U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-22-2016, 12:29 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,255,922 times
Reputation: 7578

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Sterling View Post
A couple of things. First off there wouldn't be a Syrian civil war in the first place if many Syrian people didn't rise up in violence against government Syrian forces and turn the argument from protests into full on open conflict. And then when it did become a full on civil war, it was Syrian rebels that pleaded for the world to help them from getting crushed by Assad's forces. The point is we probably wouldn't be in Syria if the rebels didn't beg us to help them and now all of a sudden its all OUR FAULT for trying to save them??
That's the impartial story you are telling? really?


So a rebel force rose to overthrow its government, and Canada is obligated to help them? Seriously? Rebel forces rose in Saudi Arabia too, how come Canada (and the "world") didn't help them? Enlighten me. Instead, we decide to sell the Saudi government weapons.


They use force against a democratically elected president (Assad was elected), and of course the government will use force to crush it. It will happen anywhere. That was a legal government elected by people. What did you expect to happen? The problem with people like you is that you look everything in a black and white manner - Assad is bad, the rebel is good, because the media says so. Are you that nave?


Yes, there was a civil war (partially thanks to the US government for supporting the rebel in the first place, like it always does in other parts of the world), but shouldn't Canada's role, if anything, be to facilitate negotiation and a peaceful resolution? Instead, we already decided "Bashar Assad must go" as if we were God. We don't care about Syria's history, we don't care about pros and cons, we don't care about consequences. We don't even care about the lives of Syrian civilians. What we care about is "what is best for ME". Would you believe it if I told the Syrian people don't want Assad gone, and certainly don't western intervention?


The rebels begged us to help them, that automatically means it is the right thing to help overthrown a government in a foreign country? How arrogant are you? And who do we think we are? Again, what will we choose when the Saudi rebels beg us to do the same? Are we gonna?


You ask if it is our fault for trying to save them... save whom exactly? Did our noble act result in more civilian death or less? Did our participation result in deterioration of situation or improvement? Who did we end up saving? And you seriously are that nave to believe Canada and the west engaged in the war against the Syrian government for humanitarian reasons, to save the Syrian people, to bring them freedom and happiness??

Looking at elsewhere, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, everywhere, did western involvement solve anything? brought peace? Everywhere we go, there is more war, more violence, more drug sales, more instability. For Christ's sake the powerful US army was in Afghanistan for 15 years and could hardly make Taliban any weaker. Western forces solved nothing and achieved nothing. In fact, it is our actions that directly led to the rise of ISIS, and is that news to you? The US wants to play world cop and burn millions of dollars each day in foreign countries instead of providing help to its poor, that's their choice, why should Canada be part of it?

OMG, people frustrate me. You are either 15 or watched too much CNN propaganda. We created failure after failure, yet still have the guts to tell the world we are intervening a foreign country using force trying to "save the people". Sorry, I can't even listen to arguments like this. People are so ignorant, so biased, and so self-righteous that they just abandon any logic and reasoning and resort to such self-gratifying BS.


Mark my words, NATO is more dangerous than ISIS. It is far larger a terrorist group than anything under the guise of protecting the world. It directly created far more tragedy and misery in the world than ISIS is ever capable of, yet for people living the west. we don't care, as long as it is not the lives we know, we don't give a damn. We continue to live in this bubble that our military is a benign force and it is those evil rouge governments that deserve to the overthrown. The thing is, if a country keeps using force on other nations trying to work the situation toward its own favour, it deserves to be terrorized.


See, "freedom of press" doesn't make people any smarter.

Last edited by botticelli; 06-22-2016 at 12:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2016, 01:32 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,070,697 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
Almost all the guns that have turned these places into warzones were purchased legally in the US and then smuggled south. The drugs go north, the guns go south.

Absolutely not true....Mexican Cartels get plenty of fully automatic guns (not even legal in the US) and even bazookas from Eastern bloc nations....please stop talking something you do not know nothing about...

"Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth"

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/2011...0-percent-myth

http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/90PercentMyth.pdf

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

"The Truth About Mexican Drug Cartels’ Arsenal: Follow the Grenades"

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-the-grenades/

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-drug-cartels/

Sure a lot of drug cartel guns "come from the US"....meaning most of it come from the Mexican military armories and were legally bought from the US by the Mexican government....

Last edited by saturno_v; 06-22-2016 at 01:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 01:37 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,070,697 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
And how is that distinction relevant to my point of living next door to a neighbour with a burgeoning firearm proliferation problem being a large contributing factor to our firearms related crimes?

Simple, where there is a need there is a market....you would get (and you do get already) illegal guns from somewhere else....

Mexican cartels would not waste time getting into the illegal gun trade (actually they already do)


Think about guns in the same way you think about drugs.....have rules and regulations stopped the flow of drugs?? Not to mention that legalizing drugs would immediately eliminate the vast majority of gun crimes....USA and Canada...

Last edited by saturno_v; 06-22-2016 at 01:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 01:56 PM
 
14,195 posts, read 6,105,213 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
That's the impartial story you are telling? really?


So a rebel force rose to overthrow its government, and Canada is obligated to help them? Seriously? Rebel forces rose in Saudi Arabia too, how come Canada (and the "world") didn't help them? Enlighten me. Instead, we decide to sell the Saudi government weapons.


They use force against a democratically elected president (Assad was elected), and of course the government will use force to crush it. It will happen anywhere. That was a legal government elected by people. What did you expect to happen? The problem with people like you is that you look everything in a black and white manner - Assad is bad, the rebel is good, because the media says so. Are you that nave?


Yes, there was a civil war (partially thanks to the US government for supporting the rebel in the first place, like it always does in other parts of the world), but shouldn't Canada's role, if anything, be to facilitate negotiation and a peaceful resolution? Instead, we already decided "Bashar Assad must go" as if we were God. We don't care about Syria's history, we don't care about pros and cons, we don't care about consequences. We don't even care about the lives of Syrian civilians. What we care about is "what is best for ME". Would you believe it if I told the Syrian people don't want Assad gone, and certainly don't western intervention?


The rebels begged us to help them, that automatically means it is the right thing to help overthrown a government in a foreign country? How arrogant are you? And who do we think we are? Again, what will we choose when the Saudi rebels beg us to do the same? Are we gonna?


You ask if it is our fault for trying to save them... save whom exactly? Did our noble act result in more civilian death or less? Did our participation result in deterioration of situation or improvement? Who did we end up saving? And you seriously are that nave to believe Canada and the west engaged in the war against the Syrian government for humanitarian reasons, to save the Syrian people, to bring them freedom and happiness??

Looking at elsewhere, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, everywhere, did western involvement solve anything? brought peace? Everywhere we go, there is more war, more violence, more drug sales, more instability. For Christ's sake the powerful US army was in Afghanistan for 15 years and could hardly make Taliban any weaker. Western forces solved nothing and achieved nothing. In fact, it is our actions that directly led to the rise of ISIS, and is that news to you? The US wants to play world cop and burn millions of dollars each day in foreign countries instead of providing help to its poor, that's their choice, why should Canada be part of it?

OMG, people frustrate me. You are either 15 or watched too much CNN propaganda. We created failure after failure, yet still have the guts to tell the world we are intervening a foreign country using force trying to "save the people". Sorry, I can't even listen to arguments like this. People are so ignorant, so biased, and so self-righteous that they just abandon any logic and reasoning and resort to such self-gratifying BS.


Mark my words, NATO is more dangerous than ISIS. It is far larger a terrorist group than anything under the guise of protecting the world. It directly created far more tragedy and misery in the world than ISIS is ever capable of, yet for people living the west. we don't care, as long as it is not the lives we know, we don't give a damn. We continue to live in this bubble that our military is a benign force and it is those evil rouge governments that deserve to the overthrown. The thing is, if a country keeps using force on other nations trying to work the situation toward its own favour, it deserves to be terrorized.


