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.

Although Canadian military history is limited in scope next to the US it is certainly no less brutal. All military commit atrocities, some to a degree more then others but not as significant as we would like to believe. Many soldiers in the Canadian military are good honorable people that would never kill an unarmed man or rape a 12 year old girl but like every military there are those that would or could be pushed that far under extreme duress. And this is what people are not getting, its not a shortcoming in our desire, the skill of our men, or our national will. It is the facts of the situation which make what we are trying to accomplish an impossibility, the fact that right next to Afghanistan a country of 28 million people, which is one of the most difficult terrains in the world to try to control, a country with a generations long history of feudal warfare and resistance and a generations long history of desensitization to brutality that would make a Canadian soldier vomit. It is the fact that they share a border with an unfriendly nuclear power that allows virtually unlimited movement across the border and is of a size significant enough to supply an unlimited number of enemies along with the sympathy to do so. Afghanistan is unwinnable. It was before and it will continue to be until Pakistan is dealt with. Want to squish Muslim fundamentalism? Try understanding it and using Religions natural predator, education. If I am arrogant it is the natural result of knowing you.

Oh and I should comment on this steaming pile. While I am one of the few Canadians that realizes that the US provides a roughly equivalent amount of support to there poor the statement that that they provide significantly more is nothing short of the work of a psychotic. In a similar vein the notion that the US economy is "healthier" then the Canadian one is so ridiculous that I doubt you would find a FOX anchor willing to claim it. And before you attempt a rebuttal understand this, I am a doctored economist and if you force this conversation you will lose badly. Do some research and then come back to me if you must.

The NDP or whatever they are calling themselves in 20 years(about the same time I expect those same people who call me a commie now will start calling me a fascist I suspect) will probably be one of the parties of note in Canada, when that old pendulum starts to swing far to the other end after the collapse of the current system. Are they ready to govern now? About as ready as anyone is to govern, however the fact that they are politically out of step with most of the world currently "sometimes viewed as naivety by the ignorant" does have significant consequences. The fact of the matter is that most ideologies associated with the left tend to have more far reaching implications and most people are rather short sighted. If you were to go into great detail and explain why trade with china in its current form is bad for Canada, someone might understand right up until they went to walmart and saw that without that trade the toaster they wanted costs 40% more.

The terrorists have already won, the deaths suffered due to terrorist attacks in and of themselves are relatively inconsequential. The economic and social impact however are widespread and devastating. Want to save far more lives then these "anti-terrorism" methods would for far less money and with far less socially invasive law-making, spend the money on roads and the medical system. Increase education funding in these third world countries and let them fix things for themselves. Eventually reason will win out and religion will die but until then our current method of fighting this non-war is as sure a recipe for failure as the US's other wars you remember the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" don't you. At the end of the day positive social change can't be initiated with a gun or fiery rhetoric, its initiated by reasoned debate, cooperation, and humility in the face of what is possible.

Yawn, my prediction of 6 months ago is pretty much right on schedule. So I guess its time to make another. 1 year from now people will be discussing Afghanistan as a hopeless situation, somewhere which can have no positive outcome. 2 years from now we will be withdrawing because it was moronic to think that we could change anything their. 3 years from now people will be talking about how Afghanistan is our own little "mini-Vietnam". Its pretty amazing the presumption and arrogance going on in Canada right now, 20 years ago it was the type of thing you only saw out of the US. I guess its just one more way we are walking down that the same path the US did only 20 years later.

Wow, just stunning. Your trying to suggest that comparing war deaths is somehow on par with comparing civilian deaths? This is seriously the position that you want to be seen taking? Right, euro-trash. Because you would obviously have to be euro-trash to not want to ignore Israels war crimes. My position is simple, its informed and its researched how about yours? If I am to take your posts to be total display of your knowledge of it I would guess its really and I mean REALLY ignorant. Right, you mean like from IDF released statistics? You can't be serious. This can't be an actual response when discussing Israel. Do you have any idea how stupid what you wrote is? Lets break this down and see how many factual errors are in this one statement. #1 Democracy - Israel is not a democratic state, it is an apartheid state. Only Jews are allowed to vote or own property. #2 Freedom of speech/Freedom of Worship - Once again wrong, the official religion of Israel is Judaism. You can't worship in any other way and maintain any semblance of freedom. #3 Independent court system - The Israeli court is among the most ridiculed in the world, coming out with insane decisions at a rate that makes the US supreme court look mild. #4 Israel is clearly in the right - again are you kidding me? was south Africa in the right when they excluded blacks from voting, holding certain jobs, living in certain places, and moving about? There is absolutely no scale you can use there is no measure you can devise with which Israel is anything remotely approaching the moral high ground. But as per usual your ability to maintain your position independent of the facts is truly astounding. I have criticised Hezbollah several times, but considering how little you know about Hezbollah how would me taking a position supporting or opposing Hezbollah make any real difference at all? I don't know you, But from reading your posts, I get the strong impression you don't like facts or Arabs. Care to talk about it? I have a tendency to look at the actions of a nation rather then the rhetoric they spew. Acts of genocide in Palestine and Lebanon speak volumes to me. I have posted the words of the founders of Israel, I have drawn lines to the current political iteration of the Zionist movement. Are you unable to actually look up Ariel Sharon's complicity in an act of genocide and how it is in direct support of one of the major steps that the founding fathers if Israel envisioned? This is exactly what I am talking about, anyone that wants to discuss this knowledgeably could not miss this information in their 5 minutes of research. Their have been four acts of ethnic cleansing called "relocation programs" within Israel since 1948, their have been a half a dozen cases of mass slaughter in Palestine, their was the case of 3500 Muslims in slaughtered in Lebanon by Lebanese Christians and facilitated by the IDF. There have literally been hundreds of acts that are the signs of genocide. If any other nation on earth had done in the last 50 years what Israel had done they would have been condemned to high hell by every nation on earth. Oh and I would say that clearly you need to do some research on what exactly genocide means. Once again, you have proven that your knowledge on the region and its history is at best marginal.

