killjoy

SHOOOOOOORTHANDED MOFOOZ!!!! I heard that shot from here. .

-1: If they hate it so much why not just jump over the fence? .

Huh? We already resolved that quite peacefully ourselves, so coming along now long after we lgihtened up is really just you getting on your high horse. And don't tell me what to do Montreal. Get over yerselves. I dont post like that any more than the rest of you, in fact it's really only a tiny fraction of my posts that I go off the handle, so what? Get off your high horses you seem to think you can ride simply because you're not posting with insult or venom - at the moment yourselves. I admit when I'm wrong and I do go the extra step to try and bury greviences or put out the flame. .

GostHacked. K we can start again. But the problem with that is I don't intend to defend any Bush policies at all, I would simply argue that there is an unreasonable air of hysteria in this. It's going to be the most 'watched' trial in Canada. I'm sorry but I'm not ready to get on the "OMG we're turning into the US" bandwagon that rolls around every couple of years based pretty much solely on what a 'high profile' defence lawyer says on camera in front of a courthouse and what the media postulates. They are being treated as criminals before the gavel comes down just like a lot of accused do. To the particulars of that, and this thread, I really don’t see what the US, or even the WOT has to do with it at all. A pedophile or murderer would be treated the same way if there was as much media. They have not been proven guilty but they're not going anywhere either. Then we all assume he's guilty. Happens everyday and sometimes they aren't. Why is this story so importatn? As I said, I can't help but think it has to do with our obsession with the US. Despite what the media says I don’t really think the WOT is relevant at all to how these guys are being treated, (maybe its relevant to how they got caught -- I could see that). The rules haven't changed except for the rules and guidelines that found these guys. Subpoenas and Judge approval has followed every step. Also as a Canadian this obsession with all things US has grated me all my life. Perhaps thats why I'm snappy about it. S'only the Internet. Yer cool. I'm cool .

K. Fine. I'll apologize/take back everything mean I ever said about you. This is more than I ever wanted. A simple acknowledgement that's it's not impossible. My opinion: not anywhere near impossible, but whatever. And the Premiers wasn’t supposed to be a direct 1-to1 connection. The point was that we say warlord, warlord, warlord, over and over again and we don’t realize that this is their foundation of regional authority to central. They are very independent, but also nationalistic. I don't feel people are stupid for having doubts. That would be stupid. But Afghanistan isn't going to change over night (unless it's for the worse :-( ) I think we can agree with that? I mean it just isn't going to look like ours for a while, if at all, right? Well I don’t mind that personally. In fact I don't even care if it doesn't suit the West as Dyer points out. I do however believe it will be on it's way to something better. Even if it did become another 'Pakistan' or 'Iran', they would still be better off and on their way and there is a society you can deal/bargain with. After all, making it like ours would be democracy at gunpoint, non? .

lol.lol.lol.lol.I stopped reading right there. I mean why argue with a complete bullshitter like you? Yeah. Right. That's the reason everyone in Canada is suddenly ‘paying attention’ to the US. Yeah Canada's obsession with the US started with the War on Terror. Besides, it doesnt change the fact that you never really addressed my post in the first place, and in fact completely misread it the first time, so you might as well be arguing with yourself because its not me. .

That's because we're dealing with basics not things like pointing out why the ME is becoming less relevant in terms of oil by pointing you to a list. Besides that I can use your own. I have brought up very good arguments while yours has been widdled down to concession. You have not once given any 'facts' that support that Afghanistan could never have a democracy besides the infinitely simplistic rationale that they never had one before. lol. So? When you really examine that, it's the very definition of stupidity and a lack of ‘critical thinking’ that even an Afghan would have. "They’ll never do it, because they never have before" (?) That really makes sense to you? Do I need a link to point you to? That's not really a "point" at all. It wasn't Dyer's point. (and I know he went to university --- like the rest of us) What about Pakistan? What about India? What makes them more 'likely' to become a democracy. There was a time they weren't. You completely ignore the points I made, and even the relevance of your own facts, to my argument. For example the fact that a decent reliable democracy never existed in Japan or Germany until post WWII. I can admit that they, say, made it to the line first in establishing the beginnings of one, sure I'll agree to that, but until everything was destroyed and on the edge of chaos, (not much different than post Soviet Afghanistan), and there was outside help, money and security they couldn't get it done. As proven, in your own words, that they 'fell victim to dictators'. And no, I'm not saying that it can't be done 'naturally' either. That is of course the preferred method. (but then that point wasnt one of yours either). .

Blah blah.Blah. You're post doesn't address mine at all. I never said the weren't INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Not once. I said they are subject to the exact same treatment all of us had to endure and until it plays into the anti-Bush crowd it doesn't hit the radar. Now all of a sudden everyone is mad about it. Why weren't you protesting before? Why the fuck don’t you people pay attention to Canada instead of the US? I'll fucking tell you why, because you're a slave to fashion, and ironically America itself so bad that Canada never gets on your radar. You should've been protesting it long before it became an American related issue. lol. Pathetic. Seriously. .Read the fuckin post next time twit. lol: WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR A CENTURY+ ALREADY.

