Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace, look....the most interesting thing you've written here in my memory anyway was your response to cimmaron above. you dropped the aceventura mask and just wrote stuff based on whomever you are behind the ace-mask.
|
Your views on an "ace-mask" is irrelevant. You should be able to respond to a post based on the contents not on the individual. Every time you start a posting addressed to me you go down the wrong path, in the future you can stop if you ever get the urge to address your comments to me as an individual - otherwise your post is pointless. Anyone who reads this thread can easily see where and when it went south. Rather than responding to direct questions or to direct rebuttals to your comments, you have the need to go off on tangents related to who you think I really am and what you think I really believe. Your level of arrogance in this regard is truly amazing.
Quote:
|
as ace, you have a problem.
|
Yes, I have problems.
Quote:
|
you can't handle discussion.
|
Discussions are like my hobby in life, I handle them well. I even start discussions with strangers in grocery stores, which is met with mockery here - but gives me an insight that it is clear many don't have.
Quote:
|
you prefer monologue, really.
|
My initial posts often include a simply stated personal point of view. I read what others write and I ask questions. When people ask me questions, I answer them. If you think that is a monologue, you are mistaken. I suggest you take an honest personal assessment in this regard.
Quote:
|
but for you, "rational" discussion means a discussion in which your starting points are accepted.
|
My starting point in this thread was that Obama's actions and words lack clarity. I explained why I hold that view, some disagree - I go on. I either add further clarification to my view point or I ask questions of others. Once it runs its course I drop it. I can do this all day long and not have problems with people.
Quote:
|
and behind roachboy, i see argument as a game. if you hand me weak premises, i'll go after them. i don't have a lot of time. i don't have the patience to deal with shitty argument.
|
On the issue of Obama lacking clarity, I am not the only one who holds that view. So, in your quest to go after me, you should simply focus on the premise - which you fail to do in any specific or in a rational manner. Your style is that of a playground bully. When it comes to me, I won't back down under any circumstance.
Quote:
|
the way i see it, you don't know the rules of argument but you play anyway and act as though it's everyone's fault---my fault---that you don't. but maybe it isn't.
|
If by this you mean that I don't bend over and play by your rules, you are 100% correct.
When something is my fault I admit it, apologize and move on. When something is not my fault, I don't walk away from it, ever.
Quote:
|
**now** are we done with this?
|
You control what you do, I control what I do. I am not done.
---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The Libya situation is not a unilateral invasion built on propaganda for the purpose of regime change in response to a potential threat to those outside of the country:
|
I don't get the "unilateral invasion" point regarding Iraq because it is not true. In fact to me it seem that your country wanted it both ways, and it has never been made clear to me if and how you folks to the North think bush acted unilaterally. Or, are we simply talking WIIFM
Quote:
Jan. 19, 2004 – US President George Bush’s announcement last Tuesday that Canada would be allowed to bid on billions of dollars in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects came in the wake of an ongoing controversy surrounding the degree of Canada’s involvement in the war.
Canada was excluded from the first negotiations in December when the Pentagon announced a directive that limited the bidding on Iraq contracts to companies from the 63 countries that had given political or military aid in the Iraq war. However, despite Canada’s official position of non-involvement in Operation Iraqi Freedom, observers contend that the country had given significant military aid to the war effort.
Evidence that Canada was involved in the war includes the use of Canadian military personnel aboard the US Air Force’s E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning And Control System air craft. The E-3 Sentry provides all-weather surveillance, command, control and communications for the military. According to the US Air Force, one such aircraft, "carried approximately 180 members from the 552nd Air Control Wing -- the wing's Canadian component -- and 513th Air Control Group reservists. The units were deployed supporting operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom."
Also, early last February, Commander Roger Girouard assumed command of the new navy Task Force 151, located in the Persian Gulf, under an agreement by Ottawa and Washington. According to the Globe and Mail, the Task Force was responsible for escorting ships, intercepting and boarding suspect ships and guarding against attacks on shipping. Girouard was in charge of up to 20 allied ships from several different countries, including the United States, France, Italy, Greece and Canada.
However, Howard Michitsch, a retired major with the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, said that this move was not a contribution to the war on Iraq, but rather to the war on terror. "It frees up American ships to go on, in any attack on Iraq....but it does sort of rule out any Canadian contribution" he told CTV.
Observers also say that Canada aided the Iraq war by providing strategic support. Reuters reported that on February 11, before Canada had taken an official position on the possible war on Iraq, Canada transferred 25 military planners from US Central Command in Tampa, Florida to the US command post in Qatar. According to Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum, the only other three countries involved in military planning at this base were the United States, Britain and Australia. Defending the move, McCallum told reporters, "This is prudent military contingency planning. In the military, you have to hope for the best and plan for the worst."
Further, the Canadian Government allowed US planes on route to Iraq to fly through Canadian air space and to refuel in the country. However, according to the Ottawa Citizen, officials in Newfoundland said that the US’s use of the airports for refueling dropped after the first 3 weeks in March because of "bad blood between Canada and the United States over the war in Iraq." A spokeswoman at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa told the Citizen that there had been no change in policy towards Newfoundland.
Despite the US’s original decision to forbid Canada from bidding on Iraqi reconstruction contracts on the grounds that it had not supported the war, several US diplomats gave Canada credit for aiding the war effort.
Last month, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that US appreciated "the contribution [Canada has] made, both in Afghanistan and to Iraq."
And last March, during the war, in a speech to the Economic Club in Toronto, US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci stated that, although he was disappointed in Canada for not participating in the "Coalition of the Willing", Canadians indirectly provide more support for the US in Iraq than "most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting us. It's kind of an odd situation."
When asked to for comment on the US’s reversal, disarmament activist Richard Sanders said, "The reason we were given for not being able to bid was because we didn’t help out with the war. Now we are able to bid. Does that mean that they acknowledge that we did help?"
|
Canada Quietly Supported U.S. Iraq Invasion - The NewStandard