[Shadow_Flanker]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I only ask because, Daffy is still in power and they say the cost will be in the ball park of 60 mill in the next few months. So really your statement shows a complete lack of comprehension. Maybe you should read it again...

Oh I am completely aware that Daffy is still in power. I am also aware that the estimate for the cost of Canada's Libyan adventure could be around 60 million, that is of course pending if our mission there is extented for another three months.

My statement was made because many Canadians love to bitch and complain about costs, especially when it comes to military expenditures, and on the hypothetical scenario that daffy was removed from power at the time the article was made. So, if Daffy was actually removed from power (at the time the article was published), and the cost was just 26 million (as it currently stands), then of course in my view the cost of the military mission was well worth the monetary expense. That is of course once again, on the catch that Daffy was actually removed from power at the time.

Again, yes my good man. I read the article.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Shadow_Flanker Shadow_Flanker:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I only ask because, Daffy is still in power and they say the cost will be in the ball park of 60 mill in the next few months. So really your statement shows a complete lack of comprehension. Maybe you should read it again...

Oh I am completely aware that Daffy is still in power. I am also aware that the estimate for the cost of Canada's Libyan adventure could be around 60 million, that is of course pending if our mission there is extented for another three months.

My statement was made because many Canadians love to bitch and complain about costs, especially when it comes to military expenditures, and on the hypothetical scenario that daffy was removed from power at the time the article was made. So, if Daffy was actually removed from power (at the time the article was published), and the cost was just 26 million (as it currently stands), then of course in my view the cost of the military mission was well worth the monetary expense. That is of course once again, on the catch that Daffy was actually removed from power at the time.

Again, yes my good man. I read the article.

IF the guy that replaces Daffy is an even bigger POS, then it really doen't matter how "cheap" it is.
This old, "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" crap has burned many a nation through the centuries, especially the US over the last 70 years.
If we're going to be sending anyone to questionable parts of the world to help "dethrone" some tinpot dictator, I'd think we have a responsibility to ensure that we're not just helping another group of assholes attain power. If we can't ensure that, then we should just stay the hell out of it.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Shadow_Flanker Shadow_Flanker:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I only ask because, Daffy is still in power and they say the cost will be in the ball park of 60 mill in the next few months. So really your statement shows a complete lack of comprehension. Maybe you should read it again...

Oh I am completely aware that Daffy is still in power. I am also aware that the estimate for the cost of Canada's Libyan adventure could be around 60 million, that is of course pending if our mission there is extented for another three months.

My statement was made because many Canadians love to bitch and complain about costs, especially when it comes to military expenditures, and on the hypothetical scenario that daffy was removed from power at the time the article was made. So, if Daffy was actually removed from power (at the time the article was published), and the cost was just 26 million (as it currently stands), then of course in my view the cost of the military mission was well worth the monetary expense. That is of course once again, on the catch that Daffy was actually removed from power at the time.

Again, yes my good man. I read the article.

Wow that's some crazy gymnastic back peddling.

[mentalfloss]

We need to just let this go.

The military-industrial circus isn't worth it.

[Shadow_Flanker]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Shadow_Flanker Shadow_Flanker:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I only ask because, Daffy is still in power and they say the cost will be in the ball park of 60 mill in the next few months. So really your statement shows a complete lack of comprehension. Maybe you should read it again...

Oh I am completely aware that Daffy is still in power. I am also aware that the estimate for the cost of Canada's Libyan adventure could be around 60 million, that is of course pending if our mission there is extented for another three months.

My statement was made because many Canadians love to bitch and complain about costs, especially when it comes to military expenditures, and on the hypothetical scenario that daffy was removed from power at the time the article was made. So, if Daffy was actually removed from power (at the time the article was published), and the cost was just 26 million (as it currently stands), then of course in my view the cost of the military mission was well worth the monetary expense. That is of course once again, on the catch that Daffy was actually removed from power at the time.

Again, yes my good man. I read the article.

IF the guy that replaces Daffy is an even bigger POS, then it really doen't matter how "cheap" it is.
This old, "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" crap has burned many a nation through the centuries, especially the US over the last 70 years.
If we're going to be sending anyone to questionable parts of the world to help "dethrone" some tinpot dictator, I'd think we have a responsibility to ensure that we're not just helping another group of assholes attain power. If we can't ensure that, then we should just stay the hell out of it.