Oh the ol'I-studied-in-university-the-very-topic-we're-arguing' card. If only it were as compelling as it is convenient. Well I'm sorry to disappoint you but I did know the pedestrian details you posted...they kinda look more 5-miniute-Googlish to me. All you're really doing is further distinguishing the falsity of drawing a comparison to Canada. It's ridiculous. I also can't help but notice that your info only seems to enforce that indeed Japan didn’t have a knack or preposition for democracy before some tyrant or dictator took it over. They barely got it started. The idea you're postulating that Japan was somehow 'naturally democratic' for decades, much more so than the Sham Puppet Show of Afghanistan who were also run by warlords (shoguns?) and it could never happen there is only looking weaker. Thanks. I also notice you dropped Germany. Wilhem did that for you? Another 5-minute Goggle? Still don’t want to address India? Nevermind. So lets review. Japan and Germany didn’t have a ‘natural knack’ and ‘history’ for democracy any more than Afghanistan does. And furthermore,more to the actual point, the democracy they do have today, thanks to support and intervention is far less "shammy" than what you're trying so desperately to contend they had "for decades before tyrants took them over". I'm feeling good about clearing the air. I'm glad we had that sorted out. Actually. I'm in a bad mood and I'm done with you. There's always Rue or BD and the like. Those people I find more reasoned or at least sincere. You're on the ignore list. I can tell you're someone who never, never admits it when he's wrong or when someone else has a point. Shoulda studied 'how-not-to-make-weak-arguments-and-hang-on-to-them-forever_101' instead for all the good it's doing you. .

Do I get 5 'kimmy point's' for asking why there aren't a ton of people out there saying that these guys are a picked-on ethnicity...arrested to appease Bush...who's freedoms are being infringed and who are probably, right now as we type, being tortured by a room with those awful florescent lights? .

Wasn’t someone around here claiming that these guys never would've gotten away with this crime if the Canadian Forces were all patrolling as police instead of in Afhganistan? I'm not saying', I'm just sayin', y'know? .

the DEFENSE ATTORNEY claims they were tortured and only because he knows that the Canadian public will have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that remotely sounds American, ie: Gitmo. Wake up k, people? We actually don’t have a lot of rights in this country. You don’t have to be told what your crime is and you can be held in jail, sometimes for 6 months or more before even being charged with a crime. It's ruined peoples lives. Makes me laugh when Canadians get all 'concerned' with the state of freedoms in the US.lol. That always cracks me up. I mean really fellow 'Canadians', I really shouldn't be the one telling you this. You shoulda allknown 10 minutes after you learned how to read and then gotten out the banners and signs and DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Now we have to sit here and watch in amazement as people get all in a huff because these same 'rights' that we never had, these perps don't have. So yeah you can be held perpetually. You can be denied a lawyer for a very long time and it's up to the Justice how much contact and in what manner that contact is between you and you're lawyer. Yep - in a room with lots of light or no light or whatever. Anyone who didn’t know that has been watching too much US T.V. (although we all really H8 ‘em:-) ) EVEN IF you're a 'poor marginalized' Muslim in a post-traumatic, post 9/11 world, this can happen to you. You don’t just have to be poor white trash or native anymore....lol (<---laugh of the damned.) "Tortured". lol. .

Nowhere did I do that. Nowhere. Rue implied. I countered, which does not mean I endorse what Rue implied. In fact I can point out numerious posts on this forum where I've said again and again that we CANT "bring" or "impose" democracy and that the people have to want it. I've never budged on that view once. Read it again. Rue stated more or less that a democracy has to happen on its own, naturally. I said it sometimes needs support against those who attack it. OH COME OFF IT. DID YOU EVEN INVESTIGATE THAT? Real weak River. That is not a valid comparison by a long shot and you (should) bloody well know that. The emperor called the shots the king didnt. Japan had a ruling Emperor, we had a mascot. Japans Emperor could make or break laws. Our mascot monarch couldn’t. Im not even going to bother with that argument anymore River, it's insincere and you know it. Also I believe the Emperor had to approve of the candidates (and bless them?). How is that different than here? I mean I know the difference but you seem to think it's a lot bigger than it is. Federal laws are passed with the consultation of all the regions/ premiers. If a federal law is passed that Quebec or Alberta doesn’t like they either fight it or ignore it if they can. Maybe Quebec has a warlord and not a premier. You are also looking at the situation in a static prism. That is to say your argument contends that that this si the way it will always be when in fact they are making changes to the constitution and developing themselves every day. .

