|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-07 12:52:32
First off, hello kn_aeshap.
I don’t identify with your point, just to clarify, are you saying you place the below countries on par with Saddam’s Iraq?
United Kingdom = $152.1
Denmark = $70.9
Australia = $42.4
Germany = $13.4
Taiwan = $13.2
Turkey = $1.4
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-08 03:48:06
Never once did I say that any of the countries listed were "on par" with Iraq...
And to ask: what exactly do you mean when you say "on par"? In what respect?
What my point is, and what I said was "If Canada is ever looking to stop the proliferation of weapons through business deals and arms trades, perhaps Canada should stop selling arms to the world..."
It's glaringly obvious- in order to help combat the proliferation of weapons throughout the world, one must stop producing and selling them to the world.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-08 14:17:20
Now now, don't shoot the messenger... You should know it can be difficult to convey demeanor over text as I can not see your physical expressions. I was merely reflecting back to you what you showed me.
With that said, I will respond to your question.
...."And to ask: what exactly do you mean when you say "on par"? In what respect?"....
Example A1: If Canada is to purchase helicopters next year from Europe/U.S., should we be declined? Our current government has clearly demonstrated it is reasonably responsible with the weapons we employ.
Example A2: If North Korea wants to purchase aircraft from Europe/U.S. should they be declined? This government has been launching missiles over Japan air space; I would call that irresponsible… (Not to mention the democracy question, but I digress)
According to your above statement, you are painting both countries with the same brush or one could construe "On Par".
With all that said, I get your point that if it was a "perfect world" we all wouldn't need armed forces. We could all dance around in the fields with daises. That is an admirable goal, “world peace”.
However, speaking as someone with a few years of world experience, it has forced me to become a realist. There are people in this world who are simply barbarians for one reason or another. Better realize that lad, don’t surrender to denial, I base that on your demonstrated limited experience here.
Yes that statement is harsh, but step outside of Canada or any democracy country and you will quickly find and I quote; “We are not in Kansas anymore Dorothy” I only hope you heed my advice and don’t learn the hard way, as I have…
Steve.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 13:42:26
"Now now, don't shoot the messenger... You should know it can be difficult to convey demeanor over text as I can not see your physical expressions."
I wasn't shooting the messenger at all, my friend- you merely read into something that didn't need to be read into. I made a statement and placed some examples to go along with it. You should've stuck with what I presented, as there was no need to look for anything else.
"According to your above statement, you are painting both countries with the same brush or one could construe "On Par"."
No...you assumed that I was saying that these countries are "on par" with one another. When all I really said was, if Canada wants to help stop the proliferation of weapons around the world, they should stop selling them.
"Example A1: If Canada is to purchase helicopters next year from Europe/U.S., should we be declined? Our current government has clearly demonstrated it is reasonably responsible with the weapons we employ."
This example makes little sense, as we are discussing the sales of arms- not helicopters.
"Example A2: If North Korea wants to purchase aircraft from Europe/U.S. should they be declined? This government has been launching missiles over Japan air space; I would call that irresponsible… (Not to mention the democracy question, but I digress)"
The same goes for this example- nothing directly to do with arms sales.
"However, speaking as someone with a few years of world experience, it has forced me to become a realist. There are people in this world who are simply barbarians for one reason or another..."
I'm sorry that your "world experience" has forced you to become a "realist"...it's made me rather well rounded and hopeful. And yes, there are people in this world who are simply barbarians- but the figure is obviously a minority and it is probably very, very small. In general, people are not Hobsian in nature...not at all.
"Better realize that lad, don’t surrender to denial, I base that on your demonstrated limited experience here."
My "demonstrated limited experience here"? What in the world does that mean? I don't remember mentioning anything about any sort of "limited experience". You really do assume too much...
"Yes that statement is harsh, but step outside of Canada or any democracy country and you will quickly find and I quote; “We are not in Kansas anymore Dorothy” I only hope you heed my advice and don’t learn the hard way, as I have…"
You probably should've attacked my arguement, lad, instead of assuming that my opinions are coming from some sort of 'lack of experience'. I've lived in 7 different countries thus far, 2 of which were not modern democracies...but that really shouldn't matter, as you should be griping about what I said- instead of things that you really know nothing about...such as my "world experience".
Perhaps you don't recognize -with your thick skinned "realist" view point- that people with opinions like yours are actually a part of the problem, and not the solution. Peace will never come from the barrel of a gun- a power balance, yes, but peace no. History has demonstrated that perfectly well.
And I believe the quotation you are looking for is "I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore" -Dorothy, in Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-09 15:30:33
Umm… fellow. I'm going to take a step back and try again.
The helicopters are military assets, I think they are armed with guns and likely will be used in action at some point over their operational life time. So yes it is relevant. If you like you can substitute the helicopters for other military assets such as new U.S fighter aircraft due in 2015.
