Dutch01

Id assume the short term decision has to do with seeing new legislature?

I'm not sure the liberals will be keen to redo conservative legislation. They may just let it ride until their new system is ready.

 

The real question is would we be better off today or worse off today if we did nothing in the past? If anyone thinks they actually know that answer, they are wrong.

 

If the US and Canada decided to do nothing and avoid bombing and potentially killing innocent people when Hitler's ideological army started to march, would we be better off or worse off? What if Canada or the US decided we could help best by providing logistics and training to the British and French forces, but stay out of it other than that. WW2 cost the world a lot of money? Did we gain anything from it?

 

A key difference from how Hitler wanted to spread his ideology was that he did not slowly build a worldwide following of his ideology. Technology did not allow it as easily then, and his egomania got in the way too. These global terrorist groups are, in some ways much more advanced. Stopping the new ISIL/Al Qaeda/Taliban Nazis from marching their ideology is not going to be as "easy" as WW2. Its a different world and a smarter enemy.

I appreciate your point of view and willingness to share it, but Hitler's rise is not analogous to the rise of ISIS (in my opinion).

 

The Third Reich was a state actor, with a state army and the support of millions of Germans. Their fervor was nationalistic, and they had significant manufacturing and logistics capabilities, which are needed to support an army.

 

ISIS is a cult, not a state actor. Their "army" is not a threat to any real state armies in the area. They do not have the funds or the economic and industrial bases to support a sustained war effort. They are geographically contained to a small area, with little to no capability to expand their territory, despite the fact that real might and determination has not even been brought to bear on them yet.

 

I just don't see these two situations as comparable.

That's a good way to think about it.

 

I think what a lot of people who demand more fighting over there forget is that the vast majority of the fighting has been going on over there. There hasn't been a major conflict in North America for 150 years. Hell, there are still many living Europeans that are old enough remember having their homes and hometowns obliterated for someone else's war. Who the "terrorist" is all a matter of perception.

 

The sad fact is if there wasn't this black stuff bubbling up under the sand over there, no one here would care. There have been just as many atrocities occurring in Africa but no one cares because the western countries have pretty much cut ties with Africa since we figured out how to synthesize rubber. Hell, there are many that say WWIII has already taken place in Africa. http://www.ibtimes.com/congo-world-war-nobody-knows-about-213207

 

I have no idea where I'm going with this tangent but I think the point is all you do by bombing cities when you're not actually fighting a government or an actual organized military (or even when you are) is spreading hatred amongst the inhabitants of that city. When you're fighting ISIS you're not fighting people, you're fighting an idea. I'm not sure we've developed a bomb yet that can destroy ideas.

Imo, you hit the nail on the head. I think the bombs actually spread the idea, not kill it.

That is a great analogy and I agree completely. And I suspect that some on this board would say those Quebecers were right to terrorize because of what English Canada did to them in the 1800s. Bottom line is that the the simple problems in the world were all solved long ago. The more complicated the issue, the less likely it can be solved. We cannot undo the past, only prevent further damage.

 

As always, you are all an interesting bunch. Great insight from other perspectives, left right middle, libertarian leaning. I respect them all, even when I don't agree. We are all better for knowing the the other perspectives. And the freedom to openly debate and disagree IS worth fighting for. The few middle eastern countries that share that philosophy are the ones under attack by radicalism, and despite the oil and other political aspects, that is a major reason for us to do something.

Well said Canuck!

Chad ruined my lake for me. Thanks to this post Nip is gonna have hundreds of huts on it next year

Next year? Why wait? I'm on my way up Friday!

 

Killing innocents is only collateral damage after all. This may be way off the wall but, what if 50,000 nutbars in Quebec took up arms to create a separate state and started taking Canadian territory and terrorizing say Quebec and New Brunswick. We send in the 6 fighter planes and bomb a town they took and we created some collateral damage. I guarantee you they will have more than 50,000 fighters the next day.

This is a great analogy.

That was not my point. Mainstream Muslims are not bombing us. ISIL and el Qaeda are. And they are doing it, not to avenge the crusades (which by the way Christianity left behind centuries ago). They are very clearly working to cleanse the world of infidels, starting in the Caliphate and then you think they will stop? It's not about oil it's about religion. There ARE many in the Middle East that oppose the west for meddling in their affairs for the sake of oil. And I don't disagree that there is a lot of truth to that. But that is not what ISIl is fighting for. Or el Qaeda or the Taliban.

Maybe some of you don't know any Muslims. I live in a multicultural city. I know a number of great people who are Muslims. They don't hate me or want to chop my head off. They bring homemade Samosas to the office and we break bread in the lunch room and talk about fishing, the Leafs, or whatever. These people represent mainstream Muslims, NOT ISIS.

 

ISIS is a rag tag group of 50,000 fighters at best. The generous estimate of 250,000 I gave in my previous comment above in this thread includes farmers, women, maybe some children and even goats. They are geographically contained. They have a limited capability to strike out via terror attacks, but beyond that they pose little to no threat to the world.

 

The countries around them that are considered our allies have more than 4 million troops available. ISIS could be wiped out in a matter of weeks or months if there was political will among those countries. That there isn't political will is not due to religion, as Rick pointed out earlier. It is about money and the politics of power. It is about oil sold to Turkey, or arms sold by the USA and Russia to continue these wars. It is about reconstruction contracts. It is about so much more. Because surely if the USA and Russia and Turkey and Egypt (just to name a few) really wanted ISIS gone, they would be gone already.

 

Now for the religion part of it. ISIS are extreme, there is no question. I am horrified by all that they do, and all that they stand for. Make no mistake about that. But they are a small minority. The vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with head chopping, and want the same thing every human wants (a la Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs). They want equality, opportunity, love, peace and prosperity like anyone else.

