Overwatch Downunder said:Here is our friend's quote
"dumb f***** canadians. and if ya try to burn our white house down now, the canadians will be crushed by us Americans. and frig you to the dumb american dude talking crap about us Ricans. we don't care if u like us, in the United State f*** us Latinos are the fastest growing race in the world! so befor you talk s*** white trash read facts. America is a great country and I love it here, f*** dumb white trash who talks s*** about Ricans or latins in general. go back to your preppy hood and hide behind your garbage can like you always do. dumb white bitches.
and also canada sucks! u will never be able to beat America!"]/quote]
Clearly, he missed the 2004 Winter Olympics.
Cognitive-Dissonance said:Hmm, while certainly this question is a fine one, however I wish they were more specific in their questioning. Many Canadians are opposed to the War in Afghanistan because of the way our troops are being employed, not just for the mere fact that we are there. So with that in mind I am not surprised with the results. I know many friends who are against the War, however they would see nothing wrong with a different deployment of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is a different way so even though they are anti-war, they would vote Yes on this poll.
However, granted there are those who say we shouldn't be there period so I guess then this poll has its purposes.
Bruce Monkhouse said:They need to read this.
2 Cdo said:And how pray tell, would you're obviously mis-informed friends, employ the CF differently? Would they have issues with troops defending themselves? Would they allow our troops to even carry weapons?
Many Canadians are opposed because they live sheltered lives and are blissfully unaware of world affairs, methinks your friends belong to that particular faction. :
I may be mistaken, but I believe he asked you three questions, none of which you saw fit to answer. You are being a troll.Cognitive-Dissonance said:Its very simple, and black and white to paint someone as misinformed instead of asking and discerning why they hold their particular beliefs.
US_ARMED_FORCES said:they should be in iraq. they need to join our fight against terror... if canada got hit as hard as our twin towers did in one of their famous areas, they would be asking everyone to join em in the fight against terror..... United we stand
Cognitive-Dissonance said:While such a disgusting attack like that is naturally so very moving and powerful, to us it to justify force escalation and force projection in another country is unethical.
mjc_1812 said:While using a single isolated case may be "unethical", the fact is that attacks like these continue to happen throughout Afghanistan. Albeit maybe not as heinous as acid on people, but nonetheless, the Taliban continue to blow up schools and have resorted back to "terror" tactics to scare the population back into supporting them. These tactics are reprehensible and should (and CAN) definitely be used as justification as a need to increase security. If we cannot maintain the level of safety in the eyes of the Afghan population, who is to say that they won't soon see us as obsolete?
nd how pray tell, would you're obviously mis-informed friends, employ the CF differently? Would they have issues with troops defending themselves? Would they allow our troops to even carry weapons?
Cognitive-Dissonance said:Fair enough, I am perfectly fine with that sort of argument but more than not I see people simply posting that link and using it as an isolated case of evidence, and not explaining that these sort of attacks are on the rise or whatever else. Your argument however is fair
My apologies, I missed these questions. Well, it depends on who you ask. A few friends would simply wish that our troops would be withdrawn, another few would employ the CF outside the current structure it's employed in (i.e. no longer in command of Kandahar, and not in aggressive operations). Basically I believe they wish that the Combat Brigade we have there would be pulled out an we would only utilize basically PRTs instead. I don't think they would have an issue with troops defending themselves, though I assume under some standard of ROEs that espouses limited responses (I believe the Green party for instance wishes to ban airstrikes except in the most extreme cases). As for carrying weapons, yes I assume they would allow that. I think you are trying to paint people who are against the war as "hippies" or something else but many against the war simply wish it was fought in a different way, not in absolutist terms withdrawn.
Though to be fair, just because I missed your questions doesn't mean I'm a troll. Your questions are aimed at my friends who are not on this board, you cannot ask me to read their mind, and I stated that I cannot speak for them in my other post. Still though, some of my friends yes are "mis-informed" but others have the same information as we all here have and simply have reached a different conclusion. I think it's important some people understand that other people reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, and it may be obvious to you but not for others.
Cognitive-Dissonance said:but others have the same information as we all here have and simply have reached a different conclusion. I think it's important some people understand that other people reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, and it may be obvious to you but not for others.