I didn't assume you said they were on par, all I mean is that is how you come across on the forum. You may not realize it, but that is how I and an other; who I just pulled into this forum, understood your reply. I did ask you to clarify just to make sure.
Yes, I probably do have thick skin, but I am open to your opinions and I do appreciate your candor. It is refreshing to talk with someone who says what they mean.
From having many forum conversation and observations over the years I have to eventually make a decision as to the experience level of the person I am talking with.
I say this without disrespect, that you come across as a somewhat inexperienced fellow, now in life you may be experienced I don’t know, but on the forum that is how you come across.
It could simply be that you are new to debate in a text based forum; if that is the case then I apologize. Never the less I do look forward to your thoughts.
Now, are you saying that it is ok for Canada to import military assets but it is not ok for N. Korea? Or should both countries be treated the same and not import anything?
I still don't understand were you are originally coming from...
P.S. As to the Wizard of Oz quote, well I was never very good with cartoons... ;)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 16:30:35
"The helicopters are military assets, I think they are armed with guns and likely will be used in action at some point over their operational life time. So yes it is relevant."
Now it is relevant- perhaps you should have cited a source or even mentioned that you "think" the helicopters would be "armed with guns"...something you didn't do. I can think of many uses for helicopters, that do not include weaponry.
"I didn't assume you said they were on par, all I mean is that is how you come across on the forum."
So even though I said at the very beginning of my post that "If Canada is ever looking to stop the proliferation of weapons through business deals and arms trades, perhaps Canada should stop selling arms to the world..." you thought I was making a comparison because I gave examples of many countries and companies that trade arms? I don't see how- when my point was so clearly stated.
"From having many forum conversation and observations over the years I have to eventually make a decision as to the experience level of the person I am talking with.
I say this without disrespect, that you come across as a somewhat inexperienced fellow, now in life you may be experienced I don’t know, but on the forum that is how you come across.
It could simply be that you are new to debate in a text based forum; if that is the case then I apologize. Never the less I do look forward to your thoughts."
It's nice that you can throw out a judgement like that, without giving any examples what-so-ever. I could just as easily say that you think I am inexperienced, because I don't see things the same way that you do- because perhaps you don't see me as the "experienced realist" that you are. But I'm not giving any examples to back it up, so I won't bother saying that...
As amusing as it is that you've managed to come to this conclusion, I'd like for you to provide me with some sort of evidence for your claim.
"Now, are you saying that it is ok for Canada to import military assets but it is not ok for N. Korea? Or should both countries be treated the same and not import anything?
I still don't understand were you are originally coming from..."
I find it really hard to believe that you can't understand where I was originally coming from...it has to be one of the most elementary truths- if Canada sells arms to the world, they are adding to the proliferation of weapons. In order to help decrease the number of weapons in the world, one has to stop creating and selling them.
"P.S. As to the Wizard of Oz quote, well I was never very good with cartoons... ;)"
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written by Lyman Frank Baum and published on May 15th, 1900- it became the biggest selling children's book of the year. And if you're not very good with "cartoons" -as you say- you probably shouldn't choose to quote them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-09 20:03:43
…"The helicopters are military assets, I think they are armed with guns and likely will be used in action at some point over their operational life time. So yes it is relevant."
Now it is relevant- perhaps you should have cited a source or even mentioned that you "think" the helicopters would be "armed with guns"...something you didn't do. I can think of many uses for helicopters, that do not include weaponry.”….
-----You are trying to deflect my point, you should know very well that military choppers are included in military assets, if you don’t truly understand the concept, then this is an indicator of less experience.-----
…."I didn't assume you said they were on par, all I mean is that is how you come across on the forum."
So even though I said at the very beginning of my post that "If Canada is ever looking to stop the proliferation of weapons through business deals and arms trades, perhaps Canada should stop selling arms to the world..." you thought I was making a comparison because I gave examples of many countries and companies that trade arms? I don't see how- when my point was so clearly stated….
-----By listing other countries we export to; you are also equally saying that we also should not import weapons. kn_aeshap said, “but we can do something about Canada- all we have to do is stop participating.” Yet when I give you a practical example between Canada and N. Korea and ask for your thoughts. I still haven’t received a direct reply. I got this response;
….Kn_aeshap says, “Now it is relevant- perhaps you should have cited a source or even mentioned that you "think" the helicopters would be "armed with guns"...
----Like I said above, the helicopters are a military asset. Yet you still don’t address my point on whether Canada and N. Korea should be treated the same when it comes to importing Military assets?
In regards to less experience Kn_aeshap says, "As amusing as it is that you've managed to come to this conclusion, I'd like for you to provide me with some sort of evidence for your claim.
----Ok, I hope you can see my points above on why I though you are coming across as less experienced. Please keep in mind that I never ever said you are less experienced, just that is how you come across to me in this text forum. I think that is were I may have upset you, if I did so I didn’t intend too.
