I guess Canada should not support US military ventures in the future

[Yes_Minister]

I guess Canada should not support US military ventures in the future, this is the thanks Canada will get for it:

Gen. Rick Hillier calls Trump adviser Peter Navarro an '''idiot''' for belittling Canada'''s role in Afghanistan | CBC News

I guess conservatives like Navarro think Canadian troops are expendable and their service means nothing and Canada should just be the US' mindless toady.

 

[Mycroft]

I guess Canada should not support US military ventures in the future, this is the thanks Canada will get for it:

Gen. Rick Hillier calls Trump adviser Peter Navarro an '''idiot''' for belittling Canada'''s role in Afghanistan | CBC News

I guess conservatives like Navarro think Canadian troops are expendable and their service means nothing and Canada should just be the US' mindless toady.

Are all Canadians that thin skinned?

Navarro didn't belittle Canada. He asked questions. (At least, according to the out of context snippets of quotes in that article.)

Seriously Canada...get a life.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Are all Canadians that thin skinned?

^ Trump voter

 

[Yes_Minister]

Are all Canadians that thin skinned?

Navarro didn't belittle Canada. He asked questions. (At least, according to the out of context snippets of quotes in that article.)

Seriously Canada...get a life.

They are BS questions, Hillier is right, Navarro doesn't understand military matters and stuff like Article 5 of the NATO charter that the Bush administration invoked after 9/11.

Do you think the 150 Canadian troops who died in Afghanistan mattered? Heck Trump calls Canada a freeloader of NATO, but Canada spent 20 billion dollars in Afghanistan, and what was accomplished? Afganistan is still a wreck and guys like Navarro will think of nothing of Canada's efforts. It seems like there is no reason for Canada to support the US's next inevitable military venture.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

They are BS questions, Hillier is right, Navarro doesn't understand military matters and stuff like Article 5 of the NATO charter that the Bush administration invoked after 9/11.

Do you think the 150 Canadian troops who died in Afghanistan mattered? Heck Trump calls Canada a freeloader of NATO, but Canada spent 20 billion dollars in Afghanistan, and what was accomplished? Afganistan is still a wreck and guys like Navarro will think of nothing of Canada's efforts. It seems like there is no reason for Canada to support the US's next inevitable military venture.

That is chump change compared to the trillion dollars we spent over there.

 

[Yes_Minister]

That is chump change compared to the trillion dollars we spent over there.

Yeah, Canada has a smaller GDP than the US, the US' GDP is 20 trillion, Canada's 1 trillion, what, do you want to Canada to pour more of its limited resources into a war that so far has both accomplished nothing and done nothing for Canada or Afghanistan?

It seems like guys like Narravo and American conservatives think Canada should just be the US' mindless toady rather than a sovereign nation that makes its own decisions.

For American conservatives nationalism only apply to the US, other countries' sovereignty is meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[Mycroft]

They are BS questions, Hillier is right, Navarro doesn't understand military matters and stuff like Article 5 of the NATO charter that the Bush administration invoked after 9/11.

Do you think the 150 Canadian troops who died in Afghanistan mattered? Heck Trump calls Canada a freeloader of NATO, but Canada spent 20 billion dollars in Afghanistan, and what was accomplished? Afganistan is still a wreck and guys like Navarro will think of nothing of Canada's efforts. It seems like there is no reason for Canada to support the US's next inevitable military venture.

His questions were in response to questions from the interviewer...who's questions, by the way, that article saw fit not to quote.

That means you have no idea of the context that prompted Navarro to ask his questions.

Typical nonsense from the media.

 

[can2man]

Trumplidytes, lowering the bar since 2016.

 

[Yes_Minister]

His questions were in response to questions from the interviewer...who's questions, by the way, that article saw fit not to quote.

That means you have no idea of the context that prompted Navarro to ask his questions.

Typical nonsense from the media.

That is a typical conservative tactic, blame the media and never let personal responsibility anywhere near ''True Conservatives'' like Navarro. How often do you apply personal responsibility to someone like Navarro, vs. blaming a scapegoat, like the media?

