Canuckistan - new name for Canada?

[N8Magic]

Originally posted by: charrison


Well we have congressional approval and now UN approval. Do we need to get Canadian approval next?

What do Canadians think about the U.S. stance on Iraq?

I was just answering his question!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: N8Magic

Originally posted by: charrison


Well we have congressional approval and now UN approval. Do we need to get Canadian approval next?

What do Canadians think about the U.S. stance on Iraq?

I was just answering his question!

And your answer implied we were not seeking a diplimatic solution.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Booster

You may think that all this warfare is pretty funny, right? Well, not quite. If your country has more than 1 tank (let's put it like this), these tanks aren't just for the heck of it. They fire and destroy. And if they're involved in a war, it's some other tanks that will fire at you. Just think about it. From an individual's point of view, what a powerful military is good for? It can only create many problems for a man, IMO. On the other hand, it isn't reflected in a daily life at all. Who would say that Canada doesn't have enough cops? This is the force we deal with in a daily life. And cops are pretty much the same quantity and power everywhere, even in smallest countries.

Not at all, war should be the last option, not the first.

But people who think war shouldn't be an option at all have lost their grasp on reality. It requires two to make peace, but only one to make war. Thus, war will always be with us.

Sometimes you can work things out with diplomacy, but sometimes force is required. The nice thing about force is that if you've got more of it, you can impose your will on someone else without taking into account how they feel about it. That is also the downside, as it can be a slippery slope.

This being said, we must be prepared to use force, lest someone come after us thinking we won't defend ourselves.

The best defense is to carry the biggest stick on the playground and make sure everyone knows you'll use it. By doing so, you don't have to use it...

Grasshopper

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: eakers
the reason my government doesnt spend money on the military is because canadians feel social programs more important and call for more spending on educuation, health care etc. rather than military.

and thats a very good thing in my books

Somehow I am not surprised.

ditto on your behalf

 

[Booster]

Not at all, war should be the last option, not the first.

But people who think war shouldn't be an option at all have lost their grasp on reality. It requires two to make peace, but only one to make war. Thus, war will always be with us.

I know wars will never stop, b/c people are people, we both know their nature, IMO. But just think of it... If there's a war, what would a country with weak military do? Surrender. I think it's pretty cool. I'd rather prefer to surrender than to die on the battlefield for someone's ideals.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: eakers
the reason my government doesnt spend money on the military is because canadians feel social programs more important and call for more spending on educuation, health care etc. rather than military.

and thats a very good thing in my books

Somehow I am not surprised.

ditto on your behalf

You may not like it, but having a military is required.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Booster

Not at all, war should be the last option, not the first.

But people who think war shouldn't be an option at all have lost their grasp on reality. It requires two to make peace, but only one to make war. Thus, war will always be with us.

I know wars will never stop, b/c people are people, we both know their nature, IMO. But just think of it... If there's a war, what would a country with weak military do? Surrender. I think it's pretty cool. I'd rather prefer to surrender than to die on the battlefield for someone's ideals.

Better hope the surrender starts before the battle starts, but surrender usually happens after the battle is done.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: eakers
the reason my government doesnt spend money on the military is because canadians feel social programs more important and call for more spending on educuation, health care etc. rather than military.

and thats a very good thing in my books

Somehow I am not surprised.

ditto on your behalf

You may not like it, but having a military is required.

and paying for it on the expence of education and health care is ok in your books?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Booster

I know wars will never stop, b/c people are people, we both know their nature, IMO. But just think of it... If there's a war, what would a country with weak military do? Surrender. I think it's pretty cool. I'd rather prefer to surrender than to die on the battlefield for someone's ideals.

...and that is why we don't let you make the decisions. You have no concept of what surrendering means. You're not giving up the battle, you're giving up the war. It isn't about your life, it is about your family's lives, the people back home. They are who you are fighting for. You surrender and they will pay the price.

Of course that depends on who you surrender to, but I highly doubt you would willingly choose to go live under the Taliban's rule, so I wouldn't suggest surrendering to them either.

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison
You may not like it, but having a military is required.

and paying for it on the expence of education and health care is ok in your books?

What good is an education and health care if someone just takes it all away from you?

You need the military to protect everything else you have, otherwise someone else who doesn't mind having a military will conquer you.

Grasshopper

 

[Booster]

Of course that depends on who you surrender to

Exactly. I wouldn't like to surrender to people who would just burn or gas me with others b/c I'm of 'low genes' or other crap like that. But Taliban... I know men are respected in Islam. It may not be so bad, after all <---- just kidding...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison
You may not like it, but having a military is required.

and paying for it on the expence of education and health care is ok in your books?

What good is an education and health care if someone just takes it all away from you?

You need the military to protect everything else you have, otherwise someone else who doesn't mind having a military will conquer you.