First off I didn’t say that the US brought democracy to Japan or Germany did I, River? There goes that knee-jerk reaction to anything 'American' again. In fact I never said anyone could ‘make’ Afghanistan or any other country become democratic. You, Rue and others are constantly banging that drum because it sounds so good. No the people have to want a democracy. I dont care what the politicians say, anyone participating in the Afghan mission, military or otherwise, Afghan or foreigner all know that we aren't bringing democracy to them we're simply trying to keep it secure so they can build one, and perhaps if we're lucky people will start investing in them too. "Can't get democracy at the end of a gun" they all love to chant, but they never say that when we're providing security for food shipments. It's really no different (except in scale)....I suppose we're just force-feeding them at gunpoint? "Eat the damn sandwich or I'll blow yer head off"...yeah sure. That's how it's done. Second, and most important, the idea that Japan and Germany were democracies in anything but name is the REAL MYTH. How can you even say that? You say before the war Germany was a democracy? Then you have the nerve to say the Afghan democracy is a sham? Whatever. Yeah Hitler and his "social democracy". Sure. Nice argument. Any thinner and it'd be invisible. Oh what about Japan and their emperor? Yeah. Whatever River. Post 1945 Japan was a 'democracy' and the Afghan democracy is a sham, a farce. Pretty weak argument man. No where near as ridiculous as writing off Afghanistan as a bunch of barbarians. I notice you didn't rebuttal India either. No one brought democracy to them either and they were poor and underdeveloped, over populated and religiously diverse as well having to deal with constant infighting between those religious factions. Lets review your points: 1. America didn’t bring democracy to Germany or Japan. ---never said they did. 2. Germany had a ‘democracy’ before post-1942, but Afghanistan’s’ is a sham. And no we dont have to count Hitler....befoer him was Keiser Wilhelm, look that up and call it a democracy. 3. Japan and the emperor who called the shots (for decades, even centuries before the war) in spite of ‘elected’ government was a ‘democracy’ but Afghanistans' democracy is a sham. Sorry but your counter point simply sucks big time. You’re really reaching and it shows. . . .

The missionaries did not 'try that'. They were not there to 'impose' democracy. If by 'tried that' you mean that they turned the entire South/Central Americas into Catholics, then yeah....they 'tried that', and did it too. or did you think those countries were Catholic 'by accident'? :-) Hmmm. Like Japan? Germany? India? Yes they do engage in critical thought. Some can speak 4 languages. How many do you speak? Did you know they get the Pakistan Times in the most remote regions of Afghanistan? Iraqi's now are savages who dont engage in critical thought? I dare say 100 years ago or so Iraq was more advanced culturally, nationally and in terms of critical thought than we were. I'm sorry Rue but considering how many things you've gotten plainly wrong in the first half of your post I'd say you're the one spinning. Kazrai was voted in. Thousands voted and he's not a puppet. Who are the other puppets? Chavez? Again: India is dirt poor, overpopulated and rife with religious tensions. Theyare stilla success story in terms of a democracy. No one will lend them (Afghanistan) money to start proper industry. That's how the World bank works. It's not because of poverty or poppies it's because of instability. It is a problem Rue. It's not that you think in black and white but that you think in simplistic inaccuracies. Things don't get summed up in a sentence. There are many factors, hundreds in fact and although it would be convienent they just don't end up with: 1 + 1 = USA sucks. --- everyone knows my position on the subject but no where do I imply that it's as simple as, say, "Lets all just roll in there and fix everything", or "the democracy in Afghansistan is a shining example of democracies". Those two statements are as simplistic, inaccurate and wrong as yours are, IMO. I mean you just say stuff like "Democracies have to come about naturally...you can't force them" and it has a nice ring to it and we're all willing to nod along, but when you consider a "pesky little detail" like Germany or Japan, either you have to re-evaluate, or, more likely, you end up 'spinning' some reason why those details "don't count". At any rate it seems to roll off your proposition like water off a ducks back. You decide it's not worth consideration and that's precisely what's simplistic about it. I'd bet Gwynne Dyer would say it's simplistic to call Karzai a puppet or to suggest Afghanistan could never be a democracy or that the only thing they can sell is heroin, or that the only way democracies come about is when people sit back and wait for them. (BTW - the poppies do have a valid mediacal value too, [morphine and derrivatives]in terms of selling it legitimatly). .

Yer babbling. Yer hysterical. Yer not making any sense. Get a hold of yerself man. Why not just induce a coma? How typically cosmopolitan (and Montreal) of you. :-) Question: Can you still smoke during confessional in Montreal? * Hockey is the best #!@*%-ing sport since they decided to play The Christians vs. The Lions. Period. What yer talkin is lozer talk. (you know I'm just ribbin you right August?) *extra points for the triple burn vs. the French, (city of)Montreal-ers and Catholics!

