Yaro

Ahhh I get it you actually don't know anything about the region whatsoever. I have stated several times here that the influence of Pakistan is the reigning issue, I have stated this for months. However to state that there is no Russia influence is COMPLETELY ASSININE. There is a great deal of evidence that former elements of the Russian secret service, and there spetsnaz soldiers are heavily involved in feeding guerrilla efforts in Afghanistan. Its the cold war all over again and many Russians consider it payback. This isn't even questioned in intelligence circles. The fact that the influence isn't nearly so significant or unstoppable like the Pakistani influence doesn't make it non existent or well accepted. a: Right wing...after what? Viewing 2 of my posts that speak discouragingly about his source? "Critical thinking" at it's best I suppose. b: accusing him of wanting the mission to fail when I simply point out that when people are presented with a story that is in line with their belief they are more likely to believe it and less likely to scrutinize it. You don't see the truth in that? OR c: he read the following That wasn't directed at you, it seems i mixed my responses unintentionally. My apologize for the mistake. I get my information primarily from private sources, and if you think the US government is an acceptable source for information like this your mistaken. And just out of curiosity have you ever actually dealt with anyone from the CIA?

Fantasy about Russian influence? Your kidding right? your pretending to know something about the region while stating that there is no Russian influence? That's just embarrassing. Do you really want to compare the records of the "right" and the "left" over the last 20 years? I really don't think you do, and you sure as hell don't want to compare the record in the middle east. How the hell is the link between the CIA and Osama a myth? What delusional corner of your mind have you managed to so distance from reality that you can say this with a straight face? Please just stop talking like you have any knowledge of the area, do both yourself and everyone else a favor. Where are you getting this information, the tribal warlords and the Taliban are competing factions who largely despise each other. This is as inane a fabrication as the whole Osama-Saddam conection. I won't defend the "Senlis Council" but the information you just stated are completely wrong. While I won't defend the "Senlis Council" the notion of the poppies being an important source of income for farmers working land largely incapable of even subsistence farming is hardly new or unique to this group.

That's fairly nonsensical, I am predicting the results of the current actions. Well that and pointing out the accuracy of my past predictions on this and similar matters, so yes I am one of those "I told you so" types, we all have our crosses I guess.

At the end of the day I have made my prediction, we will see who is right and who is wrong.

And in Taliban controlled areas your absolutely right. I haven't been in the region in 4 years now but I suspect given the current circumstances I know what the Taliban was alot better then you do. There were several warlords that would have had no problem protecting a school built in there area. like I said sometimes you can only do a minimal amount, so that's what you do. You seem to be under the impression that I don't want to help these people, I do. I also want to help slaves in north Africa, non-persons in Kuwait, homeless in India and a thousand other people around the world. Unfortunately we have limited resources and they are MUCH better directed elsewhere. We haven't done anything to the Taliban, we have continued a cycle of strife in the area that will continue unabated until the circumstances change. All we can do is create the circumstances for change. Like I said before, we will see who is right and who is wrong but so far what has happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan are EXACTLY what I said would happen. I don't know, though it wouldn't surprise me. However they have done far worse to the Kurds as has most of the nations in the region at one time or another. The Kurds are the third most hated ethnicity in the region behind only the Jews and the gypsies. Saddam was a hyper-violent sociopath. Guess what? so is 90% of the worlds leadership. You don't get to the top quibbling about morality, that is as true in the west as it is in the east. Go read Machiavelli or Sun Tzu and understand that MANY leaders base a great deal of there social philosophy on this type of material. Incompetent is kind of what I just said, but the governments in the USSR were no more corrupt then our own. Of course we made a mistake, a huge mistake. Life WILL be worse after we are out of the region, Iraq is going to be another Iran at BEST, and more likely another Afghanistan. Should we have done something? Sure there is a great deal we could have done but going in the way we did was moronic and the way we have handled it since even worse. The US has lost in Iraq, its done its over, the US is losing ground every day. The Backdoor draft is making the situation even worse as soldiers who should be home with there family are forced to stay. That is all ignoring the economic impact at home which was headed downhill fast before adding the cost of the war. Your statistics are from post 91, around 2000 to be exact. Do you know what the average lifespan of an Iraqi is? Do you know what Iraq became after 91? how much it changed? As for Saudi Arabia I problem wouldn't mention them considering that Saudi Arabian schools are pretty much Quran study sessions. WTF are you talking about? Maybe your not getting what happens to people who don't play ball. They get "taken out" see the entire history of South America. Yes I am sure its exactly the same thing because god knows that white people have a long history of treating other white people the same as they treat the "darkies". You can tell by all the help we give to Africa. As for the Koreans and the Japanese try finding an example of a people that weren't of immense strategic importance to the US that have benefited from trade with the US, I won't hold my breath. I know your saying this to be an ass but in MANY of these circumstances a colonial government would be a huge upgrade over the way they are treated now. No they are not dumb, they are weak, and as has been the case for all of time the strong take advantage of the weak.