If Canadian trade officials made similar criticisms of the US military, would you be so quick to brush them off?

 

[rickc]

That is chump change compared to the trillion dollars we spent over there.

Yeah

Over 2000 Americans killed and over 20,000 maimed. More.than a trillion dollars spent.

Now what did that accomplish? We are cutting a deal with the taliban and bailing. Just like Vietnam, Iraq and all the other conflicts we have stuck our nose in since WWII we leave with our tail between our legs.

All those lives and.treasure for nothing.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Yeah, Canada has a smaller GDP than the US, the US' GDP is 20 trillion, Canada's 1 trillion, what, do you want to Canada to pour more of its limited resources into a war that so far has both accomplished nothing and done nothing for Canada or Afghanistan?

It seems like guys like Narravo and American conservatives think Canada should just be the US' mindless toady rather than a sovereign nation that makes its own decisions.

For American conservatives nationalism only apply to the US, other countries' sovereignty is meaningless and irrelevant.

The victories for the treatment of women in Afghanistan. That alone was worth the fight against the Taliban. While there is certainly more work to be done, women's legal standing in Afghanistan has dramatically improved. The post-Taliban constitution recognizes women and men as equal citizens and gives them equal rights and protections.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Yeah

Over 2000 Americans killed and over 20,000 maimed. More.than a trillion dollars spent.

Now what did that accomplish? We are cutting a deal with the taliban and bailing. Just like Vietnam, Iraq and all the other conflicts we have stuck our nose in since WWII we leave with our tail between our legs.

All those lives and.treasure for nothing.

Seems you have no idea what has been accomplished and how much more needs to be accomplished. So sad.

 

[Yes_Minister]

The victories for the treatment of women in Afghanistan. That alone was worth the fight against the Taliban. While there is certainly more work to be done, women's legal standing in Afghanistan has dramatically improved. The post-Taliban constitution recognizes women and men as equal citizens and gives them equal rights and protections.

Afghanistan is still a mess, nearly 20 years later:

Security Council condemns ‘heinous and cowardly’ terrorist attack in Jalalabad, Afghanistan | | UN News

Also apparently, according to Navarro, Canada wasn't interested in any of that and Canada was just doing this to curry favor with the US. US conservatives demean everyone respect American troops, but American conservatives like Navarro seem to think troops in other allied countries do not deserve respect.

 

[rickc]

The victories for the treatment of women in Afghanistan. That alone was worth the fight against the Taliban. While there is certainly more work to be done, women's legal standing in Afghanistan has dramatically improved. The post-Taliban constitution recognizes women and men as equal citizens and gives them equal rights and protections.

Afghan conflict: US and Taliban sign deal to end 18-year war

And you believe they won't go back to their hard line Muslim roots soon after we are gone

 

[PNW Guy]

The victories for the treatment of women in Afghanistan. That alone was worth the fight against the Taliban. While there is certainly more work to be done, women's legal standing in Afghanistan has dramatically improved. The post-Taliban constitution recognizes women and men as equal citizens and gives them equal rights and protections.

In law, but not in practice.

Afghanistan will not be tamed. Gas pipelines are the US sole concern. Human rights improvents are incidental, but helpful for selling it. As has it ALWAYS been with US foreign policy.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Afghanistan is still a mess, nearly 20 years later:

Security Council condemns ‘heinous and cowardly’ terrorist attack in Jalalabad, Afghanistan | | UN News

Also apparently, according to Navarro, Canada wasn't interested in any of that and Canada was just doing this to curry favor with the US. US conservatives demean everyone respect American troops, but American conservatives like Navarro seem to think troops in other allied countries do not deserve respect.

Oh stop crying. There is a lot of work to be done yet all around the world. You don't do it for praise you do it because someone has to.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Afghan conflict: US and Taliban sign deal to end 18-year war

And you believe they won't go back to their hard line Muslim roots soon after we are gone

They are some pretty sick people so I say definitely they will. Then the rest of the world has to let them know we will not tolerate it.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

In law, but not in practice.

