[MaxWedge]

Binladen was and is a direct threat to the U.S. and since 9/11 the world. Saddam on the other hand was a localized threat and after the myth (lie)of 'weopons of mass distruction' was dispelled. Even less of a threat. It seems to me that Bush would rather chase fairy tales than what I would perceive as a true threat. Canadians in Afganistan are fighting terroism, Bush in Iraq is warring for 'cheap oil'. As long as Canada assumes the Afgan responsibility the U.S. can concentrate it's resources in Iraq. We're being played folks, and it's going to amount to people dying for BS U.S. foreign policy.

 

[Seaners]

I say forget about Bin Laden... let him die with the goats. I would support anything that would get Cindy Sheehans ugly face of the tube. :sport-smiley-002:

 

[GuitarsCanada]

So another anniversary passes. More nonsense at the checkpoints and another day closer to the next "attack".

I am currently reading the 911 commision report. Pretty thick book but it is very interesting. There was total confusion that morning. More than you would even expect with such a thing. The one that got me so far was the last plane (United 93) which ended up going down in PA after the passenger revolt, flew for 45 minutes or so after being identified as a hijacked flight. They had military aircraft airborne in two separate areas but none were ever ordered to move on it or even try to contact it. Several commercial and private aircraft reported it and had visual on it. A lack of command and communication caused all of that. If not for the people on that plane doing what they did, which IMO they had to do, that plane would have flown to whatever it's final destination was going to be totally uninhibited. This is after 3 planes had already crashed and this one was postively ID'd as a fourth.

All these command and communication channels have since been fixed and I would assume that should another incident occur like that, they would be blown out of the sky pretty quick.

In a related note. It appears that less than 7% of all cargo loaded on a plane is ever screened. So while you are waiting in huge lines at the airport, having your nuts and nail clippers x-rayed... they could very well be loading a bomb on board through the cargo area unchecked.

 

[david henman]

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.

...newsflash: he's not there.

but canadian soldiers are, and they're getting killed. for what?

-dh

 

[keefsdad]

...newsflash: he's not there.

but canadian soldiers are, and they're getting killed. for what?

-dh

So Harper can get invited to Dubyas ranch and kiss his butt at close range.

 

[madog99]

There was an excellent program on CBC sunday night ? Really showed all the failures leading up 9/11 by the administration, how did that boob (GW)get re-elected?

So another anniversary passes. More nonsense at the checkpoints and another day closer to the next "attack".

I am currently reading the 911 commision report. Pretty thick book but it is very interesting. There was total confusion that morning. More than you would even expect with such a thing. The one that got me so far was the last plane (United 93) which ended up going down in PA after the passenger revolt, flew for 45 minutes or so after being identified as a hijacked flight. They had military aircraft airborne in two separate areas but none were ever ordered to move on it or even try to contact it. Several commercial and private aircraft reported it and had visual on it. A lack of command and communication caused all of that. If not for the people on that plane doing what they did, which IMO they had to do, that plane would have flown to whatever it's final destination was going to be totally uninhibited. This is after 3 planes had already crashed and this one was postively ID'd as a fourth.

All these command and communication channels have since been fixed and I would assume that should another incident occur like that, they would be blown out of the sky pretty quick.

In a related note. It appears that less than 7% of all cargo loaded on a plane is ever screened. So while you are waiting in huge lines at the airport, having your nuts and nail clippers x-rayed... they could very well be loading a bomb on board through the cargo area unchecked.

 

[Milkman]

There was an excellent program on CBC sunday night ? Really showed all the failures leading up 9/11 by the administration, how did that boob (GW)get re-elected?

How did he get re-elected?


Two words:


Fear

Corruption


This may be one of the greatest shames of the past 50 years.

 

[Jeff Flowerday]

...newsflash: he's not there.

but canadian soldiers are, and they're getting killed. for what?

-dh

Are you serious?

Let's walk away, that will reduce future attacks.

I hate seeing or service people dieing, but really don't see another solution. We can't allow Afganistan to become a safe haven again.

.02

PS) I hate political/world issue threads they just turn into a bunch of bullshit bickering. Reminds me of Harmony Central.