The British never fought a successful campaign in Afghanistan, that would be like saying if every member of the any military left Afghanistan right now and we say we kicked the Tali bans butt is calling it a victory. Any statement is true, if you are free to define the terms. After all there are still those that that argue Vietnam was a victory. As for the difference between the regime and the country? There isn't much of one really, like it or not were we to leave tomorrow the popular vote would go to creating a Taliban like state.

nope, we do have to conquer it. The fact of the matter is that the current government of Afghanistan is a collection of factions who competed with the Taliban, no better and no worse. even if we were able to stop weapons and people coming in from Pakistan (it won't be possible, ever). New weapons of the type that the Taliban forces use are actually produced in large quantities in northern Pakistan, they won't run out of those either. There are millions of religious fanatics willing to die throwing themselves against UN forces in Afghanistan, they won't run out of them. Pakistan is more then capable of carrying this conflict at current levels indefinitely. depends on how you count them I suppose. I won't debate your number since I don't know its context.

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan. The essential reason we can't win in Afghanistan because we are making no progress and they can sustain this situation indefinitely, we cannot. They don't need to "win" all they need to do is not give up fighting, and when they are willing to suffer 10 deaths for every one they inflict well lets just said sooner or later we will give up.

Yes I know exactly what it does, I know its role and its history. There is no advantage to the current circumstance and indeed it has lead to a great number of significant corruptions. The BoC has spent the majority of its existence as a government operation, indeed the government still holds actual ownership of the BoC. That fact is the only reason we have not seen happen here what has happened in Britain, USA, France, Germany, and what is currently being fought over in China and India. As for services, yes obviously it would be quite the creation but I see no reason not to provide a public (for profit) operation to compete with the existing banks who are pretty unanimously on record as saying that personal accounts are of virtually no value to them and that they consider it a service they provide to society. Banks in Canada are MUCH different then they were 30 years ago, the don't operate the same way or under the same principles. It was not that long ago that most considered the banking operation as a trust from the government, it is relatively recently that they started to act like foreign banks. Not that i am saying that is in and of itself a bad thing just something that the Canadian system wasn't prepared for we never had the regulation in place (still don't). There are many things the Canadian banks do here that would be patently illegal in many places.

The solution to this is rather simple. Make spoiling your ballet mean something. IMO the single biggest issue with modern "democracy" is that the original notion of elections as a bloodless revolution is invalid. Formed and modified aristocracy has made becoming an elected official a matter of wealth and heredity. In order to initiate change in the system outside the control of the elected there needs to be a method to invoke grass roots change. I would suggest that if more then 50% of cast ballets are spoiled then some type of binding citizens assembly be invoked. This assembly gathered by a lottery of the willing could then put forward propositions for system change to be voted on directly by the nation.

Nationalizing banks? I have heard of nationalizing the central bank, but never heard of nationalizing other banks. Although providing general services from the bank of Canada is probably a good idea.

