Current Events

TOPICS:

10/26/08

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

SEP 01, 2008 06:17 PM

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.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

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?

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

SEP 01, 2008 06:25 PM

I don't know. I just miss hockey.

Cheyenne

Cheyenne

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

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.

Reprisal

Reprisal

Port Alberni, BC
September 2002

SEP 01, 2008 10:46 PM

Uh, guys. I'm not certain there's much to be too angry about here. My reading of the Original Post (OP) sees a lot of exaggeration and a bit of hyperbole mixed in with some reasonable worries.

Wasn't her point that McCain Palin would be a bad notion for Canada due to the environmental repercussions first, before the mention of armed conflict. Admittedly, it's a nebulous turn of phrase, but I figured it had more to do with general armed conflict rather than actual missiles being exchanged by Canadian and American naval vessels...

Oh, FreakPirate, starr's Canadian -- Qualicum Beach is in British Columbia.

The US has made a point of sending ships through the NW passage to call Canadian Sovereignty into question. I think they did it twice, once in 1985 and another time in the early to mid nineties, but I'd have to check to be certain.

Russia is more of the issue, but my understanding of Russian politics dropped off after I left school in 2006...

abbazappa

abbazappa

Sacramento, CA
June 2006

SEP 02, 2008 01:09 AM

FreakPirate said:
I don't know. I just miss hockey.


scylis

scylis

USA
November 2004

SEP 02, 2008 01:37 AM

i'm still surprised you guys have a navy.

khoos

khoos

HOPEFUL

Ottawa, ON

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. tongue

Seriously though, I'm not worried. The US isn't that stupid.

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Oakland, NJ
June 2003

SEP 02, 2008 08:55 AM


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.



Loony? Can we keep Canadian currency out of the argument?

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

OCT 25, 2008 02:09 PM

It appears that Palin's Alaskan pipeline deal may have been a little hinky.

Gov. Sarah Palin's signature accomplishment - a contract to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48 - emerged from a flawed bidding process that narrowed the field to a company with ties to her administration, an Associated Press investigation shows.



"Most definitely TransCanada got a sweetheart deal this time," said Republican Sen. Bert Stedman, who voted against the TransCanada license. "Where else could you get a $500 million reimbursement when you don't even have the financing to build the pipeline?"

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

OCT 25, 2008 02:29 PM

SockPuppet said:
It appears that Palin's Alaskan pipeline deal may have been a little hinky.

Gov. Sarah Palin's signature accomplishment - a contract to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48 - emerged from a flawed bidding process that narrowed the field to a company with ties to her administration, an Associated Press investigation shows.



"Most definitely TransCanada got a sweetheart deal this time," said Republican Sen. Bert Stedman, who voted against the TransCanada license. "Where else could you get a $500 million reimbursement when you don't even have the financing to build the pipeline?"



Gerard: Biggs, what does that mean, hinky?
Biggs: I don't know. Strange. Weird
Gerard: Well, why don't you say strange or weird? I mean hinky, that has no meaning.
Biggs: Well, we say hinky.
Gerard: I don't want you guys using words with no meaning.
Biggs: [sotto voice] How about 'bullshit?' How about 'bullshit,' Sam?


Sorry, that's all I got.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

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.

blackeyed blackeyed



...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.

MrZablowdowski

MrZablowdowski

Edmonton, AB
December 2002

OCT 25, 2008 06:20 PM

Can kick up her mukluks at my igloo. In the day, a hockey mom like that was just plain foxy.
Go Oilers!

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Oakland, NJ
June 2003

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.

blackeyed blackeyed



...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.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

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.

blackeyed blackeyed



...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.

X_Racer_X

X_Racer_X

Philadelphia, PA
July 2008

OCT 26, 2008 08:11 AM

Trans Canada didn't exactly get a sweetheart deal...more like they were willing to agree to set terms on taxes for the future gas that would be flowing WHEN AND IF they actually build the thing...Bp and Conoco etc...wouldn't agree to any terms and were cut out of the process..she played hardball they said NO...actually something Palin did that was good for the citizens of Alaska.

The pipeline should be built and sooner rather than later.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next