This is a valid point, until you start comparing alternatives. When you take a serious look at any of the alternatives you realize you're going to probably get a 'warlord'. Maybe one that was backed by Pakistan. When you do, no matter who is in there, the press is going to tunnel-view on him and all of a sudden it all comes down to: Karzai. Warlord. USA Puppet. This just is only barely accurate, and only from the narrow tunnel-view, to the point that it is inaccurate. Like saying all theloniusfleabag is is an Internet forum poster, or a 'Lefty'.. Widen the scope and he suddenly blends right in with Afghan culture like any of them do, so all you're really left with, warlord or not, is: Is he a responsible leader or isn’t he? Well? It doesn’t seem like he's that bad and for a "puppet president" he sure seems to speak his mind. No matter what, nothing changes the fact that the framework is there, so puppet or not the democratic framework is there to change that at any reasonable time, peacefully. BTW, Warlords also keep the peace. Why not just call him a "peacelord" and sleep well tonight? It's about as accurate. .

You mean like another Iran. Well I can't argue with that possiblity. Except to say that looking at the activities of the Taliban for the decade previous to 9/11 with the M.O. of escalating violence, looking at it from that vantage, and I do in the most literal sense, then I can't see what's to lose with the risk. You can't say lives because the Cnd soldiers are there because they want to be not because they were called up from National Guard weekend duty, and you can't really say that about the Afghans since there's every likelihood, (since we're talking in terms of likelihood’s), just as many of them could have died. I hate to point this out, because it's as cold as life, but the civilian casualties have been relatively 'low', so when considering what the alternative 5 years could've been and what the next ten years could be, it's worth the risk imo. In Rwanda we would've had to kill some people and no one would've ever dreamed of the future that would've been prevented. We'd only know about "all those civilians killed ( 100?) with our actions". .

Welllllll, I hope yer all happy wit yer selves. It's just gonna hurt all the more when they win the next 3 straight. ...oh yeah they will. Must admit they were looking a little boring tonight but then the 'cains were not looking as good tonight either. .

[ahem] Killjoy is center. Killjoy is centered. Occasionally he's centre even. Killjoy is teflon to his 'allies' and water to his 'enemies'. No stick. Can't hit. And no bullshit. No offence but I’m not here to make teams. BD's ok, from what I read....especially compared the delirious masses contaminating forums these days. [zombie voice]"But the newzzpaperz....the newzpaperz tell us....the newspaperz tell us wot to tink...tell us wot to tink newzzzpaper..."[/zombie voice] (besides BD is an Oiler fan and that counts right now :-)) .

I'd have to agree. Gitmo commandant: "Just when we were going to let you all go too. Oh well. Too bad. Now that these guys acted up you can all stay here longer now." .

BD; I can understand that. The problem I have with people's view of the 'democracy' over there is that it's very likely never to look anything like what we would consider a democracy, and yet if you change the names around it will start to look like it. If you change premier to warlord you start to see what i mean. Granted warlords aren't voted in, but then again our central government can't kick out a premier either, and they're not about to give up power. Reminds me of a timely line from "the Man Who Would Be King" where Sean Connery and Micheal Cane are lone British soldiers trying to assemble the different warlords into an alliance: "Different cultures, different rules, Peachy....musn't be prejudiced." it's like when people say there's no difference between the Taliban and the government now because they both want to base their laws on Shia laws. Well so? Practically all of the ME base their laws on it and they all have different laws. So yeah, there is a difference now in the sense that one 'law system' allows girls to go to school and children to sing songs and women do not have to be fully covered or even constantly accompanied by a man. Hell they can even drive. Vastly different than under the Taliban who were using the 'same laws'. These two different interpretations are vastly different in practice, so to casually look and conclude that both are basing their laws on Shia (sp? am I spelling that wrong? no time to check) are therefore the same is nonsense, and typical of a simplistic 'talking point'. .

Hey i said you were right. There's no democracy over there. There never will be. It's quite pointless to try and 'teach' a democracy to such barbarians I'm sure. And you're also right about claiming success. Whenever I look at the paper, and read what our politicians or generals are saying, that's really all I hear: "Success. Success. Success." You're absolutely right. It's all just a dirty deal we have with the warlords and nothing's changed in Afghanistan and the only likely change to come anytime soon is our expedient departure. I shoulda just listened to you in the first place. .

K. Yer right Riverwind. It's useless to try and if it isn't perfect the first time you try, then quit and never try again. I'm silly to have doubted the wisdom of that. It was foolish of me to try and agrue the point with you. After all, you heard Gwen. Afghanistan is a sham. We're just killing people over there and the taliban will always win and i'm sure when we foolish westerners get our asses kicked out of there all will be well, and the peaceful, non-terrorist inspiring/harbouring/creating Taliban will resume it's long record of serving the people so well. "Can win. Don't try. Gotcha" -Bart Simpson .

'sactly.