Wilber

By calling them mercenaries you disrespect them by any definition of the word. You seem incapable of differentiating between them and the government that sent them there. Regardless of what you think of the government that sent them, you are flat out wrong to call our troops mercenaries. \It can be said of all government actions. Governments are primarily in the business of redistributing wealth which means there will always be winners and losers. If you expect our military to be used only when all Canadians see it to be in their interest, we might as well get rid of it today because that will never happen. Whether I agree with it is not the issue. We have sent people in harms way. We do them no favours by telling the people they are fighting that we don't support them being there and that in order to win, they don't have to defeat our people on the ground, just undermine the resolve of those at home. That is why I say they have my full support as long as they are committed to their mission. If they lose that commitment, we should bring them home. I'm just being pragmatic. People who are committed to achieving something have a reasonable chance of success but those who are not, have very little. As long as they are there trying to make a difference, our responsibility is to help them improve that chance, not cut it out from under them.

Charles, I can appreciate the fact that you don't think our people should be in Afghanistan, just don't give me a bunch of BS about them being mercenaries. The people putting themselves at risk will get all the support I can give them as long as they believe what they are doing is necessary and worthwhile. That is the least I can do for them. If the point comes when the bulk of them no longer believe they should be there and it is not worthwhile, I will support getting them out just as much.

I wouldn't say it is obvious but it is quite possible. It doesn't really matter, Hezbollah has demonstrated what kind of a threat it can be. They are not a legitimate government of a country and don't have to take the responsibility that goes with being one. They are a terrorist organization backed by Syria and Iran and the only reason they are where they are is no one has the power to confront them except Israel. Their whole reason for being is to eliminate Israel so there has to be a reckoning some time. Is this the time, that's the only question.

So if Canada declared war on Afghanistan they would all of a sudden be serving Canada's interests? If another country attacked Canadian interests anywhere in the world without declaring war, our armed forces should not react until they do? Germany did not declare war on or attack Canada at the beginning of WWII, Canada declared war on Germany. By your definition we had no business sending troops to Europe either, or did our official declaration of war all of a sudden make it OK. Afghanistan did not declare war on the US but an organization based in and supported by its government did attack the US. I guess the US shouldn't have reacted until the Afghan government had officially declared war on them. Talk about fuzzy logic. You would make a great diplomat.

They probably need at least that ratio to stay even.

I am serious. How many is too many? At what point do you retaliate? Should the Israelis reply in kind? One bomb for one rocket. One shell for one shell. Because Hezbollah targets civilians with their rockets and shells, should the Israelis only target civilians with their bombs and shells? How many rockets and shells does someone fire into your country before you reply? Give us a clue. Hezbollah started this round and if the response was more than they bargained for they have no cause for complaint. Governments who go to war without every intention of winning are idiots. Not only are they idiots but they are criminal idiots because they are getting people killed for nothing.

At least they have been given fair warning. Terrorists give no warning. We who sit here safely thousands of miles from the conflict. We who have never been threatened by anything in our lives are so pious when it comes to criticizing those who have. I for one am willing to admit that if I was spending half my days in bomb shelters not knowing if I still had a home when I came out, not knowing if I would wake up if I spent a night in my own bed, not knowing if my kids were going to be blown up in their school because of rockets being fired into my country by those who have no motive other than to kill civilians, I might find myself changing my opinion of what constitutes a measured response similar to that of the Israelis. A full measure. "The Egyptians could run to Egypt, the Syrians into Syria. The only place we could run was into the sea, and before we did that we might as well fight." Golda Meir

Israel has left Lebanon once before. It has made peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, both of which have included the return of land. These were real peace treaties that recognized Israel's right to exist and have been honoured by both sides. There have been no violations by any side or attacks made by terrorist organizations based in those countries. That is the only kind of peace Israel would be willing to trade for territory. Why would they give a strategic area like the Golan Heights back to Syria until that country renounces its intention to see Israel destroyed and is willing to make a real peace. Didn't Israel forcibly remove its settlers from Gaza in 2005? The West Bank is a tougher issue for Israel if they want a lasting peace but who possesses it has been the cause of friction in the area for several thousand years. I'm not expecting that to change in my lifetime.

The Jews thought they could reason with the Nazis. Now they know better. When someone says they are out to exterminate them, they are taken at face value and treated accordingly.

