[GuitarsCanada]

Will we ever hear the end of the 9/11 episode. Will the world or at least North America, ever return to "normal". I am sooooo sick of hearing about terrorists, Iraq, Iran and generally the entire middle east. Now this Zacarias Moussaoui thing... yeah, so they found him guilty, he is "eligible" for the death penalty. Who the f%^$ cares. This guy is about as whacked out as they come. Can you imagine the money that has been wasted on this trial.

This freak is nothing but a twisted little nabob, and we, or should I say the American press, make him out to be some kind of 9/11 mastermind. Let's debate his importance for the next 10 years.

I remember watching those attacks on the WTC live that morning on CNN... and I also remember thinking to myself at the time... this will last for years. I think even my estimates at the time will pale in reality. We are over 4 years into it and there is no end in site.

:sport-smiley-002:

 

[walden]

brother... youre opening a whole can of worms here. theres really no end to what ones opinion on 9/11 could be. like it or not EVERYONE is affected by that somehow, theres so many religious, polictical, social and economic reprocusions you could teach university courses on all of them.

charlie sheen went on CNN saying that its a coverup, or a conspiracy... is Bush behind it in some way? an exterior motive? prehaps.

the whole question of islamic extremism, the west is taking the Qu'ran out of proportion and theres hatred towards the muslim body in western culture now. not all muslims are behind this, only a small portion, but they could justify their actions. middle eastern culture is drastically different from here and we and our media need to understand that.

theres a whole question that scapgoating saddam and invading iraq/more western influence in the middle east is just a ploy to get oil, this is more than likely true. (have you seen the movie Syriana? good flick about this.)

there are too many little parts to this whole situation in the world now that you couldnt just list them all at once. its part of the changing world, we all need to accept that. on the other hand, we all need to take what the media says with a grain of salt, theres always bias and distortion and its not nessicarily all true.

 

[GuitarsCanada]

Very good synopsis Walden. I agree with most of what you are saying.. however I have to stick to my comment that I am soooooo sick of hearing it everyday on the news. It most likely will last through my lifetime so may as well get used to it. Political ramifications? Tons.

 

[walden]

i just disagree with that moussaui stuff. not what you said but the whole trial.. they charged someone with three thousand and some odd counts of murder yet he was in prison at the time. its just because he apparenlty lied to authorities which caused them to be illprepared to defend against it. conspiracy to commit maybe, but no murder... they shouldnt kill him, just put him in a loony-bin.

 

[Mahogany Martin]

.. theres a whole question that scapgoating saddam and invading iraq/more western influence in the middle east is just a ploy to get oil, this is more than likely true. ...

I hear what you guys are saying. But I'll be the devil's advocate for the media for a sec and say that corruption and greed happens at many levels, worldwide and locally. And *media* is made up of people and these people have to remain objective. If *it* happens, they report *it*. But they are people too, working for a boss whose is part of political *webs* and so on the story goes.

But to *focus* on an element such as a "ploy to get oil" is accepting a tunel vision. There's a whole society that's been persecuted and who is happy that their tirant leader is finally gone. They too I'm sure are tired of what it's brought and most likely even more so.

We now do business on a global level, we also need to lend a hand for global human rights.

.02c

 

[walden]

offender, you cant deny that there is an economic motivation to invade iraq. american oil supply is dwindling, china is buying up stakes in the mcmurry oil sands fast and theyre running out of resources and the US needs to keep up. youre right maybe the US had a noble intention too, and sure the people in iraq are free... but you gotta admit theyre blowing eachother up a hell of a lot more than when saddam was kickin around there. thats what i meant by different cultures that the majority of westerners cant understand. people forget that for the vast majority of american history theyve been isolationist, and yet now they put there noses in others business. the middle east is a contained system, it handles itself amungst itself. that is why they get pissed off when the west comes in, culturally and physically through force.

you have to ask yourself something thats very easy to answer. if there was no oil in the middle east, do you think the americans would have the slightest care for those people? no. would bush and the sauds be as friendly as they are? most definately not. is saudi arabia the most free and democratic nation around? of course not, but the US wont invade there, because they cooperate.

sorry, but im just playing the other side there.

