Black Dog

Another band-aid solution. All the new equipment in the world, even a massive (and IMO unecessary) spending increase won't mean a damn thing if our Armed Forces continue to flounder about with no clearly defined role. A comprehensive review of the CF should be the first order of business. Canada's military cannot be all things to all people. We need to focus on the morst pressing needs of our nation (ie. maintaining territorial integrity and soverignty, domestic roles) before we even think of increasing our committment to peacekeeping or the farce that is The War Against Terror.

The report is not a conclusive analyisis, but simply a collection of reports concerning the possibility of any connection bewteen AQ and Iraq. Whether those reports are accurate or not is another story. The only colnclucion that can be drawn is that the evidence of any relationship is, at best, inconclusive. Indeed, the Bush admin has done it's damndest to distance itself from drawing such a connmection, with Dubya himself stating rather unequivocably that there was no link.

Hate to burst some bubbles (actually, I don't) but... memo "innacurate": D.O.D

True, Lost, but something for our young friend to consider should he decide to traipse off and join another country's armed forces.

You could join the U.S. armed forces. In fact, there's new openings every day.

First of all: huh? The fact that i recognize that the history of our nation and, indeed, western civilization is not all sweetenss and light doesn't mean I despise our culture and values. In fact, I believe that by recognizing the sins of our past we can avoid them in the future and allow our country to fulfill its potential. Secondly, your whole diatribe reeks of outdated and anachronistic nationalism, the same kind of thinking that led to the wars so many Canadians laid down their lives for. While an argument could be made that much of that sacrifice was worthwhile to stop the spread of tyranny, how many more Canadians were sacrificed on the altar of pride and hollow words.

What exactly is your point? Why is immigration in and of itself such a bad thing? Near as I can tell, your argument can be boiled down to "there's too many of them damn immigants and they don't even speak English". So what? Boo hoo. It's not "our" land. Canmada is built on immigrants. If someone wants to come here and work hard to build a life for themselves and their familes, power to them. Bollocks. Most groups hung on to the values and traditions of their culture, as demonstrated by the strong Ukranian, German, Swedish prescence here in Alberta. "Taken its toll" how? Because these people have the audacity to speak thei rnative language. Oh the humanity.... Care to show this poll? Aw...so being a member of the most privileged segment of Western society isn't enough for you?

The naivete in the above statement is astounding. Do you honestly believe, in light of events from the crazed General Boyton's pronouncements and subsequent lack of action on the part of the administration to Rumsfeld's out right denial of statements he made on the record, that there is any accountability here? if so, I've got a pretty sweet bridge I can let you have for a good price... Well, casualty numbers are unknown. Chances are, they were right (iraqbodycount.com has reported almost 10,000 civilain deaths. Those are just the one's that get reported. We have no idea how many Iraqis died in cobat and how many deaths have gone unreported. 100,000 dead seems entirely realistic at this point.) Wow. That's a really screwed up way of thinking. Nowhere did I indicate support for Saddam or the status quo. Just because I didn't endorse an invasion that (in the words of Bush 1) "would have incurred incalculable human and political costs does not mean I'm any great fan of Saddam. Not a difficult concpet to grasp.

Again, we've seen no evidence of this being the case, beyond the constant pronouncments of this "fact" by U.S. officials.Your assesment of the alleged CIA report applies here as well, no? (Interestingly enough, there's an article from the Guardian on the same report that estimates the insurgency at 50,000 strong) Again, show me some substansial evidence to indicate that the resistance is all Al Q and Ba'athists and I'll consider this point. Till then, this is a straw man. False premise. One can oppose the illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by a foriegn military force without endorsing the previous regime.

Iraqi resistance gaining support: CIA. Winning hearts and minds Part 1. Winning hearts and minds Part 2.

Then explain why, despite the miracle panacea of capitalism and technological advancement, people in North America work harder, longer and for less than ever before (and certainly far less than their European counterparts). Not to mention the maladies that seem to thrive in consumer capitalist societies such as ours: depression and other psychological problems, obeisity, stress, debt, self-medication and so forth. these are natural byproducts of a system predicated wholly on the pursuit of individual status and material wealth.

The conversation above (vis a vis the practicality of "liberal arts" degrees) is really a microcosm of the larger debate of capitalism versus alternative economic system. As we can see by this debate, liberal arts degrees are "useless" because they don't contribute to the machine of the capitalist system (notwithstanding the fact that even philosophy grads have jobs, pay taxes etc.), a system wherein the sum total of human accomplishment is defined by the cycle of working and spending, effectively turning us all into ants in a hill. Doctirnaire capitalists place no value on knowledge for knowledge's sake. Broad horizons matter not a wit unless cold cash is involved. What a drab, grey world to inhabit.

Sorry, fellas. You signed on and agreed to play by the rules. You broke the rules, you pay the price. Ah, yes: diplomacy as practiced by six year olds: "I'm the biggest kid on the playground so I get to make the rules. If you don't like it,. I'll take my ball and go home." Jesus.

Agreed. However, the problem here lies in the fact that the U.S. has no interest in promoting multilateralism and a strong United Nations, as that would act a check on their own aspirations of a political economic and military hegemony (as detailed by the Project for a New Amerian Century and the American Enterprise Institute: two right wing think tanks whose members are counted among the upper echelons of American policy-making). Not to mention the consternation a strong UN would cause the deranged neocon howler monkey punditiocracy who mock the institution for its ineffectiveness while silultaneously (and paradoxially) raging against the organization's attempt to apply some sort of socialist agaenda to the world. A better way to run the UN would be to first scrap the UNSC and to create stringant critera for membership (for instance: to qualify for member ship and benefits such as internatioonal aid, countries should be required to institute democratic reforms, adhere to human rights guidelines, etc.)