We'be been in support of U.N. actions in Afghanistan. Now, we are in supprt of the Afghan government that has invited use to help.That does not sound like a declaration of war. If a declaration of war was not made by Canada or against Canada, Canada is not at war. I do not see the difference between foreign mercenaries and Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Foreign mercenaries are soldiers hired by a foreign government to fight for them. The Canadian troops in Afghanistan are there because they were sent by the Canadian government and they are paid for by the Canadian people. That is the difference. Wikipedia "A mercenary is a soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations. However, when the term is used to refer to a soldier in a regular national army, it is usually considered an insult, epithet or pejorative." By your definition all soldiers are mercenaries, which would be true if they only fought for money. No description could be less accurate when it comes to the Canadian armed forces We didn't declare war on North Korea or China either but does that mean we shouldn't have been there to defend South Korea?

According to the UN they still had 1200 peacekeepers in Cyprus from 15 different countries in 2004. One would assume they must be doing something there.

Wikipedia Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities: the opposite of theism. This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism typically regard as atheists only those people who assert the nonexistence of gods, leaving other nonbelievers classified as agnostics or non-theists. Atheist or Agnostic?

If you believe in God, you are not an agnostic. The thread title is "Options for Israel". I took your comments in that context, as in a choice between Israel and those backed by the likes of Iran.

If you don't believe, you are an athiest. If you don't know, you are an agnostic. I am an agnostic but when it comes to choosing between a secular democracy (although one that may contain religious factions in its government) that respects personal freedoms and one which wants to impose a religious autocracy, the decision is a no brainer for me.

Nothing new. How many tankers were sunk during WWII? Even in the Napoleonic wars whole forests were destroyed just to build the navies. They say it took 80 acres of oak trees to build the average battleship of the day.

What exactly do you mean by collusion? Do you think that the gas stations speak to each other and decide on a price? Nope, too many individual owners. But obviously the cost of gas is much less, and you'd expect at least one of them to lower their price to attract business... but they don't. Awfully fishy. They may also be struggling to survive. Since their products are exactly the same, the only way they can increase sales is by decreasing price. Which is why I don't understand why their isn't competition in marketed gasoline. Gasoline is a commodity bought on the open market just like the oil it is made out of or any other commodity. If your cost is the same as the other guy and you can't add any value to the product, it is hard to undercut him and stay in business.

Neat. White slaves rule. Interesting times back then. In the future I'm sure they will say the same about our times.

<heh>I want to hear more about the Mamluks. Mamluks

If you read your history you will find that between prehistoric times and the present day, Palestine has been possessed by the Canaanites, Israelites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arab Caliphate, Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans and British. The fact is, the only time it has ever been a sovereign state was under the Israelites and as todays Israel. At every other time it has been part of someone else's empire. The reality is that Palestine has always been possessed by those strong enough to hold it and throughout its history, every occupant of Palestine has held it illegally according to someone else.

Nearly 80% of their population is foreigners. I think they know that their future depends on people coming to their country to do business other than oil. Historically, when 80% of the population has no say in how a country is run, it eventually leads to something bad, but let's hope not.

Unfortunately, many of the now radical Islamic countries didn't used to be. Hopefully the Emirates can avoid catching the disease.

Why? I know lots of people who have gone to the Emirates to live and work. No question it is the best place in the sandbox but I never met any who would ever consider retiring there.

I don't think it means not expressing an opinion on things. I think it means to be careful about taking an entrenched position before all the facts are in. I think Canadians support the right of Israel to defend itself. But we can also observe that they should be cautious about getting mired in Lebanon. What facts? The more I see in the news the less I am convinced I will ever know the facts. At least not till this thing is over and done with for a while and hopefully some research can be done that will allow an objective analysis of what went on. Much of what we are seeing now is engineered and spun by the participants or presented in a way to get the best ratings possible. If Israel gets bogged down in Lebanon, that's Israel's problem. If Harper takes a position that turns out to be wrong, that's his problem. At least he is prepared to risk taking one. Somewhat of a novelty when it comes to our Federal politicians. I have far more respect for someone who takes a position and can admit it if they were wrong than one who is not prepared to take a position at all. We'll just have to wait and see. A question for all the fence sitters (and anyone else for that matter). If you were forced to live in a Middle East country for the rest of your life, which one would you choose and why?

If being neutral means I'm not allowed to express and opinion on something, I have no interest in being neutral. The same goes for my country.

Five convictions and working on his sixth. It just blows me away that this country can't seem to protect its children from these creeps, even after this many offenses. What a sad state of affairs.