My apologize, dealing with people like Argus tends to bring out the worst in me. No I never asked for evidence about Hezbollah's desire to wipe out Israel, in fact I stated several times that was the case. What I said was show me where it was stated as offical government policy of one of the other middle eastern countries. And as I pointed out the state of Israel as planed by the founders of Israel and who's ideology is continued in its modern form in the Likid party encompasses the entire middle east. You also describe expanding the state of Israel as something other then the extinguishment of Israels neighbors, this is not the case, Transjordan, Palestine, and Lebanon are just three of the nations which would be extinguished in the Zionist dream. It should also be noted that you have yet to produce a statement of an official government position that states it is the goal of any country in the middle east to "push Israel into the sea". I also consider actual crimes of genocide of which the Israelis are guilty on numerous accounts to be far worse then the theoretical genocide spoken of in psychotic rhetoric. In short yes both sides are what could loosely be defined as "bad", one side the Israelis largely get a pass from the media on the vast majority of atrocities. They also get a pass on virtually any political or historical context being brought to the analysis in the media, maybe that's because of the remaining WW2 guilt, maybe its because of the mass Jewish ownership in modern media or maybe its just lazy and budget driven reporting but regardless of the cause, one sides atrocities are largely theoretical and the others are not.

So just out of curiosity did you even read what I wrote, or skim over it for a second and think you got the jist? or are you just being out and out dishonest? Just a question. Really? Because it seems to me that there is a current cease fire in Lebanon but the IDF just broke it today. Interesting how that works isn't it. Israel also arrested one of the most moderate members of Hamas in the occupied territories. But I understand, you don't concern yourself with such stupid things as "facts" and "historical precedence" or "logic". They always seem to get in the way of a good rant against those durn Muslims. That's funny really it is, to hear someone who has done no research and has absolutely no idea what hes talking about comment on the situation its great...wait a minute Bill Oreilly is that you? come on Bill you can admit it. Right I forgot, morality is based upon might makes right. Its not about who actually committed more atrocities or committed atrocities on a larger scale, or who continues to epitomize everything that the modern right is supposed to be against its about your team and my team and your team backs Israel therefore without any actual consideration of your own you do. It must be good not to have to exercise independent thought, really comforting to know god is on your side. Once again maybe because you can't seem to read my actual posts, I am hardly a fan of Hezbollah. However by the strict definition of charity they damn well do qualify as a charity. And as for using civilian towns or buildings, I believe it was Israel who pioneered the use of human shields try actually looking it up sometime. Its sad really that someone who obviously has no actual knowledge of the subject would spend his time here revealing, no maybe reveling in his ignorance would be a better term, instead of actually spending this valuable time researching the topic. Sad but not surprising.

That's just it, this contest was rigged from the beginning to use Boeing aircraft, I find it virtually impossible to believe that when coming up with the required specs and range that they didn't look at the C-17's and work backwards to exclude possible competitors. As for the notion of what our allies use, its actually pretty funny as a concept because our "allies" screw us over in a huge number of ways when we buy these things. For example when you buy Russian airlifters they are well known for giving enough spare parts to rebuild the plane, where as Boeing gives virtually nothing. Tech support with Boeing again has a horrible reputation where as the Russians will provide virtually any information requested. And to top it all off the Russians give great latitude in what can be produced in on-site machine shops as far as replacement parts are concerned where as Boeing restricts them virtually universally. Everyone, I would like you to meet the Canadian Military Industrial complex. Don't kid yourselves more of your tax dollars are going to be flushed down this toilet every year then all the welfare moms in the history of our country combined.

Really they or the C-130's are about is good as your going to get out of Boeing, unfortunately for anyone that knows anything about lift capable aircraft all of the Boeing craft are way overpriced. They are "moderately" capable vehicles, no better then what you could have gotten out of Europe or Russia for a fraction of the price without feeding the US military complex. If we didn't have a defence minister and CDS who were both in bed with Boeing there is no practical way that Boeing wins this contract. Its sad that the group of men that are now in charge of our military are either so incredibly corrupt or incompetent and in the case of these two men both.