Well said.

Unfortunbately we have no idea what kind of leadership the rebels would be if and when daffy is gone. We can always put a west friendly in charge, but many would probably see that new government as just a puppet, then later down the road that leadership would probably come under fire by another batch of opposition, now we are back to square one.

When one meddles (spelling?) in the internal affairs of another nation, things can get real tricky real fast. Somestimes the more prudent approach is to just sit on the fence and see how things play out.

[Shadow_Flanker]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Wow that's some crazy gymnastic back peddling.

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

IF the guy that replaces Daffy is an even bigger POS, then it really doen't matter how "cheap" it is.
This old, "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" crap has burned many a nation through the centuries, especially the US over the last 70 years.
If we're going to be sending anyone to questionable parts of the world to help "dethrone" some tinpot dictator, I'd think we have a responsibility to ensure that we're not just helping another group of assholes attain power. If we can't ensure that, then we should just stay the hell out of it.

What are you talking about?

That brilliant policy (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) allied with awesome leaders like Stalin, Pinochet and Saddam!

[ShepherdsDog]

Don't think you can include Pinochet in that crowd...Stalin and Hussein threatened their neighbours and regional stability. He's more in line with Mugabe, Franco(especially Franco because they came to power under similar circumstances and their nations were pretty well evenly divided in their support of each) and Suharto.

[Shadow_Flanker]

An idea just came to me after reading bootlega, and ShepherdsDog's posts.

Would it be a better policy to limit the removal of dictators to the ones that threaten both their own national populations and the neighbouring nations, or just the ones that threaten their own national populations?

[Dragon-Dancer]

I'm generally of the opinion that unless said dictator directly threatened Canada in some way we should be staying out of their business. I have never understood how the armed forces is standing on guard for Canada when off in some other land with which we have no direct contact. Don't we pay the armed forces to defend Canada? they can't often do that thousands of miles away from our shores, there are exceptions but I can't see any relevance to the Libyan conflict.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

I'm generally of the opinion that unless said dictator directly threatened Canada in some way we should be staying out of their business. I have never understood how the armed forces is standing on guard for Canada when off in some other land with which we have no direct contact. Don't we pay the armed forces to defend Canada? they can't often do that thousands of miles away from our shores, there are exceptions but I can't see any relevance to the Libyan conflict.

You forget that militaries are used as political tools as well as defensive tools.

[Dragon-Dancer]

No, I don't forget. I just don't agree with that use, people should not be used as tools for someone else's political ambitions.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

No, I don't forget. I just don't agree with that use, people should not be used as tools for someone else's political ambitions.

I dont know, Canadian intervention into WWII and definately WWI were both mostly political decision. I can see what you're saying though, individual political goals should never involve military involvement, but some national politcal interests can only be supported through military means.

[bootlegga]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Don't think you can include Pinochet in that crowd...Stalin and Hussein threatened their neighbours and regional stability. He's more in line with Mugabe, Franco(especially Franco because they came to power under similar circumstances and their nations were pretty well evenly divided in their support of each) and Suharto.

My point was facetious and sarcastic, but while Pinochet isn't in the 'neighbour threatening' crowd, but he definitely is in the 'treat your country's nationals terrible' crowd - which if I'm not mistaken was one of the reasons to 'liberate' Iraq from Hussein.

[Chillaxe]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

I'm generally of the opinion that unless said dictator directly threatened Canada in some way we should be staying out of their business. I have never understood how the armed forces is standing on guard for Canada when off in some other land with which we have no direct contact. Don't we pay the armed forces to defend Canada? they can't often do that thousands of miles away from our shores, there are exceptions but I can't see any relevance to the Libyan conflict.

Canada's Military is not simply there to defend Canada. It has the duty to support our foriegn policyas well. Simply sitting back and watching as others around you suffer is very UN-Canadian dont you think. Sometimes the "defence of Canada" has to be conducted abroad. Please research the history of Canada's military, you will clearly see that we Canadians were defined as soveriegn based on our military activities abroad.