See, "freedom of press" doesn't make people any smarter.
I think you misunderstood what Max was saying. You are both making similar arguments. He said we prolonged the Syrian civil war by helping the rebel forces, not that we should be there to help the rebel forces. Because we (U.S. and then Canada) helped the rebel forces, we have caused thousands more lives lost and a huge migration of people from the region that rivals the end of WWII.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 02:26 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,255,922 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
I think you misunderstood what Max was saying. You are both making similar arguments. He said we prolonged the Syrian civil war by helping the rebel forces, not that we should be there to help the rebel forces. Because we (U.S. and then Canada) helped the rebel forces, we have caused thousands more lives lost and a huge migration of people from the region that rivals the end of WWII.
I don't think so. He still thinks it was right to "help" the rebels to overthrow Assad. He admitted our involvement prolonged the war, but he would nevertheless prefer if we had succeeded in helping the rebel forces overthrow a democratically elected government, because the rebel forces "begged" us.


I don't buy his argument if we did nothing, the world will criticize us for that. Maybe we should have helped, but instead of choosing side that serves to help our own interest, we should persuade both sides to talk and come to a compromise. A lot fewer lives would have been lost. But instead, the west always has its own agenda in the region and that's the root of this whole issue.


What we keep forgetting is, Syria is better off with Assad than without, no matter how bad and oppressive he is. The Syrian people will suffer less if the rebels were crushed much sooner without our self-serving "intervention". In fact, Iraq would have been in much better shape now if Saddam were still in power, and ISIS would have no chance to go rampant, because Saddam would be able to crush it. What the US did was to attack each country, remove any regime it didn't like, tried to manage the local economy and restore stability and failed miserably, then decided to call it a day and leave. You know what, the chaos it left has consequences, and this times, it goes out to US soil. Surprised? If we really think it through, the death of those innocent lives in Orlando is the US government fault, not ISIS or anyone else's.


After all these years, we all should realize that the western governments do NOT give a flying a$$ about democracy, human rights or the well being of the Arab people. In every case, western interest crushes morality. And each time they simply want to take advantage of the situation to gain more power/influence in the region.


People here talking about "what's wrong with the Muslims" is pointless. Terrorism was never due to religious extremism although on the surface it appears so. If the west did the same thing to Japan what they did to the Middle East, the Japanese would have bombed it as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 04:22 PM
 
14,195 posts, read 6,105,213 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
I don't think so. He still thinks it was right to "help" the rebels to overthrow Assad. He admitted our involvement prolonged the war, but he would nevertheless prefer if we had succeeded in helping the rebel forces overthrow a democratically elected government, because the rebel forces "begged" us.


I don't buy his argument if we did nothing, the world will criticize us for that. Maybe we should have helped, but instead of choosing side that serves to help our own interest, we should persuade both sides to talk and come to a compromise. A lot fewer lives would have been lost. But instead, the west always has its own agenda in the region and that's the root of this whole issue.


What we keep forgetting is, Syria is better off with Assad than without, no matter how bad and oppressive he is. The Syrian people will suffer less if the rebels were crushed much sooner without our self-serving "intervention". In fact, Iraq would have been in much better shape now if Saddam were still in power, and ISIS would have no chance to go rampant, because Saddam would be able to crush it. What the US did was to attack each country, remove any regime it didn't like, tried to manage the local economy and restore stability and failed miserably, then decided to call it a day and leave. You know what, the chaos it left has consequences, and this times, it goes out to US soil. Surprised? If we really think it through, the death of those innocent lives in Orlando is the US government fault, not ISIS or anyone else's.


After all these years, we all should realize that the western governments do NOT give a flying a$$ about democracy, human rights or the well being of the Arab people. In every case, western interest crushes morality. And each time they simply want to take advantage of the situation to gain more power/influence in the region.


People here talking about "what's wrong with the Muslims" is pointless. Terrorism was never due to religious extremism although on the surface it appears so. If the west did the same thing to Japan what they did to the Middle East, the Japanese would have bombed it as well.

