trex

nor does it make sense to expend more lives in a futile endeavour, for the sake of making those lives already lost somehow a more meaningful sacrifice. we need to decide when enough is enough.

that would be a sad thing, yes. but what if we can never make a stable afghanistan? it has been attemped many times before. second, i don't know if there was a pre-condition to agreeing to the extended mission until 2009, that certain objectives must to be accomplished first? was it not that we fulfill our obligation under the UN, and another country has to rotate in and take the leadership role?

the united states have said this themselves, about being trapped in iraq

Canadian PM says Afghan mission could stay longer Wed Oct 3 2007 Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Wednesday that the country's military mission to Afghanistan could remain longer than scheduled -- an idea bound to anger opposition parties, which have a majority in Parliament. On Wednesday he said Canada would not leave Afghanistan abruptly if it was clear local authorities were too weak to deal with the Taliban. He also said the nature of the combat mission could change beyond early 2009. "We have responsibilities toward the population of Kandahar. We accepted the responsibility to sort out security problems and I think we have to make sure -- before we leave -- that the Afghan forces can ensure their own security," Harper said. "I don't think we can responsibly quit the field of battle and leave the potential for chaos in Kandahar." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wl_nm/afghan_dc ---------------------------------- Hey Mr. Harper, why not give someone else a turn... oh wait, nobody else wants to go there and do it, for some reason.

Argus-> There are NO Muslim nations with an enlightened or even modern attitude towards women. None. the answer to that is, former iraq under saddam hussein- "Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the Nasser model. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims." "Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam#Modernisation

oh? i thought twenty civilians were killed in that latest incident, and the description was of blackwater mecenaries firing indiscriminately in all directions. ->It was quite funny to actually see the democrats lights blink on when they realized it was the US government that should have charged him with homocide. i would say, the iraqi government should have been the one who chrged him with this, since the crime was committed in iraq. but of course, that would not be desireable for the americans to have one of their citizens charged under the law of a country they have attacked. ->to summarize: the whole thing was a joke and everyone in there knew it. sorry to hear that you find so much humour in this situation. the real SAD joke is, how we can just brush off of deaths of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

i would say, we should disapprove of that. ignoring for a moment whether this poll of yours is valid, or whether it was used in a manipulative way, for example by polling the people coming from of a known extremist cleric. a poll is just a snapshot but in any case it means, at least 60% of the people do not favour sharia law. so more than half the muslims you meet in britain are against it, and we should not treat them with hatred or agitation, lest they be easily converted to join the groups who want to overthrow our just society. that would be a big mistake. for example, ignorant, racist, bigoted youth may want to attack a muslim who is sitting on a bus, for no reason other than that they have heard some hate filled propaganda. they believe there is no difference in any muslims, that all are a threat by virtue of being muslim, identify them by their clothing and behaviour, and attack innocent people. then we have given up our just society, ourselves. and that kind of mentality is whats being promoted here by some with one-sided views.

because then the whole argument becomes a childish waste f time, thats why. so we can either talk about issues in a meaningful way, or not at all. and its not that someone said just "anything" critical of muslims, but certain people are making blanket statements of their dislike towards all muslms, regardless of whether they're moderates or extremist. that IS extremism in itself. as i mentioned before, it is a question of how to deal with the problem, not whether or not the problem exists. polls are manipulative by nature, i do not put 100% trust in polls. nor do i follow the herd over a cliff. even so, that does not mean i should have fear or hatred for any muslim i meet in the streets, anytime we commin an injustice by showing hatred against people, we can expect an equal reaction from them, we are giving fuel to the extremists who can then preach to their grops, "see there, they hate us, they are evil" etc. etc. So it is again a question of approaching the problem. those who preach hatred, on either side, need to be condemned. those who want to live in peace, worship their god in peace, should be left alone.

well that pretty much sums it up, i guess. unfortunately. the debate is always about the two opposing views, but where there are extremists on both sides, left vs right, extreme liberal vs extreme conservative, both are an equal part of the problem that brings conflict and ultimately totalitarian rule. blanket statements like "they must all be eliminated" can be heard from each of these two groups. while a third group, the moderates are the real answer to making peace. we need to break out of the viscious cycle of mindless extremism, not become part of it better not to call yourself a lefty or a righty, but discuss the issues case by case. use intelligence, not dogmatic attachment to ideology.

but your arguments include a steady level of personal insults. on this page alone- "An idiotic comparison" "Ludicrous" "straw man ... people smarter than you" "sniveling idiots" "paternalistic" i dont see a similar level of insults coming back at you by anyone though. so i think you need to work on that

its not so much a question of whether people like the taliban are a problem or not, that is obvious to eveyone, and the fact that certain parts of muslim society are primitive and violent. but of course, that doesnt mean all of them. those who are violent must be dealt with effectively. they cant be reasoned with. those who are willing to live in peace and tolerance, should be left alone. msulim families who live in your neighborhood, they dont want to be like the taliban. many of them come to this country for that very reason, to escape them. so its a question of how to approach the problem... the wrong way leads to increased radicalization, gives the taliban a reason to use their propaganda against us, giving them leverage that they can win the psychological war, by showing us as brutal, indifferent hypocrits ourselves. its unreasonable to believe we can get rid of them all, much better to help them to become tolerant, religious fundamentalism is the problem and it exists on both sides. there are christian fundamentalists with extremist views too, some even want to bring about "the apocalypse", global war, to bring the return of their messiah. they all need to be marginalized, so that people wont take them seriously and follow them. we want their numbers to decrease, but it looks like some things we do are making them increase.

