid from Vancouver or punk from the states.

Quote: Not in Iraq, buddy... I can't think of one guerrilla war in the last century where the "locals" have won, at least not without American intervention.

You 'can't think' is the only part you got right. Ok, here we go...the Dutch in Indonesia in 1949...the French in Vietnam 1954...Algeria in 1962...the Biritsh in Kenya 1959...Cyprus 1960...the Portuguese in Angola 1975...Mozambique also 1975...the US in Vietnam...the USSR in Afghanistan.

[SpartanPhalanx]

URallIgnorant wrote: Quote: Well, considering that timmtc lives in Vancouver, I would say that he just might be in a position to know.

So!? Living in Canada doesn't auotmatically make someone aware of the military capability...I spent 10 years with the Canadian Forces dumbass! I know it far better than some kid from Vancouver or punk from the states.

Quote: Not in Iraq, buddy... I can't think of one guerrilla war in the last century where the "locals" have won, at least not without American intervention.

You 'can't think' is the only part you got right. Ok, here we go...the Dutch in Indonesia in 1949...the French in Vietnam 1954...Algeria in 1962...the Biritsh in Kenya 1959...Cyprus 1960...the Portuguese in Angola 1975...Mozambique also 1975...the US in Vietnam...the USSR in Afghanistan.


Timmtc's probably from West Vancouver ..... where they're all out of touch with reality period...... :lol:

You're right about Canada's military ..... Theres' no doubt the military there has been in a state of disastrous disrepair for decades (courtesy P.E Trudeau who dismantled it) and the Canadian government seriously needs to address the problem before Canada becomes an impotent military power (if there is such a thing)..

And yes, the U.S military is presently massively overstretched and all the tough talk about Iran may be simply bluster. The Americans just don't have the manpower or logistics to mount and operation of the size that would be required to invade Iran. Many think that the ease of the American invasion of Iraq is simply a blueprint of what would be required in Iran which has an available military manpower pool of 21million fighting men. The Iranians have been spectators of the U.S military buildups on the Iraqi borders just prior to both wars and I'm sure they are well versed on U.S military tactics. If they had any sense they would simply pour troops over the Iraqi border before the Americans could set up any staging areas or troop/equipment concentrations so IMO the Americans wouldn't dare.

Which is why if there's anything the Americans could try it would probably be massive airpower bombardment of suspect military installations, but, IMO that's as far as they'd go.

[SpartanPhalanx]

Golddave wrote: BMG_THE_TARANTELLA wrote: Golddave wrote: Saviz wrote: Ye, we can't charge him... however some protestor could blow his brains all over his wifes new blouse...

I'd like to see some dumb s**t try, the secret service will kill that F**K**.

If I wasn't lucky enough to be there and get to him first.

I'd take a bullet for Bush and I am not even American.


You'd take a bullet for Bush?

Then I'm sure you'd have had no problem taking one for Adolf about 50 years ago.

Same diff.

[timmtc]

Quote: Timmtc's probably from West Vancouver ..... where they're all out of touch with reality period......

Hah, keep being ignorant and useless. I am more in touch with reality then you ever will be. My father was a diplomat, I lived overseas for the first 9 years of my life. My father dealt with the Canadian military, and enforced Canadian foreign policy. I am also getting my degree and after my masters in political science. Do not say I am out of touch with reality, you're just a selfish idiot who is more then obviously ignorant. You make canadians look bad, congrats.

[SpartanPhalanx]

timmtc wrote: Quote: Timmtc's probably from West Vancouver ..... where they're all out of touch with reality period......

Hah, keep being ignorant and useless. I am more in touch with reality then you ever will be. My father was a diplomat, I lived overseas for the first 9 years of my life. My father dealt with the Canadian military, and enforced Canadian foreign policy. I am also getting my degree and after my masters in political science. Do not say I am out of touch with reality, you're just a selfish idiot who is more then obviously ignorant. You make canadians look bad, congrats.

Have you ever been in the Canadian forces Timmy?.....Do you have any idea about the state of Canada's military? ...... maybe your dad does....hell from what you typed above, he may be complicit in the dismantling of that country's military. If he was , and he's your father, that makes you both idiots.....

You're far too narrow minded and selfish to succeed in P.Science. Selfish because all you posted was a diatribe about how ofended you were that I said you were from W.Vancouver and completely ignored my points in the rest of my post. Narrow minded because all you spout is right wing non-sense. I think you'd do better to finish your degree in the U.S ....hey they might even get an intern posting if you're lucky and then you can drop your drawers for all manner of top Washington officials.......:-)


You need to grow up a little Timmy ... start growing a pair and quit bending over for your giant neighbour to the south every time you post something.

[timmtc]

LOL you're incredible. Sorry, im not all up on the US, I just find idiots like you amazing. You dont even have any good reason to dislike the US, you do it because of all the left wing idiots who go and protest. Looks like you would be dropping your boxers for Jack Layton at the vancouver pride parade. So go ahead, keep reading bias articles on how bad the US is, while the rest of us keep level headed and make educated opinions.