I agree with you for the most part. I was against the Iraq War from the start. Even though I didn't like George Bush and think he made a terrible error in Iraq, he did at least leave it better at the end of his time in office. Obama could have done more than a cursory effort to get a new status of forces agreement to keep more troops there, then maybe we wouldn't be seeing all these problems. But Obama never believed in that war and definitely didn't want to keep troops there. I believe in the Powell Pottery Barn theory - you break, you buy. It was morally wrong to destabilize their country and then leave them to those monsters. Of course, we trained the Iraqi forces and left them billions of dollars in military equipment, so Obama had a reasonable expectation that they could defend themselves. Sadly, that wasn't the case.

The Bush neocons really believed they could make the country better than they found it, but America doesn't have kings. If John McCain had won in '08, he would have continued Bush policies and we probably wouldn't be seeing the mess it is today. Then again, we could. It's all unknowable. To me, Obama did the worst thing going into Libya and not having a strategy for the aftermath. Bush didn't know his ideas wouldn't work, but Obama knew by then because of what happened in Iraq.

The problem now is that even if we pulled every single troop out of all countries in the ME and let them do what they wanted, the Islamic extremists would still target the west. The genie is out of the bottle now, and they have an end goal. Heck, even if Israel gave up their country and left the ME, that end goal would still remain. I don't know what the answer is, but continuing like we have is obviously not the right one.

I would like to see our leaders in the west stand firm against ISIS and al Qaeda and all the other groups. Get the moderate Muslims to fear them less so they can force change. The only way we can do that is to fight the ideology, not make excuses for them. Maybe the only way to do something like that is a WWII type of strategy to cause as much damage and casualties as we can until they surrender. But that will never happen because we don't want to hurt the average citizen over there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 04:26 PM
 
14,195 posts, read 6,105,213 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
Simple, where there is a need there is a market....you would get (and you do get already) illegal guns from somewhere else....

Mexican cartels would not waste time getting into the illegal gun trade (actually they already do)


Think about guns in the same way you think about drugs.....have rules and regulations stopped the flow of drugs?? Not to mention that legalizing drugs would immediately eliminate the vast majority of gun crimes....USA and Canada...
Legalizing all drugs? Do you think people should go to the store and buy cocaine? Meth? Just curious, because the only way it would work would be to legalize every single drug out there, and I'm not sure that would be better than what we have now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 04:50 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,070,697 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
Legalizing all drugs? Do you think people should go to the store and buy cocaine? Meth? Just curious, because the only way it would work would be to legalize every single drug out there, and I'm not sure that would be better than what we have now.

Yes that is exactly what I mean.....once someone is considered an adult he/she should be able to waste his life away as he/she wishes....after all I can buy a lot of stuff on the shelves that allow me to commit suicide...

Is not different than drinking your life away....right now I can buy into a store, show my ID, buy a crapload of booze, get intoxicated and possibly even killing few people while driving under the influence......why I should not be able to buy coke??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 05:00 PM
 
14,195 posts, read 6,105,213 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
Yes that is exactly what I mean.....once someone is considered an adult he/she should be able to waste his life away as he/she wishes....after all I can buy a lot of stuff on the shelves that allow me to commit suicide...

Is not different than drinking your life away....right now I can buy into a store, show my ID, buy a crapload of booze, get intoxicated and possibly even killing few people while driving under the influence......why I should not be able to buy coke??
I agree, but I'm a mom so I remember what it was like when I was a kid thinking that adults drink. And practically all adults drink. It's a right of passage. I just fear that with legalization comes acceptance. But maybe it is the answer. I don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 06:29 PM
 
18,264 posts, read 10,366,114 times
Reputation: 13320
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
Simple, where there is a need there is a market....you would get (and you do get already) illegal guns from somewhere else....

Mexican cartels would not waste time getting into the illegal gun trade (actually they already do)


Think about guns in the same way you think about drugs.....have rules and regulations stopped the flow of drugs?? Not to mention that legalizing drugs would immediately eliminate the vast majority of gun crimes....USA and Canada...
I think it is notable you keep ignoring the 70% factor or the words like majority, bulk, most. etc..

FACT: Canada would have LESS firearm related deaths if our immediate neighbour was not so busily making them so proliferate and easy to procure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top