Grasshopper

Well said. Canada is lucky to have friendly neighbors to the south.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Booster

You may think that all this warfare is pretty funny, right? Well, not quite. If your country has more than 1 tank (let's put it like this), these tanks aren't just for the heck of it. They fire and destroy. And if they're involved in a war, it's some other tanks that will fire at you. Just think about it. From an individual's point of view, what a powerful military is good for? It can only create many problems for a man, IMO. On the other hand, it isn't reflected in a daily life at all. Who would say that Canada doesn't have enough cops? This is the force we deal with in a daily life. And cops are pretty much the same quantity and power everywhere, even in smallest countries.

Not at all, war should be the last option, not the first.

But people who think war shouldn't be an option at all have lost their grasp on reality. It requires two to make peace, but only one to make war. Thus, war will always be with us.

Sometimes you can work things out with diplomacy, but sometimes force is required. The nice thing about force is that if you've got more of it, you can impose your will on someone else without taking into account how they feel about it. That is also the downside, as it can be a slippery slope.

This being said, we must be prepared to use force, lest someone come after us thinking we won't defend ourselves.

The best defense is to carry the biggest stick on the playground and make sure everyone knows you'll use it. By doing so, you don't have to use it...

Grasshopper

Hmm, sounds like a way to attract challenges and enemies, not security. You need to "re-think" that strategy, name one Great power to have used it and stayed as a Great power?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Booster

You may think that all this warfare is pretty funny, right? Well, not quite. If your country has more than 1 tank (let's put it like this), these tanks aren't just for the heck of it. They fire and destroy. And if they're involved in a war, it's some other tanks that will fire at you. Just think about it. From an individual's point of view, what a powerful military is good for? It can only create many problems for a man, IMO. On the other hand, it isn't reflected in a daily life at all. Who would say that Canada doesn't have enough cops? This is the force we deal with in a daily life. And cops are pretty much the same quantity and power everywhere, even in smallest countries.

Not at all, war should be the last option, not the first.

But people who think war shouldn't be an option at all have lost their grasp on reality. It requires two to make peace, but only one to make war. Thus, war will always be with us.

Sometimes you can work things out with diplomacy, but sometimes force is required. The nice thing about force is that if you've got more of it, you can impose your will on someone else without taking into account how they feel about it. That is also the downside, as it can be a slippery slope.

This being said, we must be prepared to use force, lest someone come after us thinking we won't defend ourselves.

The best defense is to carry the biggest stick on the playground and make sure everyone knows you'll use it. By doing so, you don't have to use it...

Grasshopper

Hmm, sounds like a way to attract challenges and enemies, not security. You need to "re-think" that strategy, name one Great power to have used it and stayed as a Great power?

Name one country that has had power and kept invaders out without an army.

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Kilgor
What's a Canadian is it some kind of animal or something?

Actually, it's bacon. Or a socialist republic... However you want to think about it.

nik

yum...bacon...

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Booster

You may think that all this warfare is pretty funny, right? Well, not quite. If your country has more than 1 tank (let's put it like this), these tanks aren't just for the heck of it. They fire and destroy. And if they're involved in a war, it's some other tanks that will fire at you. Just think about it. From an individual's point of view, what a powerful military is good for? It can only create many problems for a man, IMO. On the other hand, it isn't reflected in a daily life at all. Who would say that Canada doesn't have enough cops? This is the force we deal with in a daily life. And cops are pretty much the same quantity and power everywhere, even in smallest countries.

Not at all, war should be the last option, not the first.

But people who think war shouldn't be an option at all have lost their grasp on reality. It requires two to make peace, but only one to make war. Thus, war will always be with us.

Sometimes you can work things out with diplomacy, but sometimes force is required. The nice thing about force is that if you've got more of it, you can impose your will on someone else without taking into account how they feel about it. That is also the downside, as it can be a slippery slope.

This being said, we must be prepared to use force, lest someone come after us thinking we won't defend ourselves.

The best defense is to carry the biggest stick on the playground and make sure everyone knows you'll use it. By doing so, you don't have to use it...

Grasshopper

Hmm, sounds like a way to attract challenges and enemies, not security. You need to "re-think" that strategy, name one Great power to have used it and stayed as a Great power?

Name one country that has had power and kept invaders out without an army.

There is not one.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison
You may not like it, but having a military is required.

and paying for it on the expence of education and health care is ok in your books?

What good is an education and health care if someone just takes it all away from you?

You need the military to protect everything else you have, otherwise someone else who doesn't mind having a military will conquer you.

Grasshopper

there is protection and there is excessive protection. Canada has little to worry about other countries invading them, in fact nearly all countries part of the "west" have to worry about it because war is expensive and there has to be ALOT to gain from it to actually invade another country, and even more to hold it. For another country to want to invade yours there has to be a reason and frankly no country in the world that I know of has a reason to invade Canada and since Canada is so well placed that no country can invade them without them knowing it in time. For Canada to have a huge army is pointless, and in the long run it is much more important to spend money on education and healthcare because by doing so you dont risk making enemies as easily as having a huge army.