 

[Milkman]

Are you serious?

Let's walk away, that will reduce future attacks.

I hate seeing or service people dieing, but really don't see another solution. We can't allow Afganistan to become a safe haven again.

.02

PS) I hate political/world issue threads they just turn into a bunch of bullshit bickering. Reminds me of Harmony Central.

I would be happy to see our troops leave Afghanistan without delay.

 

[Milkman]

Are you serious?

Let's walk away, that will reduce future attacks.

I hate seeing or service people dieing, but really don't see another solution. We can't allow Afganistan to become a safe haven again.

.02

PS) I hate political/world issue threads they just turn into a bunch of bullshit bickering. Reminds me of Harmony Central.

I would be happy to see our troops leave Afghanistan without delay.

Everytime we see the repatriation ceremony or hear the bagpipes playing, it might be helpful to remember that Afghani parents are also burying their children (soldiers) because of our activities there and if reports are accurate many more Afghanis are dying than Canadians.

Our soldiers are following orders and for that they are justified, but they are killing Afghanis in their country.

I do not support this.

 

[Jeff Flowerday]

I would be happy to see our troops leave Afghanistan without delay.

Everytime we see the repatriation ceremony or hear the bagpipes playing, it might be helpful to remember that Afghani parents are also burying their children (soldiers) because of our activities there and if reports are accurate many more Afghanis are dying than Canadians.

Our soldiers are following orders and for that they are justified, but they are killing Afghanis in their country.

I do not support this.

Your right, it's extremely sad. Very unfortunate consequences started by a much smaller group of Extremists.

The problem is: There isn't a simple line drawn in the sand that we can just back across and the problem goes away.

They have no problem coming to our soil and killing innocent North Americans. By backing down it becomes that much easier for them. The more they are on the run the safer our family and friends are.


With that said, enough of this thread for me. :food-smiley-004:

 

[Milkman]

Your right, it's extremely sad. Very unfortunate consequences started by a much smaller group of Extremists.

The problem is: There isn't a simple line drawn in the sand that we can just back across and the problem goes away.

They have no problem coming to our soil and killing innocent North Americans. By backing down it becomes that much easier for them. The more they are on the run the safer our family and friends are.


With that said, enough of this thread for me. :food-smiley-004:

The problem is, we're not just killing a "smaller group of extremists". We're killing anyone who stands up to us in their own country.


In spite of the tendency of some folks to want to lump us in with the USA, the attacks on 9/11 were NOT attacks against Canadians. Yes there were Canadians there, but the terrorists attacked symbols of America. We just got caught in the cross fire.


Now, however, as active participants in the revenge war of Bush and his pals, we are a very appealing target.

 

[david henman]

The problem is, we're not just killing a "smaller group of extremists". We're killing anyone who stands up to us in their own country.
In spite of the tendency of some folks to want to lump us in with the USA, the attacks on 9/11 were NOT attacks against Canadians. Yes there were Canadians there, but the terrorists attacked symbols of America. We just got caught in the cross fire.
Now, however, as active participants in the revenge war of Bush and his pals, we are a very appealing target.

...i'm afraid your words are going to turn out to be all too prophetic. we're doing everything but sending the terrorist groups, specifically the taliban/al queda, a hand-written invitation.

but don't even suggest diplomacy or, god forbid, talking to the enemy, as jack layton had the gall to do. you will immediately become the object of ridicule and labelled a "friend of the taliban" and a traitor. although i checked my dictionary, and could find no mention of "surrender" in the definition of the word "talk", many insist that is what it means. or, they will tell you that, since diplomacy didn't work with hitler, that proves that it will never again work with anyone.

evidently, it is far more manly to say to our enemies: "we are sending our sons to kill your sons."

but here's a question that has been bothering me: if afghanistan is such a slam-dunk, a clear black and white issue of right vs wrong, good vs evil, etc etc etc, why is canada in there all alone?

-dh

 

[Wild Bill]

"It ain't necessarily so..."