 

When we bomb civilian cities in Syria, we are saying by our actions that those lives don't matter. ISIS is telling them the West hates you, they bomb you, they want to kill you. And then we do it and prove them right. We literally ARE the infidel from their point of view, because we are trying to kill them in their land. We give ISIS credence by our actions. No one who pulled their dead child out of the rubble of their apartment is ever going to be on our side again. And I don't blame them for it.

 

Then on the other side, ISIS kills civilians in a terror attack, and we clamor for more bombing.

 

All we are doing is creating cycles of hatred and revenge. This is how Israel and Palestine treat each other, and they are no closer to a solution.

 

I am not saying do nothing. I am saying that bombing is doing the wrong thing.

Thanks guys. My Mom always told me I had a hard head!

 

I know some guys are rolling their eyes at this but I don't really think I'm going to change many minds on here. I do hope I can change one or two, that would be enough to be worth the effort.

dry it. freezer pack it (using one of those fancy food sealers).

 

most folks I know don't use any form of refined bud (ie, hash, oil, shatter, etc, etc, etc).

The website I order from has all the concentrates. I don't touch wax or shatter, but I get Nepalese or Afghan hash as a treat once in awhile.

So while researching The Crusades, I came across this piece. Haven't look hard into the site's history or background so take it for what it's worth.

 

http://theconversation.com/did-the-crusades-lead-to-islamic-state-54478

Their Wikipedia page is a good start:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conversation_(website)

 

 

Seems to be academically oriented (both in terms of editorial content and readership), and as such is perceived as having left leaning tendencies.

 

At any rate I've added this to my reading list for later. Thanks.

 

I'm glad you're amused.

I'll get off the soap box when I'm good and ready, or when Art makes me, whichever comes first.

 

There's two sides to every discussion, you don't like my side that's fine but I won't be quiet for you.

Well, I haven't seen one of their brodcasts where they said "death to the bombers" but I do seem to remember hearing "death to the infidels"!

I didn't know you spoke Arabic, Cliff. You are full of surprises

Well, I haven't seen one of their brodcasts where they said "death to the bombers" but I do seem to remember hearing "death to the infidels"!

And I have seen Westboro Baptist members yelling "death to f.a.g.s." but I didn't make the mistake of assuming they represent all Christians.

 

They are a minority, as are ISIL. It seems some people struggle to grasp this simple concept.

I wasn't talking to you.

 

I want to know if the hate is because of the bombing or because of infidels.

Works for me.... I'm happy to let someone else try to reason with you.

No. of ISIL members: 257,900 (1)

No. of Muslims in the world: 1,600,000,000 (2)

% Of Muslims who are members of ISIL: 0.0001611875%

 

No. of Westboro Baptist Church members: 40 (3)

No. of Christians in the world: 2,400,000,000

% of Christians who are members of Westboro Baptist Church: 0.000000016666667%

 

So in both cases, we are taking about less than 1/1000th of 1%. Fringe groups by any definition.

 

Glen, I have yet to see you put forth an argument, backed with facts and sources on this site. Instead all I see is you sitting back and throwing out smug and sarcastic quips and challenging others to do the work but doing none of your own. I won't be wasting my time like this again because I don't believe you have any interest in the answers to the questions you ask.

We are on their list because we are infidels not because we bombed them. ISIL is 100% focussed on expanding its view of pure Islam. That's is all it is about. They are not about politics or oil or economics. It's about religious idealism and extermination of the non-believers.

ISIL are no more representative of mainstream Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of mainstream Christianity.

Like many Canadians I have gone from horrified by the gov't to the normal state of being 'mildly dissatisfied"

Great way to put it!

Just glad you're happy with him Dutch

I'm not necessarily.

 

I just think the previous guy was doing too much damage and had to go. I didn't want to live in the police state he was trying to create.

Those are some pretty fish!

Net adjusted deficit/surplus (2011 dollars)

 

Stephen Harper (2006-2014): $127.45 billion net deficit over his term

 

Jean Chretien (1993-2004): $107.97 billion net deficit over term

 

Brian Mulroney (1984-1992): $464.8 billion net deficit over term

 

Pierre Trudeau (1980-1984): $185.23 billion net deficit over term

 

Joe Clark (1979-1980): $38.6 billion net deficit over term

 

Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979): $72.16 billion net deficit over term

 

(Source: Finance Canada, Statistics Canada, Bank of Canada, Parliament of Canada, IMF as reported at "http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571")

 

 

Tell me again how Liberals ruin this country . With free spending while Conservatives are sound fiscal managers?

 

They are all the same. The only difference is they have some people fooled into believing differently.

When you're making promises you know you can't keep just to get a job you tend to forget about a lot of details...like even simple addition.

 

But hey, the people that voted for him are pretty forgiving...he is such a nice guy after all...and he really meant well.

Where have you been all your life? This is the same as every politician in my lifetime (except perhaps Mike Harris). It's kinda funny that you're acting like only the "other guys" do it - they ALL do the same thing.

 

Moisture wicking base layer to keep the sweat off the skin. I wear a pair of fleece pants on top mostly because I prefer not to walk around wearing black tights!

 

Don't wear cotton/jeans, synthetics and wool are good for keeping the sweat away esp if you sweat a lot.

Yeah I wore a hoodie, and when I got back in the truck it was soaked with sweat and cold as ice when I leaned on the seat. Definitely need some fleece in there somewhere

Well then I guess I better use those minutes to haul my butt back up on the ice!

 

I never have more than two pops on the ice. I hate to speculate but from the sounds of the story in the other thread I think alcohol may have been a factor. Regardless it's a sad outcome for a day of fishing.

Mine is TC approved. Not to be morbid, but I kinda thought I'd have a half hour or an hour before hypothermia sets in....