Quote: Have you ever been in the Canadian forces Timmy?.....Do you have any idea about the state of Canada's military?

I just turned 19 and have not been in the forces. Like I mentioned earlier, I am getting my degree, and may enter the Officer Training program that the military offers. Being a Non-Commissioned officer is not what I am looking for in a career, is there a problem with that?

Quote: hell from what you typed above, he may be complicit in the dismantling of that country's military. If he was , and he's your father, that makes you both idiots.....

Okay, thanks for proving you are the idiot. My father was a diplomat. Diplomats do not build or ammend our current forces, they work together in Embassies and such. The department of Defence handles our military, incase you didn't know.

Quote: You're far too narrow minded and selfish to succeed in P.Science

How am I narrow minded? I am not the one jumping on some socialist bandwagon beliving everything idiots like Michael Moore puts out. I don't agree with everything the US does, how could I? However, I do not formulate my opinions from fictional sources or idiots like yourself who believe everything on the CBC.

Thanks for the enlightening post though. People warned me you were a complete idiot and I guess you proved them right. I have a question though, what is it like being so gulliable to the media?

[URallIgnorant]

Quote: I am getting my degree, and may enter the Officer Training program that the military offers. Being a Non-Commissioned officer is not what I am looking for in a career, is there a problem with that?

An officer and an NCM (non-commisioned) are two different things, you realise that right? If you are working towards a degree I highly reccommend the reserves. They will give you a taste of the military without commiting your life to it and it is great while going to school (part-time during the year and full time in the summers). It got me through college financially and gave me an option to go regs after knowing what it would be like. 10 years in and didn't regret a single day (ok, maybe one or two).

[SpartanPhalanx]

Quote: Timmy wrote:-

LOL you're incredible. Sorry, im not all up on the US, I just find idiots like you amazing. You dont even have any good reason to dislike the US, you do it because of all the left wing idiots who go and protest. Looks like you would be dropping your boxers for Jack Layton at the vancouver pride parade. So go ahead, keep reading bias articles on how bad the US is, while the rest of us keep level headed and make educated opinions.

No good reason??

Um....where do we start here Timmy?...there's the obvious, like the softwood lumber dispute which is threatening to blow up yet again with the Americans introducing a bill to KEEP all $3billion in the illegal duties for themselves.....not to mention the thousands of mill workers laid off because of U.S protectionism.....

Or we can look at the Canadian beef ban ...... who knows how long this will last. The effects of the ban are devastating with thousands of Canadian farmers lives being destroyed and devastated on what all the scientific evidence states is merely a whim . All evidence clearly points to the U.S ban as protectionism pure and simple rather than saftey and health concerns.

Ever stopped to look at how much U.S business runs and dominates Canadian life?....ever looked at what choices Canadians have in the choices they make and how increasingly those choices point to the U.S business and culture?

The U.S doesn't do anything out of the goodness of it's heart. There has to be a U.S economic interest present before it embarks on any "neighbourly" venture.

Or we can look at the U.S interference in countries all over the world and the mayhem and havoc caused by U.S ideological and economic imperialism.

C'mon Timmy, you're spouting your education loud and clear fella.....let's see you use some of those "smarts" of yours in a hopefully dignified answer.

As far as Jack Layton is concerned, just remember one thing....if God forbid you end up on the skids and pennyless, he's the man who will stick up for your rights whereas Gordon Campbell will most likely mistake you for a lamppost and relieve himself......

Thanks for stating your age Timmy, you're a young guy full of hope and ideas and i'm sure you think your political line is correct. I did too when I was your age. If you're still around in 20 years and have some life experience under your belt and are honest and sincere, your point of view may change.....

Then again, maybe not.

[jimmyz]

SpartanPhalanx wrote: timmtc wrote: Quote: Timmtc's probably from West Vancouver ..... where they're all out of touch with reality period......

Hah, keep being ignorant and useless. I am more in touch with reality then you ever will be. My father was a diplomat, I lived overseas for the first 9 years of my life. My father dealt with the Canadian military, and enforced Canadian foreign policy. I am also getting my degree and after my masters in political science. Do not say I am out of touch with reality, you're just a selfish idiot who is more then obviously ignorant. You make canadians look bad, congrats.

Have you ever been in the Canadian forces Timmy?.....Do you have any idea about the state of Canada's military? ...... maybe your dad does....hell from what you typed above, he may be complicit in the dismantling of that country's military. If he was , and he's your father, that makes you both idiots.....

You're far too narrow minded and selfish to succeed in P.Science. Selfish because all you posted was a diatribe about how ofended you were that I said you were from W.Vancouver and completely ignored my points in the rest of my post. Narrow minded because all you spout is right wing non-sense. I think you'd do better to finish your degree in the U.S ....hey they might even get an intern posting if you're lucky and then you can drop your drawers for all manner of top Washington officials.......:-)


You need to grow up a little Timmy ... start growing a pair and quit bending over for your giant neighbour to the south every time you post something.

