'My daddy is a hero': Girl, 6, attends funeral of her father

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's hard to make a comparison when you cannot see both states, there is no telling what havoc would incur if we were to pull out of Afganistan. It is NOT as simple as just pulling out as you make it seem.

And Afghanistan isn't a cesspit of total havoc now?

As for withdrawal, yes it is - the Canadians have pulled the plug and our parliament is sovereign under which no parliament can bind its successor. We could leave tommorow if any of our politicians had the guts to stand up and admit that this disgraceful war is a total waste of life.

[Chippiewill]

We could leave tommorow if any of our politicians had the guts to stand up and admit that this disgraceful war is a total waste of life.

It is our moral obligation to stay, I guess however, that you do not have morals but merely self interest in gaining more money.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is our moral obligation to stay, I guess however, that you do not have morals but merely self interest in gaining more money.

So would you support (and sign up for) an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, China and so forth?

[HotelUser]

I disagree with you Dan.

Firstly before anything I'm going to say nobody deserves my, or your respect more than the soldiers who risk their lives on a daily basis, and those who pay the ultimate sacrifice to help the world fine peace.

HOWEVER, this isn't conscription. What never fails to confuse me is how people can complain about our soldiers going to war when they choose to go themselves. They knew the risks of their profession prior to pursuing it. You can't join the military without thinking about going to war.

And to define that war. What makes me so damn proud of the Canadian soldiers going off to peace keep is that those brave people are going over knowingly, to make life better for other people - people they've never met and likely wont ever meet.

So to say we shouldn't be over in the Middle East fighting is, in my opinion, one of the most selfish things anyone can say. First off their being involved or not involved in the Middle East has ABSOLUTELY NO impact towards your life at all. So when there are people voluntarily venturing over to serve their country who in the right mind do you think you are to disagree? It's one thing to say you feel sorrow for them losing their lives, but to then turn their death around as a reason to get out and void everything they fought and died to achieve is cowardly, and in my opinion utterly ridiculous.

So would you support (and sign up for) an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, China and so forth?

I could care less about anything else other than A) making sure the highest amount of people survive and B) Making sure EVERYONE in the world has basic human rights and a minimal amount of opportunities. If it were actually even remotely possible to be victorious in China would I support imposing both political and possibly militarily strategy as to turn them into a democracy who looks out in the best interest of her people? Yes.

[Chippiewill]

So would you support (and sign up for) an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, China and so forth?

Sure I would support if it is to some benefit and would not just cause us to be nuked by the other countries. I generally don't want to be in the army as I feel that I could not kill a person, unlike some of the people on this forum who think that people who are mentally ill and are not responsible for their actions should be sentenced to death.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I disagree with you Dan.

Firstly before anything I'm going to say nobody deserves my, or your respect more than the soldiers who risk their lives on a daily basis, and those who pay the ultimate sacrifice to help the world fine peace.

Indeed, people who are actually prepared to go and fight over there (many of them even if they don't believe in the cause fully) which is more than can be said for the pair of you.

HOWEVER, this isn't conscription. What never fails to confuse me is how people can complain about our soldiers going to war when they choose to go themselves. They knew the risks of their profession prior to pursuing it. You can't join the military without thinking about going to war.

The difference being that I expect my government to send the armed forces into battle only when it is absolutely essential in terms of my country being attacked, I do not expect my government to invade a country on behalf of another country and to stay there while losing the war propping up a government which is utterly corrupt.

And to define that war. What makes me so damn proud of the Canadian soldiers going off to peace keep is that those brave people are going over knowingly, to make life better for other people - people they've never met and likely wont ever meet.

Yes yes, all very flattering when you put it like that - except its a different story when its your own family dying to 'keep the peace' in a country which is far from peaceful and I doubt will be peaceful for the next 100 years+

So to say we shouldn't be over in the Middle East fighting is, in my opinion, one of the most selfish things anyone can say. First off their being involved or not involved in the Middle East has ABSOLUTELY NO impact towards your life at all. So when there are people voluntarily venturing over to serve their country who in the right mind do you think you are to disagree? It's one thing to say you feel sorrow for them losing their lives, but to then turn their death around as a reason to get out and void everything they fought and died to achieve is cowardly, and in my opinion utterly ridiculous.

I disagree because we are sending people over to another country to die for a cause which does not exist anymore and for a campaign which is a fruitless venture that will end in failure just as history has proven time and time again. I do like the use of the word cowardly though, from somebody who is so eager to prance around the world enforcing 'governments in a box' on other nations who is sitting behind a computer desk and has no intentions of going to fight for his cause at all - or are you going to stand up to the plate and your beliefs and go and fight there yourself? or is it the job of other people to die for your cause?

What they fought and died for is void, because what has been achieved and what will be achieved? nothing. I'm not going to sit here pretending that something has been achieved there when it clearly hasn't and never will aslong as we are there.

I could care less about anything else other than A) making sure the highest amount of people survive and B) Making sure EVERYONE in the world has basic human rights and a minimal amount of opportunities. If it were actually even remotely possible to be victorious in China would I support imposing both political and possibly militarily strategy as to turn them into a democracy who looks out in the best interest of her people? Yes.

Well we could be victorious in China but it would mean many many deaths, but that doesn't matter really does it because the results of Iraq and Afghanistan have been worth all those deaths haven't they? two countries in even more ruins than they were previously with corrupt governments that will fall the moment we leave (which we will eventually). But I take it you are all for invading Saudi Arabia and Cuba then yeah?

Again, you are all for these wars but won't go and serve yourself.

Sure I would support if it is to some benefit and would not just cause us to be nuked by the other countries. I generally don't want to be in the army as I feel that I could not kill a person, unlike some of the people on this forum who think that people who are mentally ill and are not responsible for their actions should be sentenced to death.