….."P.S. As to the Wizard of Oz quote, well I was never very good with cartoons... ;)"
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written by Lyman Frank Baum and published on May 15th, 1900- it became the biggest selling children's book of the year. And if you're not very good with "cartoons" -as you say- you probably shouldn't choose to quote them.”….
-----I tossed the Oz part in as a cookie. :)
Never the less, it should be interesting to see if we can work this conflict out. :)
(Yes, I have some spare moments this Sunday night, now I'll get back to reading the three pillars now). :)
peace.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-09 21:28:46
"You are trying to deflect my point, you should know very well that military choppers are included in military assets, if you don’t truly understand the concept, then this is an indicator of less experience."
I fully understand the concept, actually...but it is not my fault that you refuse to be specific- if you had meant "military choppers" you should have stated as such- instead of just saying "helicopters". In no way was I deflecting your point...for the sake of a decent conversation, you need to say what you mean more often...
"By listing other countries we export to; you are also equally saying that we also should not import weapons."
I was not listing the countries that Canada sells weapons to in order to say that we should not import weapons. I think you've gone a bit far off the track...I've restated what my point was a few times now- if you don't get it, I'm afraid I can't help you. And I was giving examples of countries that we sell to, I cited a news article about American companies and their arms sales- for example and interest, nothing more. You see...when people state something that they believe to be factual, I expect them to back it up with something- so when I talk about Canada having exported arms around the world, I give examples. So many people using these forums refuse to regularly back up statements with citations. Am I to just accept what other people say? I think not. If you happened to read too far into it, and assumed that I was making a comparison of some sort, I'd like to direct you to the first lines of my original response where I stated what my point was.
"Like I said above, the helicopters are a military asset. Yet you still don’t address my point on whether Canada and N. Korea should be treated the same when it comes to importing Military assets?"
No, I do not believe that North Korea and Canada should not be treated in the same fashion when it comes to the import of military assets.
"Ok, I hope you can see my points above on why I though you are coming across as less experienced. Please keep in mind that I never ever said you are less experienced, just that is how you come across to me in this text forum. I think that is were I may have upset you, if I did so I didn’t intend too."
So...you're thinking that I am inexperienced is due to the fact that you refuse to be specific? I see now ;) It's funny that, in my experience when people are looking to get a direct point across, they are specific in what they say...how unfortunate for all of us, that you are not. It's not upsetting really, just rather time consuming.
"I tossed the Oz part in as a cookie."
I just expected that people who claim to be fairly experienced in this form of discussion, would be able to use proper and correct quotations.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-09 23:19:39
…Kn_aeshap states,”No, I do not believe that North Korea and Canada should not be treated in the same fashion when it comes to the import of military assets.”…
Thank you for that to the point answer, which is in my view an experienced answer. :)
You say these countries should not be treated in the same fashion, I agree with you. How can kn_aeshap suggest in realistic terms, “but we can do something about Canada- all we have to do is stop participating.”
If we stop participating are we not setting up the Canada for eventual domination by dictators? Would you agree that the only time there will be hope for military disarmament and no need for import/export is when all countries are stable democracies?
In regards to the helicopter example, I did specifically speak of helicopters in the context of a military asset that Canada would responsibly employ. However, I will let it be… :)
On the plus side I am glad you have the stamina to run this debate through with me.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-03-16 14:01:06
"If we stop participating are we not setting up the Canada for eventual domination by dictators? Would you agree that the only time there will be hope for military disarmament and no need for import/export is when all countries are stable democracies?"
I think it to be a fairly practical suggestion- to say that not selling arms is unrealistic or not practical, scares me in a strange way. To think that people might believe that we cannot go without the import and export of arms is alien to me...
I don't really see how discontinuing the sales of arms to nation states around the world would set us up for domination by dictators- readily placing the weapons in their hands does make that prospect seem a tad more likely though.
And I'm not really sure that the world could be disarmed if each of the countries within were "stable democracies" (whatever that happens to mean)- I don't believe that present forms of democracy are the solution to any of the problems that the world currently faces.
"In regards to the helicopter example, I did specifically speak of helicopters in the context of a military asset that Canada would responsibly employ. However, I will let it be… :)"
You should've used a specific example, regardless of what context you thought you were speaking in. You'll have to excuse how anal I can be about these things- being specific is of the utmost importance...after all, we've only got our words to go on. It might be easier to discuss whether or not we should be allowed to purchase arms, say from England, considering our actions and their actions around the world as of late- in Afghanistan. Or we could discuss whether or not we should be selling arms to Turkey, considering their human rights record, so on and so forth.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-16 18:55:21
I really don't believe that Canada is a big exporter of military arms. We cannot even adequately arm our own small military force. What we do sell are probably mainly parts or items that can be used for peaceful purposes too; such as helicopters. I do not think it is a big issue here
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-18 16:33:00
Well, at least SNC-Lavalin and Bombardier are involved in weapon systems design and manufacture.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-19 06:44:41
That is still comparably small compared to Lockheed and Dassault...
Reply to this message
|
|