...i'm afraid your words are going to turn out to be all too prophetic. we're doing everything but sending the terrorist groups, specifically the taliban/al queda, a hand-written invitation.
-dh

To many such extremists, our existence is invitation enough.

but don't even suggest diplomacy or, god forbid, talking to the enemy, as jack layton had the gall to do. you will immediately become the object of ridicule and labelled a "friend of the taliban" and a traitor. although i checked my dictionary, and could find no mention of "surrender" in the definition of the word "talk", many insist that is what it means. or, they will tell you that, since diplomacy didn't work with hitler, that proves that it will never again work with anyone.
-dh

The Taliban is not and never has been the government of Afghanistan. Who are we going to talk to? The real government or a rogue element that had enough guns to ignore their legitimate rulers?

I'd be surprised if any Canadian soldier voted NDP for some years to come. You get more flies with honey...

Perhaps you think Jack should talk to some Afghani women who were stoned to death for wanting to learn to read...

evidently, it is far more manly to say to our enemies: "we are sending our sons to kill your sons."
-dh

Ah yes, put words in your opponent's mouth and then castigate him for them!

You imply we sent soldiers for simple machismo. did it ever occur to you that our government (and a large segment of your fellow citizenry) believed that the Taliban are morally wrong and their power should be nullified? Does disagreeing with your argument mean one can only be a Rambo?

but here's a question that has been bothering me: if afghanistan is such a slam-dunk, a clear black and white issue of right vs wrong, good vs evil, etc etc etc, why is canada in there all alone?

-dh

We are not in there all alone. You are correct that there's not been a lot of support from other European countries. Why would you expect such? Historically most of these countries sit back and expect Uncle Sam to pay for all the bullets and blood. Then afterwards they can climb on their high moral horse and spit at him.

Cheap hypocrites, the lot of them!

As P T Barnum said years ago: "Makers, takers or fakers. There are no other kinds."

 

[Milkman]

To many such extremists, our existence is invitation enough.


The Taliban is not and never has been the government of Afghanistan. Who are we going to talk to? The real government or a rogue element that had enough guns to ignore their legitimate rulers?

I'd be surprised if any Canadian soldier voted NDP for some years to come. You get more flies with honey...

Perhaps you think Jack should talk to some Afghani women who were stoned to death for wanting to learn to read...



Ah yes, put words in your opponent's mouth and then castigate him for them!

You imply we sent soldiers for simple machismo. did it ever occur to you that our government (and a large segment of your fellow citizenry) believed that the Taliban are morally wrong and their power should be nullified? Does disagreeing with your argument mean one can only be a Rambo?



We are not in there all alone. You are correct that there's not been a lot of support from other European countries. Why would you expect such? Historically most of these countries sit back and expect Uncle Sam to pay for all the bullets and blood. Then afterwards they can climb on their high moral horse and spit at him.

Cheap hypocrites, the lot of them!

As P T Barnum said years ago: "Makers, takers or fakers. There are no other kinds."

P T Barnum also said "there's a sucker born every minute".


I prefer "all we are saying, is give peace a chance", or even "Imagine all the people, living life in peace".

Not as edgy, but better somehow.

 

[Wild Bill]

"If wishes were horses..."

P T Barnum also said "there's a sucker born every minute".


I prefer "all we are saying, is give peace a chance", or even "Imagine all the people, living life in peace".

Not as edgy, but better somehow.

Nothing wrong about having wishes. It's just that in the real world wishes can make good motivation but by themselves are not good tactics.

Everybody's got wishes! Often, people on both sides of an argument have the same wishes.

So what? It takes specific practical actions THAT CAN WORK to make a desired outcome happen!

Most folks that cannot support the "left" do so not because they do not share the same goals but rather because they think the methods the "left" wants to use will at best not work and in general prove simply...loopy.

Worse yet, some of these methods could be downright hurtful or dangerous.

The defense of many "lefties", for want of a better term is that if someone disagrees with their methods for achieving a goal then they must simply be "mean-spirited".

Somehow the debate can never stay focused on how their ideas could actually WORK!

Or to put it more simply:

Do you feel all warm and fuzzy? That's nice!

Now, do you have any ideas that will WORK?

 

[Lester B. Flat]

How can there be a military solution to something that really isn't a war at all? Where is the front line? What ground is to be gained? What government is going to be forced to surrender? Should we invade England because they are producing terrorists?