i am not a sniveling idiot. please refrain from using those kind of remarks. there are many muslims who are just as appalled by the harsh fundamentalist types, such as taliban, as we are. that does not mean all muslims should be feared or hated. most of them are just ordinary people who want to live in peace, without any political agenda to kill us. we need to be able to identify who is the problem, and who is not, otherwise we becoming just as totalitarian as the taliban. i'm not saying, we should embrace the taliban, but we need to use our intelligence, so not to become the very thing we are against.

i see... so bigotry of all kinds is acceptable around here. i guess that makes it fair

i assume because it is in vogue these days, thanks in part to media brainwashing of the brain-washable. there are no muslims to defend themselves here, it seems. consider it a snapshot of the current mentality across the country.

about the referendum, my understanding is it will give more power to voters who vote for the less wealthy parties, ie. other than the "big three", so if you vote green party in a liberal-dominated riding, you are not totally wasting your vote. because its not only the vote in your riding that elects the mpp, but the popular vote can get members elected from those smaller parties. these are the ones on the list. in other words if green gets a certain percentage of the popular vote, but does not win any ridings, they will still be able to send a representative to queens park.

man the blanket hatred toward muslims in these forums is appalling to say the least.

interesting, if we were to replace the word muslim with the word "jew" in this thread, this forum would be completely shut down. i am not pointing this out to say, jews get special protection but evidently that today, muslims do not. this is hate literature.

Senate Endorses Plan to Divide Iraq Warner said the vote represented a de facto acknowledgement of the now widely held view that Iraq's long-term problems cannot be solved militarily. "This amendment builds on that foundation," said Warner. "In a way, we are paralyzed." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2601506_pf.html U.S. Tries to Allay Anger Over Iraq Partition Plan BAGHDAD, Sept. 30 - The American Embassy reiterated its support on Sunday for a united Iraq as six political parties together voiced their objection to a United States Senate resolution endorsing partitioning the country into three states. In a statement, the embassy said: “Our goal in Iraq remains the same: a united democratic, federal Iraq that can govern, defend and sustain itself. “Attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed.” Web Page ----------------- sounds like they didnt bother to inform the iraqis of their new plans for dividing iraq. they are making decisions for them from the other side of the pond. nice. dance little puppet

exactly, the best idea is for muslims to talk to muslims and resolve the problem. there are millions of peaceful muslims who do not believe the literal meaning of the old books fundamentally, because times have changed. they want peace too. so we must work with these freedom loving muslims to marginalize the radical ones, not fear and attack all muslims. attacking them directly with western armies only has the opposite effect, further radicalization. peace be upon you,

you cannot reply on those points because, its true. as long as the leadership of a country is complying with the wests economic objectives, they will turn a blind eye to transgressions of human rights. the hypocracy of western governments today is that they value money over people, but for the public they tell us about the good we are doing for those foreign lands that are being invaded. or as jean kirkpatrick said, better an oppressive regime that cooperates, than a democtratic one that doesnt. meanwhile our troops are fighting, killing and dieing for their lies. but you have no meaningful response to that, other than your foolish quips. your answers are in themselves, boiler-plate one-liners intended to come across as smug or humorous, doesnt work for me. i am defending the troops who should not be asked to risk their life for the deceitful plutocrats

well actually kuzadd is right there, i would say its you who is flapping about. the taleban were propped up by the united states to take control of afghanistan, after the soviet war. read "ghost wars- a history if the cia and the taliban", it will help you to understand what went on. "The basis of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to any group resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and started the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing these U.S.-backed training camps for the Muslims. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan and by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war. They received training and arms from Pakistan, the U.S. as well as other Middle Eastern countries who had been recruited by the U.S. to thwart the Soviet invasion of this region." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin it sounds like the cia supports terrorist regimes for their own ends. hmm, doesnt that sound familiar these days? these taleban are truly sick in the head and should have been stopped long ago. however, this horror went on for more than two decades while the west, which put them in power did nothing. the fact that they were removed by usa had solely to do with september 11, it seems, and the demand for them to hand over osama bin laden. other than that, the world was willing to turn a blind eye while women and children were beaten regularly, forced to stay locked in there homes and not allowed to attend schools or even general hospitals. people were killed indiscrimnately in the streets. it certainly makes me proud, not so while it is not wrong to go and remove the taleban, that they helped put into power in the first place, they do not fool me. they move in on another country for their own reasons, making fancy speeches about the noble purpose of their war, only not to deliver on their promises in the end, once they have had enough. it doesnt matter if they are repressive regimes, as long as they are cooperative with the western powers. is it their intention to bestow blessed democracy for real? maybe not, if they can't defeat the taliban, they might try to negotiate and give them back some power. so much for that little misadventure.

yes i do know about it, its the fellow from nova scotia

it is a strange question really, i wonder why he/she asks that. kinda like comparing, ah, apples to oranges!

i work in cancer care myself... we do allow some medicinal marijuana but it depends on the particular centre. in toronto its not a problem, the patients use it to combat nausea from chemo and radiation therapy. there were some interesting talks recently about its possible benfit for pain management, which had some of the therapists talking about it, and try to order it for their patients. so it is used but kind of kept quiet, amongst certain medical circles. more testimony to the hypocracy of it all

sincere condolences...