First off, I do have first hand knowledge of the area. I have been in the area several times. Second your reply reflects your ignorance of the circumstances. The fact is there is nothing we can do, we have no options but to wait, set the seed water occasionally and wait. The Taliban was NEVER in control of all of Afghanistan, anymore then we are in control their now, it would have been easy to pick a warlord who's dominion would have been right for this. I know exactly what the Taliban is, was, and will be again as soon as we leave. The only thing we have done is push back the eventual recovery time. People are so impatient, they want everything now sometimes in life the best you can do is something small and wait for the right time to take the next step. Statistics for pre 1991 are as follows, Primary school Males 94% Females 81% Secondary School Males 44% Females 31% I think its safe to say that Iraq pre 1991 (which is what I said) was EASILY the most educated population in the middle east. You quote literacy numbers, I am quoting people graduating from actual school. Try to twist it any way you want to, Iraq had more students in school (male and female) at EVERY level per capita then Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is despite the fact that the Kurdish population in the north that should not even be fairly included with Iraq as a whole is largely illiterate and completely uneducated, the same for several groups in the south. Once again Saddam had a great many faults but on education and medical care he brought Iraq to the top of the region. Once again you like to ignore my qualifiers, I said that Saddam was not significantly tyrannical next to his neighbors. Every ruler in the region is brutal, indeed an argument could be made that it is the nature of modern leadership that brutality be ever present. As for the Kurds, I suggest you look up the way they are treated in every other country in the middle east, Iraq is fairly typical in this respect. That hardly means that we should simply gloss over the actions in any way but singling out Iraq on the issue is unreasonable. As for how many do you have to kill before you become Tyrannical, why don't you tell me? you seem to have a handle on these things. It should also be noted that Saddam has been charged with killing (in total) up to 180 000, note the up to portion because the noted total of proven deaths is less then 2000. Isn't hyperbole great. My opinion on 9/11 is that it was none of our business, there is no enemy of the kind that would trigger any strategic alliance, I haven't even seen anyone make that claim. What the US did to provoke 9/11 is not relevant here. As to how many terrorist plots our government has thwarted, well I will have to go with the big zero. I have yet to hear of a single "thwarted attempt", instead they give us the this group was talking about this, well no they never actually took any action, well know its highly unlikely they would have done anything, BUT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT IT! This is about the time I start yelling at the scientists about the meteor they promised me would wipe out life on earth. And pointing out that we have spent 10 billion and will spend more significantly weakens your argument, it doesn't strengthen it. There is no reasonable person who could come to the conclusion that 10 billion dollars wouldn't have saved more lives being spent elsewhere then on security and that is not counting the massive economic costs to private businesses to institute there own security features nor the individual costs that now burden people (my insurer contacted me that I needed to get terrorism insurance for my building, are they kidding me?). First off, our role in several of those campaigns was hardly pure combat. Only in WWI and WWII could our role have been called pure combat, and of those two only WWII had any ethical reason for us being involved, and even in WWII we didn't go for any ethical reason. As for long lasting solutions well lets just say that Korea has definitely not experienced a long lasting solution, either has Bosnia. The Cold War it appears may just be starting up again (weee). So I am not quite sure what your trying to get at as what you stated once again supports my notion that a pure military solution is almost never the proper solution outside of defence. The military has a role, but it is increasingly rare in the modern world, and should be kept as small a role as possible but obviously they do have a role.

I don't know, I guess I work about 5-8 hours a week now.

I believe he meant imposing the will of corporate bodies allied with the US government and/or military and in this context it is rather a factual statement.

Not even true in the remotest dreams of those educated on these issues. Most of these countries are kept this way in a large part do to the nature of western hemogeny. We want them poor, we want them uneducated because they are far less a threat to us in this way. Try reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman, it may enlighten you as to the nature of why the third world remains much the same. After that do some research on the relationship between Ethiopia and the world bank, if you do that with some vigor you will understand to a large extent relationship between us and them. Eastern Europe was far better educated then the west, however they were caught in the cold war, a war which drained the vast majority of there productivity towards the USSR's war machine. That's ignoring the fact that resource allotment under the USSR in the 70's and 80's was horrific. Hardly, the military is the wrong tool to use on terrorists, the military is a large blunt instrument used to attack other large blunt instruments. It should never be used on non-military targets like terrorists, its impractical, inefficient, ineffective, and has a tendency to encourage further terrorism through collateral fall out. Who said anything about sending them boatloads of money? Who said they would be operating the schools, choose the most moderate part of the nation build a couple of schools. In a generation it will pick up its own steam. As for Iraq, I suggest you actually do some research on what Iraq was in reality before 1990, I will give you a hint it was the best run country in the middle east with the most religiously moderate population with the best education and best medical care. It was also the best place in the middle east for women. Saddam ran a very effective and efficient country that was, next to its neighbors not significantly tyrannical. As for Iran, remember that the CIA itself was responsible for the collapse of there move to democracy, a move that is once again underway in a very strong way but will probably be killed again by arrogant hotheads from the west. Saudi Arabia needs no explanation, they are a terrorist state, maybe the only true terrorist state in the world. Of course the Royal Family who are guilty of more crimes against humanity then any group in the world are more then happy to sacrifice there oil to insure US protection. As for Saudi education, they are not educated, I have been to Saudi Arabia and they may very well be the worst educated country outside of Africa. Huh? The Nazi's? OK after sitting here for a minute I think I get your point. However the Nazi's were aggressors, kind of a different situation don't you think? If the Nazi's had sat alone within the bowels of Germany then yes educated discourse is the most logical path, if however someone is actively attacking you? then yes obviously you need to defend yourself. As for Palestinians, Hezbollah, and Bosnia, what of them? Military aggression was or is the norm in all those situations and each time it occurs the clock is set back on finding a lasting solution. But if you want to have a military answer to the issue that's simple enough, nuke them. Historically speaking the only way to end such a circumstance is to be brutal to an extent not possible today, and this solution isn't suggested by even the most aggressive people in our society. As I said, outside of obvious defensive necessity, the military has rarely if ever contributed to a long lasting solution. What starts people debating and suing for peace is necessity, for example Israel and Palestine will not start negotiating for true and lasting peace until it is in the best interest of both sides. Now what would make that the situation is an entirely different debate.