Tell me just why on earth should Canada cut back on education and health care to make its army bigger?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Hmm, sounds like a way to attract challenges and enemies, not security. You need to "re-think" that strategy, name one Great power to have used it and stayed as a Great power?

The Romans used it for nearly a thousand years, the Egyptians used it for nearly three thousand years. No power has ever lasted very long as far as Earth time goes. Over time things change, expecting them not to is just silly.

Not having a military also attracts challenges and enemies.

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Czar

Tell me just why on earth should Canada cut back on education and health care to make its army bigger?

They shouldn't, but they should support America when we use our very much nessessary military to keep the world safe from evil dictators who want nuclear weapons.

I never once said Canada should build up a massive military. Canada should support America's military, that is enough.

Grasshopper

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Czar

Tell me just why on earth should Canada cut back on education and health care to make its army bigger?

They shouldn't, but they should support America when we use our very much nessessary military to keep the world safe from evil dictators who want nuclear weapons.

I never once said Canada should build up a massive military. Canada should support America's military, that is enough.

Grasshopper

so should Canada as a free thinking country take away that freedom and support the US in whatever actions the US does just because the US is not hostile towards Canada?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Czar

so should Canada as a free thinking country take away that freedom and support the US in whatever actions the US does just because the US is not hostile towards Canada?

No, but Canada should have a really darn good reason to not support us. Just saying, "oh gosh, we're not really sure if you should attack Iraq, we don't *really* know if he has nukes or not" is not acceptable.

Another way to look at it...

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Either come with us, support us, or just stay out of our way.

Grasshopper

 

[Booster]

Either come with us, support us, or just stay out of our way.

Grasshopper

I remember from history a quote by Joseph Stalin: 'You can be either with us or against us'. Of course, it doesn't have anything to do with the situation on Iraq, but it has something in common with your, Grasshopper26, understanding of the issue, I think.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Czar

so should Canada as a free thinking country take away that freedom and support the US in whatever actions the US does just because the US is not hostile towards Canada?

No, but Canada should have a really darn good reason to not support us. Just saying, "oh gosh, we're not really sure if you should attack Iraq, we don't *really* know if he has nukes or not" is not acceptable.

Another way to look at it...

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Either come with us, support us, or just stay out of our way.

Grasshopper

But in Canada's mind like in Europe it is at least moraly wrong to invade another country without a darn good motive, so far there hasnt been another motive brought forth except that Iraq has violated UN resolutions. Thats why this must go through the UN, and thats what Canada wants.

This with us or against us is realy black and white and nothing in this world is black or white, just unlimited shades of gray

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Czar

But in Canada's mind like in Europe it is at least moraly wrong to invade another country without a darn good motive, so far there hasnt been another motive brought forth except that Iraq has violated UN resolutions. Thats why this must go through the UN, and thats what Canada wants.

This with us or against us is realy black and white and nothing in this world is black or white, just unlimited shades of gray

Wrong, Iraq is run by an evil man who has already used weapons of mass destruction against both Iran and his own people, started two massive wars, and now wants his own nuclear weapons.

Preventing him from getting them is a darn good motive. What Bush made clear to the world months ago and against yesterday is that we'll do it with, or without the UNs approval.

Bush may not be as smart as some people would like, but he has a very clearly defined sense of right and wrong, and allowing Saddam to get nuclear weapons would be wrong.

BTW, the world is far more black and white than you think. North Korea needs to have their nukes taken away as well, but they will wait until after Iraq. The US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Israel can keep them, but at some point India and Pakistain will have to give them up or that WILL go nuclear some day. No one else in the world can be allowed to have them. Balance of Power, works very well.

Grasshopper

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Czar

But in Canada's mind like in Europe it is at least moraly wrong to invade another country without a darn good motive, so far there hasnt been another motive brought forth except that Iraq has violated UN resolutions. Thats why this must go through the UN, and thats what Canada wants.

This with us or against us is realy black and white and nothing in this world is black or white, just unlimited shades of gray

Wrong, Iraq is run by an evil man who has already used weapons of mass destruction against both Iran and his own people, started two massive wars, and now wants his own nuclear weapons.

Preventing him from getting them is a darn good motive. What Bush made clear to the world months ago and against yesterday is that we'll do it with, or without the UNs approval.

Bush may not be as smart as some people would like, but he has a very clearly defined sense of right and wrong, and allowing Saddam to get nuclear weapons would be wrong.

BTW, the world is far more black and white than you think. North Korea needs to have their nukes taken away as well, but they will wait until after Iraq. The US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Israel can keep them, but at some point India and Pakistain will have to give them up or that WILL go nuclear some day. No one else in the world can be allowed to have them. Balance of Power, works very well.

Grasshopper

Preventing Saddam from getting WMD's is a great motive, but its no justification for war. Neither is "Saddam is a evil man who gasses his own people." Shouldn't the act of one country going to war with another need fit the highest of moral standards?? The highest of moral standards are not met in this case, so Canada and Europe have every right to oppose such a war.