The "enemy" in this case are individual citizens of the world who band into small groups and answer to no one but themselves. Draw a circle around yourself and that is the front line. Having troops in Afghanistan or anywhere, will not protect you from your whacky next door neighbor.

Using the military to stop terrorism is an act of desperation because no one has a clue what else to do, but we feel we have to do something. I understand the frustration but I also understand the futility.

This isn't a winnable war because it isn't a war at all. It's using stupidity as a weapon against insanity.

Now, I have a tendency to be somewhat of an idealist, but I think the military strategists have me out-idealized on this one.

And the press keeps asking "What does a victory look like?".......

 

[Milkman]

Nothing wrong about having wishes. It's just that in the real world wishes can make good motivation but by themselves are not good tactics.

Everybody's got wishes! Often, people on both sides of an argument have the same wishes.

So what? It takes specific practical actions THAT CAN WORK to make a desired outcome happen!

Most folks that cannot support the "left" do so not because they do not share the same goals but rather because they think the methods the "left" wants to use will at best not work and in general prove simply...loopy.

Worse yet, some of these methods could be downright hurtful or dangerous.

The defense of many "lefties", for want of a better term is that if someone disagrees with their methods for achieving a goal then they must simply be "mean-spirited".

Somehow the debate can never stay focused on how their ideas could actually WORK!

Or to put it more simply:

Do you feel all warm and fuzzy? That's nice!

Now, do you have any ideas that will WORK?

LOL,

Yeah man. I was of very similar opinions as you as recently as seven or eight years ago. I guess I just decided to consider the possibility that the other guys might be right, and by the other guys I really mean more than just the Middle East, but for the purposes of this discussion it fits.


I don't believe the concept of peace is achieved at the point of a gun, nor do I believe that such concepts are "loopy". I'll spare us all the back and forth where we call each other names.

You're entitled to your opinion.


Don't for a second think that just becuase I or someone else disagrees with your leanings that we're somehow naive or delusional. Remember, from the perspective of someone like me, your views on this subject seem almost insane. I can tell you're no dummy.

You might want to go ahead and assume the same about me.:food-smiley-004:

 

[Wild Bill]

"Who sex I don't?"

LOL,

Yeah man. I was of very similar opinions as you as recently as seven or eight years ago. I guess I just decided to consider the possibility that the other guys might be right, and by the other guys I really mean more than just the Middle East, but for the purposes of this discussion it fits.


I don't believe the concept of peace is achieved at the point of a gun, nor do I believe that such concepts are "loopy". I'll spare us all the back and forth where we call each other names.

You're entitled to your opinion.


Don't for a second think that just becuase I or someone else disagrees with your leanings that we're somehow naive or delusional. Remember, from the perspective of someone like me, your views on this subject seem almost insane. I can tell you're no dummy.

You might want to go ahead and assume the same about me.:food-smiley-004:

I don't recall labelling you specifically. My original response was to David, who had implied that we went to Afghanistan for mere machismo.

As for disagreeing, how else can we learn? If you can't defend your beliefs then you don't really have any. You have faith, which is something else altogether. Debate forces you to make your opinions informed.

As for name calling, I don't recall doing any of that. Name calling usually is a desperation tactic. If I have used name calling in the past I'd appreciate someone quoting it back to me. I'm not too old to reform some bad habits.

I'll cheerfully call a philosophy a name (like "loopy"!) but not a specific person. He may well indeed be loopy by my lights but believe it or not, some folks think I'm a little odd!

I mean, I like some Nick Lowe songs! I have no use for MesaBoogers. I listen to George Thorogood on 11, on vinyl. I had a nightmare about waking up married to Sheila Copps (I knew some guys who dated her in high school. That's why it was a nightmare!)

I also prefer sweet pickles on a turkey submarine sandwich.

I refuse to sing my folk song covers through my nose and call it country.

Everyone IS entitled to their opinion!

Just not their own set of facts...

 

[elindso]

An open discussion. With no nastness. What a breath of fresh air.

It must be adults talikng to adults, or is it just a Canadian thing.