TOPICS:
SEP 01, 2008 06:21 PM
FreakPirate said:
Subrosa said:
If by "armed conflict", you mean the Red Wings kicking the Maple Leafs' asses, then you are 100% correct. If you mean anything else, you're freaking loony.
Oh come on... I could beat the Leafs this year.
And I could beat the Canadian army. What's your point?
SEP 01, 2008 06:25 PM
I don't know. I just miss hockey.
SEP 01, 2008 08:37 PM
Subrosa said:
FreakPirate said:
Subrosa said:
If by "armed conflict", you mean the Red Wings kicking the Maple Leafs' asses, then you are 100% correct. If you mean anything else, you're freaking loony.
Oh come on... I could beat the Leafs this year.
And I could beat the Canadian army. What's your point?
heehee...this made me LOL.
SEP 01, 2008 10:46 PM
SEP 02, 2008 01:09 AM
FreakPirate said:
I don't know. I just miss hockey.
SEP 02, 2008 01:37 AM
SEP 02, 2008 08:17 AM
FreakPirate said:
You're not going to touch us. You're nowhere near that stupid. Invading Canada would be one of the worst moves you could ever make.
Bahhh
If they even try it we'll just do what we did last time and burn the White House down. 
Seriously though, I'm not worried. The US isn't that stupid.
SEP 02, 2008 08:55 AM
OCT 25, 2008 02:09 PM
OCT 25, 2008 02:29 PM
OCT 25, 2008 05:47 PM
Cheyenne said:
FreakPirate said:
I know there are still American troops in Afghanistan. But there should be more. They shouldn't have been moved to Iraq. Or if they were moved to Iraq they shouldn't have been moved until AFTER their job was done in Afghanistan. Which is isn't. You should have finished the fight there before starting a new one.
It's not just the media. Your country and your military are preoccupied with Iraq.
If that is what you think, then you truly know nothing about our military or what it is like to be in it. Troops were not taken from Afghanistan to put in Iraq. The number of troops in Afghanistan were reduced as it became more stable. Only recently has it been a bit messy again. To act like we aren't there and aren't doing anything anymore is an insult to the families and service members who are there busting their asses. There are more in Iraq because it is extremely less stable. Afghanistan is a UN deal. It is supposed to be a joint force, yet we are putting more troops than any other country involved, more than we are required,(hence our forces being even more thinned out and overworked) while other countries such as european ones and even Canada are not doing their part there.
...and if we were not so pre-occupied with Iraq, it is possible that the troops in Afghanistan would not be "even more thinned out and overworked."
That was the most strained expression of agreement with somebody that I think I've ever seen. By the way, if you greatly reduce the number of troops in Country A, and greatly increase (y'know, through unlawful invasion) the number of troops in Country B, it's really not worth arguing that you didn't "move" troops. Sure, you're technically correct, but considering the fact that you share America's value for the safety of the troops, it seems like you wouldn't pick quite so much at that point.
OCT 25, 2008 06:20 PM
OCT 25, 2008 07:12 PM
Toku666 said:
Cheyenne said:
FreakPirate said:
I know there are still American troops in Afghanistan. But there should be more. They shouldn't have been moved to Iraq. Or if they were moved to Iraq they shouldn't have been moved until AFTER their job was done in Afghanistan. Which is isn't. You should have finished the fight there before starting a new one.
It's not just the media. Your country and your military are preoccupied with Iraq.
If that is what you think, then you truly know nothing about our military or what it is like to be in it. Troops were not taken from Afghanistan to put in Iraq. The number of troops in Afghanistan were reduced as it became more stable. Only recently has it been a bit messy again. To act like we aren't there and aren't doing anything anymore is an insult to the families and service members who are there busting their asses. There are more in Iraq because it is extremely less stable. Afghanistan is a UN deal. It is supposed to be a joint force, yet we are putting more troops than any other country involved, more than we are required,(hence our forces being even more thinned out and overworked) while other countries such as european ones and even Canada are not doing their part there.
...and if we were not so pre-occupied with Iraq, it is possible that the troops in Afghanistan would not be "even more thinned out and overworked."
That was the most strained expression of agreement with somebody that I think I've ever seen. By the way, if you greatly reduce the number of troops in Country A, and greatly increase (y'know, through unlawful invasion) the number of troops in Country B, it's really not worth arguing that you didn't "move" troops. Sure, you're technically correct, but considering the fact that you share America's value for the safety of the troops, it seems like you wouldn't pick quite so much at that point.
You really need to read the papers, watch the news and/or speak to people outside the US to get a better idea of what is going on. The Canadians are the majority forces in Afghanistan and we're still acting like we're fighting both wars. FreakPirate is right, we fucked with Afghanistan then went in to Iraq and left a small presence to say "Hey look! We're still helping!"
This isn't a shot at our soldiers, it's a shot at our leaders and the media.
OCT 25, 2008 08:14 PM
mydogfarted said:
Toku666 said:
Cheyenne said:
FreakPirate said:
I know there are still American troops in Afghanistan. But there should be more. They shouldn't have been moved to Iraq. Or if they were moved to Iraq they shouldn't have been moved until AFTER their job was done in Afghanistan. Which is isn't. You should have finished the fight there before starting a new one.
It's not just the media. Your country and your military are preoccupied with Iraq.
If that is what you think, then you truly know nothing about our military or what it is like to be in it. Troops were not taken from Afghanistan to put in Iraq. The number of troops in Afghanistan were reduced as it became more stable. Only recently has it been a bit messy again. To act like we aren't there and aren't doing anything anymore is an insult to the families and service members who are there busting their asses. There are more in Iraq because it is extremely less stable. Afghanistan is a UN deal. It is supposed to be a joint force, yet we are putting more troops than any other country involved, more than we are required,(hence our forces being even more thinned out and overworked) while other countries such as european ones and even Canada are not doing their part there.
...and if we were not so pre-occupied with Iraq, it is possible that the troops in Afghanistan would not be "even more thinned out and overworked."
That was the most strained expression of agreement with somebody that I think I've ever seen. By the way, if you greatly reduce the number of troops in Country A, and greatly increase (y'know, through unlawful invasion) the number of troops in Country B, it's really not worth arguing that you didn't "move" troops. Sure, you're technically correct, but considering the fact that you share America's value for the safety of the troops, it seems like you wouldn't pick quite so much at that point.
You really need to read the papers, watch the news and/or speak to people outside the US to get a better idea of what is going on. The Canadians are the majority forces in Afghanistan and we're still acting like we're fighting both wars. FreakPirate is right, we fucked with Afghanistan then went in to Iraq and left a small presence to say "Hey look! We're still helping!"
This isn't a shot at our soldiers, it's a shot at our leaders and the media.
Uh, who are you replying to? I am in agreement with FreakPirate and in (apparently?) disagreement with Cheyenne.
FreakPirate
Canada
November 2002
SEP 01, 2008 06:17 PM