No, you're jumping to conclusions. I never said that Bush's shady dealings with the clan bin Laden and teh terroist supporting house of Saud were anything but that: shady business dealings. However, the fact that Bush is president AND allowed people associated with the man allegedly responsible for the 9-11 attacks to flee the country mere days after the event (and in violation of a North American air travel ban) should raise some serious red flags. Personally, I think it confirms where Bush's interests lie: business special interests first, the safety and security of America a distant second.

"Oh you who believe, fight the unbelievers who are near to you." -- Koran 9:125 Hold on a second...You mean to tell me that the Koran is riddled with contradictions and inconsitencies that various individuals and groups use to justify their own specific socio-political views? Shocking! Thank goodness Judeo-Christian societies don't base their belief systems on a simliarily flawed pseudohistorical document... Oh. Wait. Crap.

That's rather a lot to take on faith, don't you think? Isn't this the kind of thing the public is owed an explanation for? Instead, the Bush admin has never come through with a public inquiry into 9-11 and subsequent events. The one report that was done was heavily censored to remove references to Bush's ties with the House of Saud. Someone has a lot to answer for, yet no heads have rolled in the greatest breach of national security in history. Why? This lack of accountability is a greater danger to democracy than any group of foreign radicals.

As a subset of the previous discussion, I have to ask: what evidence is there that teh gurilla movement in Iraq is in fact composed of " Baathist party members" or "Al Q'aida elements", betond daily sermons from this particular Gospel according to Rumsfeld? Is it not within the realm of possibility that nationalist concerns may drive many to armed struggle against an occupying power (in much the same way as the British were driven out in the last century)? This i ssomething I've been curious about for some time.

Wuv you too. Where did I defend france and the deplorable Chirac? Nowhere. But as usual you're too dumb to actually read what's posted, instead choosing to plunge off the deep end into hysterical, paranoid denunciations and threats of physical violence (which are easily thrown via the anonimity of the internet). You're cracking. As for France's actions vis a vis Iraq, they are no doubt motivated by hyopocritical self-interest, in much the same way as the American neocon's sudden "concern" for the Iraqi people (at a time when it became convinient to use such concern as a pretext to bolster their own national interests) found its voice despite decades of support for Saddam's regime. Hypocracy is the one thing you can count on from all political stripes. Only a blind fool would seek out the worst motivations for some while ascribing the noblest to others purely on faith.

So what's the problem? Don't use the 3,000 year old ramblings of some nomadic desert tribe as a basis for projecting bigotry and you'll be just fine.

I fail to see the point of carrying on a discussion with someone who is incapable of making the obvious distinction between concern for average and the so-called "Ba'athist insurgents".

Polls show most Israelis are in favor of dismantlling the settlements which are regarded as the biggest stumbling blocks on the path to peace. They're also considered illegal by the bulk of the international community. Under the circumstances, the settlers are squatters and should be gioven the choice- stay under Palestinian rule and take their chances or return to Israel proper. However, it's obvious that the continued expansion of these settlements indicates Israel's leadership has no desire to end the occupation.

Nor can you deny the true motives of Israel's leadership: the ethnic cleansing of the OT of its Palestinian population in the name of Zionist expansionism. The occupation existed before the intifadah. The occupation started in 1967 when Israel failed to withdraw from the territories it seized in the six-day war. Instead, these lands became a platform for Israeli expansion at the expense of the population residing in the territories, which in turn led to the armed struggle known as the First Intifadah, which began in 1987. That's 20 years without a mass violent resistance. What happened in that time to trigger a spontaneous explosion of violence and dissent? Could it be the continuing repressive policies of the state of Israel and it's incessant land grabs for immigrant settlers? Not in your world, where circular logic rules. To you, the Palestinian uprising is caused by the uprising of the Palestinians, which is vacuous, and at worst, racist, in that it implies that Palestinians are just inherently violent. Also, you take it on pure faith that an end to the intifadah would lead to an end to the occupation, despite the fact that Israel appears to be in the OT for the long haul (otherwise: why keep building settlements in what could be characterized as enemy territory?) So tell me: what are you basing this faith in Israel's leadership on? It certainly can't be their actions.

The NDP are as close to a moderate centrist party in canada. You're funny, but not ha-ha funny. Can I have whatever you're smoking? 'cause it must be some prime shit for you to cook up a whopper like that. As much as I dislike the CA, I'd never stoop to such slanderous, infantile characterizations without some sort of proof to back it up. But then, who needs proof when you have blind allegiance to an ideological dogma, hey? Not you, obvs.

Bush's family ties with the bin Ladens go back to the former's dalliances in the oil industry (the late Salem bin Laden-Osama's brother- was a partner in Bush's failed company Arbusto Oil). James R. Bath, a friend and neighbor of Dubya, was used to funnel money from Salem to set up George W. Bush in the oil business, according to The Wall Street Journal and other reputable sources. So it doesn't concern you that mere hours after the largest single act of retail terror in history, even as hundreds opf suspects were detained and investigated, the family members of the man believed to have perpetrated the act were exempted from a ban on air travel and whisked away? How naive can you get? "Sure we have you here now, but I'd hate to inconvinience you. Do you mind if I give you a dingle later on and you can tell me what you know about your brother killing 3,000 civilians. Great, thanks." I think the fact that the man who is suppossed to be leading the "war on terror" has deep (and well-documented) personal and financial connections with the blood relations of known terrorists, as well as known sponsors of terror (the House of Saud) should be of great concern to all citizens, don't you?