Canada's Idiot Leader...

[Tapout]

Who said it was going to turn into a fight? Quit kissing ass son.

Perhaps Mick had some actually good points.

This thread was already trolled to hell, and you weren't helping. Quite trying to stroke your internet ego by always having to argue and be right in every thread.

 

[Rated R Superstar]

This thread was already trolled to hell, and you weren't helping. Quite trying to stroke your internet ego by always having to argue and be right in every thread.

This is quite ironic coming from you there bud. I didn't expect this thread to be taken very seriously anyway. Aside from that, if everybody got along, this place would be boring as dog shit.

 

[We Are Legion]

Play nice folks.

Getting back to a topic I was discussing before the War of 1812 errupted (which Canada won for the record), how exactly was Bush a bad president? Stunned that even a conservative here would allege such a thing. Let me remind everyone here he had the highest approval rating than any other president in history when we went to war with Afghanistan. But those numbers dropped when *gasps* soldiers started dying. Soldiers dying in a war the country wanted no less. So let's not put that blame solely on his shoulders and pretend every one of us didn't want that war too.

Secondly, the Iraq war was started on grounds of assumptions, that's certain. But Saddam had every opportunity to prevent that war himself and he refused. And is anyone really upset that piece of shit is out of commission now? I mean seriously? I'm not trying to paint anyone who disagrees with me as an Iraqi-sympathizer, but that guy had it coming for a long time and no one else would have ever done something about him.

 

[Ryan]

I'm going to assume your comment about the War of 1812 is sarcastic.

It's true, we all wanted to go into Afghanistan and kill Bin Laden after 9/11. We were all for that, but going into Iraq was a completely separate decision and the fact is that these wars have lasted TOO long. We're just babysitting at this point, running up an already enormous tab on credit and to boot, our men and women are dying. I understand we can't just unseat a government and attack a terrorist organization, basically cause chaos in the process, and then pull out immediately, but at this point, it's clear our presence is no longer needed there. I mean for Christ's sake, WWII didn't even last as long as this Second Gulf War/War on Terror. As I said as well, Bush also made the entire GOP look like shit and paved the way for this joker we have in office now to take the presidency. McCain was actually a great choice for president in my opinion (although picking Sarah Palin as running mate was about as dumb a decision as anybody has ever made) but we all knew he really didn't stand a chance after Bush. I agree that there was no way we couldn't declare War on Terror after 9/11. No country would've stood by and done nothing after that attack, but it's just been too long. In general, I think we're all just tired of the government and I'm no exception.

 

[We Are Legion]

I agree the war in Iraq lasted longer than it should have and our war spending was astronomical. Bush really wanted to find WMD's over there and he didn't and it tainted his entire presidency. But imagine if he did... Obama wouldn't even be in office right now. People were just happy to point their finger at the president of the United States and laugh because he was wrong. At least he took a chance to be certain and we can all rest easier knowing Saddam isn't going to fire a nuke at us one day. He already had scud missiles capable of causing mass amounts of shit all over that continent. No nukes, but he was a cancer to humanity regardless. We shouldn't have stayed there as long as we did though under the notion we were "policing the planet". Once the threat to US was dealt with, just leave.

 

[Mick Donalds]

I agree that there was no way we couldn't declare War on Terror after 9/11. No country would've stood by and done nothing after that attack, but it's just been too long. In general, I think we're all just tired of the government and I'm no exception.

.

Actually most of Europe (with respect to the UK and France, if they feel like it that month) would have flailed their limp little wrists, cried and done absolutely nothing about it. See: Spain, 2004.

 

[We Are Legion]

You really can't blame European countries for having a different outlook on that kind of thing though. War has ravaged their continent for thousands of years. Americans haven't fought a major war on our own soil in over a century and even then it was domestic. If England or any other Eurasian power wanted to fight a war on North American soil, the US would be a thousand times more opposed to it than they usually are about our wars in the middle east. Completely different when it's happening close to you and you've been dealing with it forever. Even in WWI and WWII, America picked convenient times to enter those wars. Those Europeans didn't have that luxury.

 

[BDC]

Would definitely like to have seen the whole Iraq thing done quicker. But Iraq and Afganastan were major hubs for terrorist activity and Money. And Bin Laden and Saddam were main parts of the problem. Evil men that needed to be taken out. Just consider the lives of their own people they took just to stay in power. NO, I'm not angry their gone. Both had to be done. Would love to pull out, but unfortunately the only country with the balls to take care of things has to mop up. Like Vietnam, we say it's so easy from our safe houses assured to us by our government and our military, but it just isn't as easy as you would like to make it.!

 

[~Fallen Angel~]

Can we stick to Stephen Harper, please? What does the United States have to do with this discussion? George Bush was a complete moron and although, Barack Obama is a good man, he has not done as much as we would have liked.

Back to Harper, I can't stand him. I hope that Justin Trudeau wins the next election because Harper isn't doing anything good. I was so disappointed that he cut funding for Katimvaik. It just goes to show that he doesn't care about incorporating youth into the community which is what the Liberals do so well (in most cases). Besides, maybe the people in Quebec will be happy if a French prime minister runs the country.

 

[Keith]

.