 

[Mahogany Martin]

I don't believe that oil was a factor in the US taken part of the Vietnam war. Other political interest maybe. "You have to pick your battles". I'm not necessarilly disagreeing with you.

 

[GuitarsCanada]

So true... there are so many domestic issues that need addressing as well. I was in LA a few years back and I could have sworn I was in downtown Mexico City. Estimates of as much as 11 million illegals and about 3 million of them in California alone.

The events of 9/11 were tragic, dispicable, inhuman etc etc..... no debating that. But the directions it has taken since are questionable at best. You are right on the middle east though, there would be no interest in those people or culture if not for the Black Gold, Texas Tea... :2guns:

 

[walden]

oil wasnt a factor in vietnam, youre right. but we're not talking about fighting communists here, we're talking about fighting "terrorists." the vietnam war was because of the french, their colony is underattack from communists... dien bein phu right? and then according to the truman doctrine... korean war... the united states pleages support to nations fighting against agreesion from communists. its a totally different can of worms. the united states didnt invade vietnam either, the followed strict rules of engagement and acted as observers until 1962, i think, dont quote me on the year. but that was the gulf of tonkin incident... they were attacked and then responded.

but i dont really think you can compare foreign policies from 50 years ago with those today, totally different structure in politics. thats like saying, we went to war with the states back in 1812, they just might attack us tommorow. haha well not exactly, but you kinda get what im trying to say im sure.

 

[walden]

So true... there are so many domestic issues that need addressing as well. I was in LA a few years back and I could have sworn I was in downtown Mexico City. Estimates of as much as 11 million illegals and about 3 million of them in California alone.

so true, and look at mexico itself... theres right wing military groups in the south, and the north is all desert which is just horid... ive been there, to the small towns, and its not pretty. vincente fox isnt doing much to free his people, so why doesnt the united states step in there? its all part of a political web, like offender said... the us is free to trade under nafta so they have no reason to involve themselves in the well being and "freedom" of the mexicans. im taking one side of this whole issue just for arguements sake here, i dont really feel this strongly about all of this.

i think in the future you're also going to see more words being returned by bush towards latin america, fidel isnt dead yet. theres unfinished business there still, and thats a nation that is far from free right next to the states. hugo chavez is the prez of venizuala and hes not the most pro-american guy to say the least. venizuala is sitting on a lot of oil, and right now they still trade it with the states... theyre not about to stop that so long as theres not too much of a squable between the two. but then you have to look at it another way, theres democratically elected marxist governements in venizuala, bolivia and chile... in terms of bushs noble intentions for world freedom, where does that fit in? they limit their civil rights, but its done democratically?

 

[Mahogany Martin]

oh yeah. different political agendas for different times. But although US *invaded* Irak, they also thought that they would withdraw sooner than they'll have to now.

What happens if they do withdraw? These poor folks will be back to square one. And what if things went *according to (some sort of) plan*? US withdraws, there's democracy in place and that country eventually takes its place back in the world's business with its people living with human rights.

 

[Mahogany Martin]

so true, and look at mexico itself... theres right wing military groups in the south, and the north is all desert which is just horid... ive been there, to the small towns, and its not pretty. vincente fox isnt doing much to free his people, so why doesnt the united states step in there? its all part of a political web, like offender said... the us is free to trade under nafta so they have no reason to involve themselves in the well being and "freedom" of the mexicans. im taking one side of this whole issue just for arguements sake here, i dont really feel this strongly about all of this.

i think in the future you're also going to see more words being returned by bush towards latin america, fidel isnt dead yet. theres unfinished business there still, and thats a nation that is far from free right next to the states. hugo chavez is the prez of venizuala and hes not the most pro-american guy to say the least. venizuala is sitting on a lot of oil, and right now they still trade it with the states... theyre not about to stop that so long as theres not too much of a squable between the two. but then you have to look at it another way, theres democratically elected marxist governements in venizuala, bolivia and chile... in terms of bushs noble intentions for world freedom, where does that fit in? they limit their civil rights, but its done democratically?

South american nations, although agreeably very corrupted, do not go on with etnic *cleansing* and mass murdering. "You have to pick your battles".