Timmtc - Dont pay Spartty much attention.He has more chips on his shoulder than just about anyone in this forum.He hates the very skin and its color that surrounds his tiny intellect.He will bash the US,Canada,Israel,whomever, any chance he can get.SpartanBendOver gets off on this forum due to a lack of a real life and has an inferiority complex big enough to fill the oceans.In actuality he is a short,balding loser living off of his family in the wastelands of northern Greece.

Pay him no attention,for your own good.

[Chronic Thinker]

Spartan Phalanx wrote: Chronic Thinker wrote:-

Quote: To begin with, we didn't lose the Vietnam War.



Try telling that to the NVA Tank commanders as they bulldozed their way into Saigon in the final days of the war in 1975 while US choppers were ferrying the last collaborators out of the US embassy there.
Try reading more than the first sentence of the paragraph next time. If you had, you would have seen exactly why the United States did not lose the Vietnam War.
I wrote: To begin with, we didn't lose the Vietnam War. We didn't fight it as well as we could have (mainly because we had military operational decisions being made by politicians worried about re-election), but we still won the war. A cease-fire was signed in 1973. South Vietnam lasted for two years after we left. Our goal of preserving South Vietnam had been accomplished at the time that we withdrew. As far as the American involvement in this conflict is concerned, this was another Korean war. Hell, it was even better than Korea (we only took one-third of the casualties). Unfortunately, the North Vietnamese judged (correctly) that Vietnam had weighed so heavily on us politically that we would not come back if they invaded. Thus, we won the Vietnam War. We just didn't come back for the new war two years later because of the political fallout.
Try again, Spartan.

URallIgnorant wrote: So!? Living in Canada doesn't auotmatically make someone aware of the military capability...I spent 10 years with the Canadian Forces dumbass! I know it far better than some kid from Vancouver or punk from the states.
To begin with, you have no evidence to back up your claim, so that's useless. Secondly, this "punk from the states" knows that your military is small enough to get its ass kicked in a war with the U.S. That said, we're allies and it's highly unlikely that it would ever come to that. Loyalist and I were discussing a purely hypothetical scenario. As for the kid from Vancouver, I'll let him defend himself (which he has been doing quite nicely).

URallIgnorant wrote: Quote: Not in Iraq, buddy... I can't think of one guerrilla war in the last century where the "locals" have won, at least not without American intervention.

...Ok, here we go...the Dutch in Indonesia in 1949...
That wasn't a guerrilla war. That was a more traditional war for independence, complete with a rebel government and armies who wore uniforms. It was no more of a guerrilla war than was the U.S. war for independence.

URallIgnorant wrote: the French in Vietnam 1954...Algeria in 1962...
OK, I stand corrected. There have been all of two successful guerrilla wars in the last century. But, then again, it was the French, so it's not all that surprising. :wink:

URallIgnorant wrote: the Biritsh in Kenya 1959...
That's flat-out false. There was a rebellion (known as the "Mau Mau Rebellion") against British rule in 1952, one that had been growing since 1946. It was put down in 1956. Kenya was granted indepedence in 1963. You're an ignorant liar.

URallIgnorant wrote: Cyprus 1960
All right, three.

URallIgnorant wrote: the Portuguese in Angola 1975...
Wrong again. The three main Angolan guerrilla groups had nearly been expelled from the country in 1974. After a military coup in Portugal in April 1974, the general who led the coup bowed to pressure from his some of his military officers and set up a commission to give Angola independence. All three groups signed cease-fires with Portugal, with only one of them ever re-entering the country (a small section of northern Angola). There were supposed to be elections to determine the new Angolan government, supervised by the Portuguese military, but they suddenly withdrew without formally granting the country independence.

URallIgnorant wrote: Mozambique also 1975...
The guerrillas were doing a little bit better in this war (they controlled around half of the country), but the Portuguese withdrawal was brought about by the military coup in Portugal, not a military defeat in Mozambique.

URallIgnorant wrote: the US in Vietnam...
See the top of the post.

URallIgnorant wrote: the USSR in Afghanistan.
Yes, with heavy covert American help.

So, in the last century, there have been three successful guerrilla wars without American intervention. The previous Iraqi guerrilla war (against the British in the 1920s) failed miserably. History is definitely not on the side of the Iraqi insurgents.

Spartan Phalanx wrote: If they had any sense they would simply pour troops over the Iraqi border before the Americans could set up any staging areas or troop/equipment concentrations so IMO the Americans wouldn't dare.
That wouldn't be a smart move on the part of the Iranians. It would provoke a full-scale war with the US, the US wouldn't take any political heat for it because it would have been an unprovoked attack, and any Iranians ground troops in Iraqi territory would either be annihilated by the American air force or mopped up by U.S. and Iraqi ground forces. IMO, I don't think the Iranians would dare to be that stupid.