Actually most of Europe (with respect to the UK and France, if they feel like it that month) would have flailed their limp little wrists, cried and done absolutely nothing about it. See: Spain, 2004.

But why kill inncocent people just to get to one guy? You can't take out on a whole country the actions of one guy. Also killing someone is not the best reverge, making them serve a life sentence is, killing him just let him off the hook.

 

[We Are Legion]

But why kill inncocent people just to get to one guy? You can't take out on a whole country the actions of one guy. Also killing someone is not the best reverge, making them serve a life sentence is, killing him just let him off the hook.

You seem to have a severe impairment understanding the concept of "war". What would you have done differently to eliminate innocent casualties in a foreign country? Would you have stuck to the traditional aspects of organized warfare which every country on earth abides by or simply sent in BATMAN to eliminate the one guy you held responsible for the peril caused by his reign? And of course BATMAN would never kill anyone regardless of how rotten they were, so he would have to extradite him back to Gotham City and hand him over to Commissioner Gordon. And even if BATMAN was successful, Saddam still had plenty of successors that could have easily taken his place. Do you realize how ridiculous your proposal is?

And you're also very wrong about "life sentencing is better revenge than death" on a number of levels. First and foremost, this was never about "revenge". It was about removing a ruthless dictator and his regime from power. Not even sure what you think Saddam did to America that warranted revenge.

Secondly, despite common belief among Americans, Saddam was not despised by every citizen of his country and was often heralded by them. And influential man of his stature could still very well evoke inspiration and incite rebel insurgence from the confines of a prison cell. See "Charles Mason" for further references. Killing him is a much more efficient means of containing his legacy.

 

[We Are Legion]

And in response to Fallen Angel's suggestion, the thread will remain open as long as national leaders are the subject of discussion. If this turns into a "Fuck America/Fuck Canada/Fuck England" flame fest, the thread will be closed.

 

[~Fallen Angel~]

So, I guess no one wants to discuss Harper. lol

 

[EffectsofRaven]

.

Actually most of Europe (with respect to the UK and France, if they feel like it that month) would have flailed their limp little wrists, cried and done absolutely nothing about it. See: Spain, 2004.

By that point, I believe majority of Europe was doing something towards the so-called War on Terror...

Also, when it comes to Europe not doing anything when they get attacked - Look at the two world wars; also, if I remember rightly, Germany might possibly have sanctions on them in terms of their ability to wage war due to their previous two attempts and Russia would fuck some serious shit up if they went to war (they're somewhat part of Europe), see World War II again, Russians was one of the factors why Europe won.

So the notion that Europe would do nothing is like 'huh.'

 

[Ryan]

Even in WWI and WWII, America picked convenient times to enter those wars. Those Europeans didn't have that luxury.

Agreed about European countries, but back then America tried to maintain a more neutral stance unlike today when we jump at every opportunity to intervene on the world stage. We entered WWI after Germany refused to stop attacking our ships with their submarines. They wanted all out submarine warfare, so we had to intervene. During WWII, we again tried to stay neutral, but then Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbor and once again we were dragged into the war. Both times a declaration of war came only after our people started dying so I wouldn't say that we entered either war because the time was convenient. I see what you're saying though, and you're right. During both wars, European countries that tried to stay neutral got invaded by the Axis powers, so they had to fight.

By that point, I believe majority of Europe was doing something towards the so-called War on Terror...

Also, when it comes to Europe not doing anything when they get attacked - Look at the two world wars; also, if I remember rightly, Germany might possibly have sanctions on them in terms of their ability to wage war due to their previous two attempts and Russia would fuck some serious shit up if they went to war (they're somewhat part of Europe), see World War II again, Russians was one of the factors why Europe won.

So the notion that Europe would do nothing is like 'huh.'

Originally after WWI Germany had tough sanctions placed on it in order to prevent re-armament but once the Great Depression hit basically no one could be bothered to make sure they weren't re-arming themselves and lo and behold, 15 years later, we were on the brink of war again. Then after WWII they surrendered unconditionally and were basically taken over by the Allies for a short time during which they were ordered to pay reparations, demilitarize, disarm and rebuild without any help. The rest of the details are kind of complex so I don't know them all but if I'm not mistaken, after the Potsdam Agreement which ended WWII, the Allies didn't actually know what to do with Germany. Obviously the country was half Soviet occupied and half US/Britain/France occupied, but they really had no sovereignty until after the Berlin Wall fell in 1990 and that's the first year they actually agreed to accept all of the conditions of the Potsdam Agreement, some 45 years after the war ended and also the year they announced their intentions to become a union. In fact, they are still bound by the Potsdam Agreement as are the Allied countries that signed it. For example, the US and NATO technically violated the treaty by expanding their presence past the former East German border. It's really quite complex and extremely interesting in my opinion, but as far as I know, Germany's ability to declare war was not affected by the treaty. However, their armed forced have been limited to a certain number of troops so their ability to actually wage war is probably somewhat compromised. As for Russia, I doubt they'd ever want to wage war like they did during WWII again. They lost more people during the war than any other country by a LOT. I think by some estimates a third of the dead were Soviet citizens.

Kind of ranted there but WWII is one of my favorite history topics.