www.ditl.org

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Well, I believe in talking things over first. Killing another human being should be an absolute last resort.

Who said it wasn't. Kindly do not blame soldiers for the failure of international diplomacy, we are not allowed to disobey an order unless it is illegal or unethical. There's nothing in the QR&O's or UCMJ about wars started by retard monkey's.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Well, I believe in talking things over first. Killing another human being should be an absolute last resort.

Who said it wasn't. Kindly do not blame soldiers for the failure of international diplomacy, we are not allowed to disobey an order unless it is illegal or unethical. There's nothing in the QR&O's or UCMJ about wars started by retard monkey's.

I don't blame soldiers for the failure of international diplomacy, I blame them for volunteering to kill people. Canada's military is still voluntary I assume.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
I don't blame soldiers for the failure of international diplomacy, I blame them for volunteering to kill people. Canada's military is still voluntary I assume.

Yes and it's with the implied contract that we not be used for BS conflicts, hence why we're not in Iraq.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
I don't blame soldiers for the failure of international diplomacy, I blame them for volunteering to kill people. Canada's military is still voluntary I assume.

Yes and it's with the implied contract that we not be used for BS conflicts, hence why we're not in Iraq.

Don't change the subject. But you admit that you volunteered to kill people. No one forced you to volunteer.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Don't change the subject. But you admit that you volunteered to kill people. No one forced you to volunteer.

People who threaten the country, don't pretend you can't see the distinction.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Don't change the subject. But you admit that you volunteered to kill people. No one forced you to volunteer.

People who threaten the country, don't pretend you can't see the distinction.

When was the last time someone invaded Canada? Or the US for that matter. Besides, there's nothing that can't be done if you're willing to negotiate.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
When was the last time someone invaded Canada? Or the US for that matter. Besides, there's nothing that can't be done if you're willing to negotiate.

Don't pretend there aren't legitimate reasons for a country like Canada to have a military. Reason one is that our neighbor is extremely dangerous, reason two is disaster assistance, reason three is search and rescue, reason four is anti-terrorism.

As for negotiation, tell that to Kuwait.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Reason one is that our neighbor is extremely dangerous,

You're closest neighbor is the US and last time I checked we were allies. And, I honestly don't think anyone's going to invade Canada.

reason two is disaster assistance,

Aren't there civilian agencys for that? And do you really need guns to help you with that?

reason three is search and rescue,

Once again, what about civilian agencys?

reason four is anti-terrorism.

I might give you that, since some terrorists can be unreasonable.

As for negotiation, tell that to Kuwait.

I would but I don't have their number.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
You're closest neighbor is the US and last time I checked we were allies. And, I honestly don't think anyone's going to invade Canada.

You won't be saying that when oil gets scarcer and the US starts to dry up thanks to global warming.

Aren't there civilian agencys for that? And do you really need guns to help you with that?

How many civvie agencies have twenty thousand trained personnel that can be deployed anywhere in Canada within 24 hours? And yes it helps to bring weapons, during the 1998 Ontario/Quebec icestorm there were looters.

Once again, what about civilian agencys?

Because the CF was tasked with it by the Federal Government. How many agencies can operate in the high arctic?

I might give you that, since some terrorists can be unreasonable.

Some?

I would but I don't have their number.

1-800-Curb-Stomp.

"Some terrorists can be unreasonable"? Yeah, I'd say blowing up children ON PURPOSE is always unreasonable. Kuwait had tried to negotiate, as did most of Europe before WW2. What do you do when your enemy doesn't feel like negotiating? If someone walked up to you for no reason and hit you in the face repeatedly, would you stand there and try to "talk" them out of it? Better yet, if someone pulled a knife on you, and you were cornered, you'd try to talk to them then?

Stay at home as much as you can, Blackstar. If any real crisis situation ever breaks out in front of you, you'll either get killed, or get other people killed with such a naive attitude and lack of real experiance.

1-800-Curb-Stomp

Well, aren't you clever?

How did all this start? Oh, yes. I remember now, I was trying to explain to you why some people, and more specifically why I don't like soldiers. So I'm curious, do you understand my reasoning now? At all?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Well, aren't you clever?

How did all this start? Oh, yes. I remember now, I was trying to explain to you why some people, and more specifically why I don't like soldiers. So I'm curious, do you understand my reasoning now? At all?

No, I don't. I understand the objections to murder, yes. Not military action, from where I sit this attitude is cowardice. There's no reason to look for a fight and you should do everything you can do avoid it but there comes a point where it has to be done.

Your actually the exact type of person I was trying to describe. Dislike the military but when something happens they scream for us. I'm looking at you Quebec.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:

1-800-Curb-Stomp

Well, aren't you clever?

How did all this start? Oh, yes. I remember now, I was trying to explain to you why some people, and more specifically why I don't like soldiers. So I'm curious, do you understand my reasoning now? At all?

I sure don't. If we had no soldiers, you think the rest of the world would either disarm, or just leave us alone? That's about as probable as me walking outside and flying away like Superman.

If you don't care to defend yourself, that's fine with me, but suggesting that I can't, or condemning people who protect all of us at grave personal risk is, quite frankly, rather offensive, and naive bullsh*t.

Cpl Kendall wrote:
No, I don't. I understand the objections to murder, yes. Not military action, from where I sit this attitude is cowardice.

Is it any less cowardly to hide behind a gun?

I sure don't. If we had no soldiers, you think the rest of the world would either disarm, or just leave us alone

Purhaps not right away. But a gradual disarmament might help make the world a little more peaceful. But peace has to start somewhere, and it's not going to be by killing.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Is it any less cowardly to hide behind a gun?

Using a weapon against people that are using them against you is hardly hiding. The job of the military is to kill people in a quick and efficent matter with as little loss to your side as possible.

Purhaps not right away. But a gradual disarmament might help make the world a little more peaceful. But peace has to start somewhere, and it's not going to be by killing.

Ok, who disarms first then?