 

[Accept2]

I love the Iraq war and the medias take on it. They say Iraq is a dangerous place and Americans get killed. What they dont mention is way more Americans are getting killed in the good ole USA by their fellow Americans. They say Bush is a complete fool, and then claim he is responsible for some conspiracy that only a complete mastermind could create. Bush is a great man, but he is a figure head, and does what he is told. Bush created fair taxation on dividend income. Thats about all he has done as president, of his own accord. Saddam and Iraq were creations long before he became president. The invasion of Iraq was already being planned when Wild Bill was President. What the US needs to do, is take care of its home turf first and foremost. Stop the crime, which is at an unbelievable rate for a civilized country. Educate the people, and for gods sake, get those people on a diet. Canada needs to do the same...............

 

[walden]

offender, im not saying that the united states will invade latin american countries. i dont think they will personally at all, theres no chance. im just saying its interesting to see the difference stances of bushs foreign policy. im not necissarily against bush, nor for him. im just saying this to be as you put it, the devils advocate.

 

[Xanadu]

do you all remember a couple of weeks ago when those canadians and americans got killed in Iraq. Well now they think it was friendly fire.



GODDAM AMERICANS!!

why can't they shoot the enemy?

They may have a lot of money and the best weaons and planes and tanks and stuff, but their soldiers are completely stupid. They should just give Canada and Britain their stuff, we'd finish the war in a matter of weeks and there would be many less friendly casualties.:2guns:
:2guns:

 

[GuitarsCanada]

I was in the Bahamas this past January and the whole Canadian Fleet was in there. All three ships. They were laying around soaking up the sun and handing out brochures of some kind. Made me almost want to join up.

 

[MaxWedge]

Cheap mid-east oil is what keeps the US involved there. The oil is here and we should be exploiting it as much as we can. Saskatchewan has the finest urainium reserves on the planet. Yet we do not use it to produce the electricity that could be utilized in bringing tarsand refining costs down. Saskatchewan has a convoluted way of seeing the way it exploits it's urainium. We'll mine it, and we'll sell it. But not use it, thinking we're on some sort of moral high ground. I feel there is huge potential for Saskatchewan's economic benefit if the province would recognize that the end product is more valuable than raw goods going 'who knows where'.

 

[GuitarsCanada]

We are addicted to the black gold... can't live without it. What will be the alternative though, and how far out in the future is it. Until that happens we have to sleep with the devil

 

[MaxWedge]

What I find disturbing is Canada's willingness to follow U.S. direction. We're in Afganistan fighting the Taliban. And we have fine young Canadians dying there. And only couple of short decades ago the Taliban were the good guys receiving covert U.S. aid from the CIA. Now the United States has 'employed' there Canadian friends to deal with a group the U.S. once supported. The U.S. has a twisted way of dealing with foreign interests. And don't kid yourselves there have been more than one U.S. invaision in the Americas. Sooner or later mothers who have lost their kids to oil will be heard and the nonsense will stop and the price for expensive Canadian oil won't seem so high when we look back and realize just how much we paid for 'cheap mid-
east oil'.

And yes I know urainium is spelled uranium, low caffeine day.

 

[Jeff Flowerday]

What I find disturbing is Canada's willingness to follow U.S. direction. We're in Afganistan fighting the Taliban. And we have fine young Canadians dying there. And only couple of short decades ago the Taliban were the good guys receiving covert U.S. aid from the CIA. Now the United States has 'employed' there Canadian friends to deal with a group the U.S. once supported. The U.S. has a twisted way of dealing with foreign interests. And don't kid yourselves there have been more than one U.S. invaision in the Americas. Sooner or later mothers who have lost their kids to oil will be heard and the nonsense will stop and the price for expensive Canadian oil won't seem so high when we look back and realize just how much we paid for 'cheap mid-
east oil'.

And yes I know urainium is spelled uranium, low caffeine day.

We are in Afganistan because of 911. Trying to help hunt down the worlds infamous terrorist, whom the Taliban want to protect. I have no problem with this.

Now if we had gone to Iraq, that would have been another story. Saddam needed to be removed, but black gold definately was the US's ultimate reason.

.02