Afghanistan will not be tamed. Gas pipelines are the US sole concern. Human rights improvents are incidental, but helpful for selling it. As has it ALWAYS been with US foreign policy.

The pipelines were going to happen either way. The fact that so much good was accomplished in the process is a great bonus. Resources are need by the world. Win-win is money well spent.

 

[Mycroft]

That is a typical conservative tactic, blame the media and never let personal responsibility anywhere near ''True Conservatives'' like Navarro. How often do you apply personal responsibility to someone like Navarro, vs. blaming a scapegoat, like the media?

If Canadian trade officials made similar criticisms of the US military, would you be so quick to brush them off?

Is that how you explain that article not giving full information? "typical conservative tactic"?

Anyway, I don't give a rat's ass what ANY Canadian has to say about the US military.

 

[Craig234]

All those lives and.treasure for nothing.

The military contractors made trillions, for one thing. Politicians they donated to were elected. America demanded we invade Afghanistan for 9/11. It's a case of power without good policy. In some sense, didn't bin Laden succeed in harming America, by getting the US to do this?

 

[Yes_Minister]

Is that how you explain that article not giving full information? "typical conservative tactic"?

Anyway, I don't give a rat's ass what ANY Canadian has to say about the US military.

So how is Hillier wrong in this case?

You are the one making a claim that Narravo is being taken out of context, do you have anything to back it up?

 

[Yes_Minister]

Oh stop crying. There is a lot of work to be done yet all around the world. You don't do it for praise you do it because someone has to.

Why does Canada have to? Seriously, if you guys are talking up nationalism so much, maybe Canada should do what is best for Canada and not support the US' next military venture? Why is this in the best interests of Canada?

 

[Mycroft]

So how is Hillier wrong in this case?

You are the one making a claim that Narravo is being taken out of context, do you have anything to back it up?

From the article...

CTV obtained audio recordings of Navarro's interviews with Sciutto, who was questioning the trade adviser about the Trump administration's often-caustic approach to foreign relations when the subject of Canada's mission in Afghanistan came up.

What questions did Sciutto ask Navarro. This is important to know...the context...that frames Navarro's questions.

Furthermore, why is Sciutto asking a trade advisor about Trump's approach to foreign relations? Was Sciutto trying to catch Navarro in a "gotcha"? Hell, knowing Navarro, I have to ask if Navarro said more than what was quoted in that article...like, "Why are you asking me these stupid questions?"

How about this: Find those audio recordings. Post them here. Let's hear EVERYTHING that was said, instead of the snippets that article allows you to know about.

Don't YOU like full information? Or would you rather be led around by the nose?


Oh...I forgot...Hillier. Like I said at the beginning, he needs a thicker skin.

 

[Yes_Minister]

From the article...



What questions did Sciutto ask Navarro. This is important to know...the context...that frames Navarro's questions.

Furthermore, why is Sciutto asking a trade advisor about Trump's approach to foreign relations? Was Sciutto trying to catch Navarro in a "gotcha"? Hell, knowing Navarro, I have to ask if Navarro said more than what was quoted in that article...like, "Why are you asking me these stupid questions?"

How about this: Find those audio recordings. Post them here. Let's hear EVERYTHING that was said, instead of the snippets that article allows you to know about.

Don't YOU like full information? Or would you rather be led around by the nose?


Oh...I forgot...Hillier. Like I said at the beginning, he needs a thicker skin.

That is hearsay and conjecture, not proof. You are the one making the claim that Narravo was taken out of context, instead of backing your claim that proves he was, you want me to find evidence that proves your claim. That is not how the burden of proof works, you made this claim, you can back it up, I am not going to spend time proving your argument for you, time is a precious resource.

 

[Mycroft]

That is hearsay and conjecture, not proof. You are the one making the claim that Narravo was taken out of context, instead of backing your claim that proves he was, you want me to find evidence that proves your claim. That is not how the burden of proof works, you made this claim, you can back it up, I am not going to spend time proving your argument for you, time is a precious resource.

???

Didn't you read the quote I gave from the article? That is my proof.

Anyway, of course you won't spend any time supporting your position. Because you can't.

You are dismissed. (see my sig)