Ahh so the cowards game, only pick off the little countries which you believe you have a chance of beating (oh and they must have good mineral deposits aswell, Lithium in Afghanistan and Oil in Iraq - leave Zimbabwe because its just sand and grass). As for the reference to the death penalty, I don't believe you replied to that thread and I would ask you to do so because nobody suggested that.

[Chippiewill]

Ahh so the cowards game, only pick off the little countries which you believe you have a chance of beating (oh and they must have good mineral deposits aswell, Lithium in Afghanistan and Oil in Iraq - leave Zimbabwe because its just sand and grass).

There's no point killing everyone in the armed forces for no reason, I wouldn't go against China because that's dumb, but if there is a country which is being oppressed by a dictator then I believe that they should be liberated.

As for the reference to the death penalty, I don't believe you replied to that thread and I would ask you to do so because nobody suggested that.

Actually I refer to it every time it is mentioned, people just ignore me because they are too 'sick and 'disgusted' about how someone with bipolar disorder could not control their emotions and killed someone.

Also at the moment I am far more beneficial to this country by contributing to the economy than being one of those people who waste millions of pounds per day with 'cover fire'

[HotelUser]

Indeed, people who are actually prepared to go and fight over there (many of them even if they don't believe in the cause fully) which is more than can be said for the pair of you.

To praise a hero doesn't require being one. To insult a hero's efforts? Walk a day in their shoes.

They don't support it? Why did they join the Army? Not what I would call a smart life choice

The difference being that I expect my government to send the armed forces into battle only when it is absolutely essential in terms of my country being attacked, I do not expect my government to invade a country on behalf of another country and to stay there while losing the war propping up a government which is utterly corrupt.

Your country's wishes are unimportant to me when it means the saving and bettering of innocent people's lives can take place at little to no consequence for you.

Yes yes, all very flattering when you put it like that - except its a different story when its your own family dying to 'keep the peace' in a country which is far from peaceful and I doubt will be peaceful for the next 100 years+

Again, they decided to pursue a career in military. Also again, it might not be peaceful for the next 100 years, but atleast it's gotten a heck of a lot better than it was.

I disagree because we are sending people over to another country to die for a cause which does not exist anymore and for a campaign which is a fruitless venture that will end in failure just as history has proven time and time again. I do like the use of the word cowardly though, from somebody who is so eager to prance around the world enforcing 'governments in a box' on other nations who is sitting behind a computer desk and has no intentions of going to fight for his cause at all - or are you going to stand up to the plate and your beliefs and go and fight there yourself? or is it the job of other people to die for your cause?

If there's an opposition to peace there's a cause to fight for. How do you know when I'm not older that I don't have intentions of being involved in foreign peace keeping?

What they fought and died for is void, because what has been achieved and what will be achieved? nothing. I'm not going to sit here pretending that something has been achieved there when it clearly hasn't and never will aslong as we are there.

This is uberlame. Obviously what they fought and died for isn't void. Last time I checked the commies, or the taliban aren't the victorious power in the East anymore. Oh, and by saying it's all void I guess you're completely neglecting all the local lives which have been saved in OUR hospitals in places like Kandahar. Tell you what, once you've lived in Kandahar for a year if you still think the cause is completely void I'm all ears.

Well we could be victorious in China but it would mean many many deaths, but that doesn't matter really does it because the results of Iraq and Afghanistan have been worth all those deaths haven't they? two countries in even more ruins than they were previously with corrupt governments that will fall the moment we leave (which we will eventually). But I take it you are all for invading Saudi Arabia and Cuba then yeah?

We couldn't be victorious in China. Or if we could there wouldn't be anyone left on the face of the Earth to acknowledge the feat.

The Cuba situation is extremely weird because it's the Americans who have completely screwed Cuba over initially in the first place. If we could remove of their communist dictatorship whilst avoiding international ramifications leading to armageddon then yeah, I am all for heading in. I certainly think we have a better chance of success at correcting Cuba than I do China - and the ace in the deck with taking Cuba is China would likely do nothing to prevent us from going in. They're too busy loving trade with the free world whilst the Chinese LDC lifestyle lives on.

Having said all that too though again I think what would save the most lives and what would improve the lives of the most people is the best course of action to take. I also believe isolationism is stupid and any country, especially when their corporations are exploiting works in various parts of the world, is entirely in the wrong.

Again, you are all for these wars but won't go and serve yourself.

I'm all for war if it's going to better the lives of innocent people. Heck, I'm for a lot of things if it means making the lives of those better where history has taken its toll. I don't see countries independently Dan. You and I weren't born into richer and more stable places because we're more worthy. We just got more lucky than 70% of the rest of the world. And I will happily walk through the gates of hell the day I die if I live my life in luxury knowing the guys next door are being raped or starving to death.

Ahh so the cowards game, only pick off the little countries which you believe you have a chance of beating (oh and they must have good mineral deposits aswell, Lithium in Afghanistan and Oil in Iraq - leave Zimbabwe because its just sand and grass). As for the reference to the death penalty, I don't believe you replied to that thread and I would ask you to do so because nobody suggested that.

Of course we should start with the little countries. If you see two bullies at school, one has a knife and the other's a litte kid beating up on a little girl are you going to ignore the little girl's pleas for help just because you can't help whoever's being victimized by the knife - the bigger bully? Of course not. The attitude you're presenting here is, well.. if we can't help everyone we should help nobody. What? How silly

[Gibs960]

Waste of time fighting in Afghanistan all it's doing it causing more deaths and he's hardly a hero, if he's dead.

[xxMATTGxx]

Waste of time fighting in Afghanistan all it's doing it causing more deaths and he's hardly a hero, if he's dead.

Are you serious? Are you heartless or something? Leave the poor girl alone.