Moonlight Graham

Well then say that! Don't claim that the US "created" al-Qaeda, because everyone knows that's BS. The best anyone can say is that they were partly responsible/influencial, but so were a lot of people/groups/countries. Also, show me evidence also that the CIA trained OBL? Both OBL and al-Zawahiri deny it, as does the US (duh).

Even if the US did help fund/equip the mujaheddin in the 1980's, it doesn't mean they created al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was already very wealthy, he didn't really need any US money to fund al-Qaeda or Maktab al-Khidamat, its precursor. Other countries such as Saudi Arabia funded the mujaheddin as well. And the common conception that the CIA directly "trained" Bin Laden is very likely false. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri already were also steeped in their radical Islamist, jihadist ideology, which is IMO the #1 underlying factor in their involvement in the mujaheddin and in the creation of al-Qaeda. It is better to say that the actions of the US (including their military presence in Saudi Arabia near Mecca and Medina beginning in the first Gulf War, though the Saudi government is also culpable in this as well) were one of the various reasons al-Qaeda came to be, and gave them more reason to spread jihad globally (as did other actors such as Israel as you mentioned).

A politician acts in favour of votes over principle? I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!

The US/West didn't create al-Qaeda & their ilk or their twisted ideology. Though yes the US/West certainly gave them some reasons to go to war with them. If you want to blame outsiders, the USSR and Saudi Arabia is just as culpable for nourishing the establishment of the enemy.

/ good article that brings up a few points i hadn't thought of, just as the in-fighting/rivalry among Afghan soldiers from different ethnic groups. Wow it's even more of a mess than i thought! What a joke.

Check again in 10 years.

There's a big difference in supporting the troops and supporting the mission.

Very true, as is similar in Latin America and elsewhere. It's just how they're accustomed to doing things.

Agreed. Though i would question the accuracy of polling in such a diverse and spread-out country pop.

I pretty much agree.

I never said anything about 100% "uncorruption". I'm talking about the Afghan government becoming so corrupt that it ceases to being anything resembling a functioning democracy.

...none i tells ya!

well Cheney was just very unpopular so hiding him made sense. But as for Gore and others, ya i guess it is pretty normal.

Also to add, as i`ve said this before on these forums, the entire democratic nation-building we are doing in Afghanistan is very likely doomed for failure in the way we are approaching it now, because the Afghan gov't is already corrupt, and if NATO/US were to ever actually leave the country the gov't would sooner than later become either insanely corrupt or authoritarian. Democracy in this country, given the current situation, is a b.s. pipedream. More horrifying about us training and arming the Afghan army is that these very soldiers/weapons may end up being involved in a military coup to overthrow the current "democratic" gov't. Just look at Africa post-WWII, where many African soldiers from African countries who were trained by European colonial powers to fight for them in WWII used this training after the war to rebel against these very same colonial powers & help their African countries gain independence. Then these same soldiers used their training to form military regimes in African states, and/or organize military coups to overtake western set-up "democratic" regimes. History is the lesson here folks. During the Soviet war in the 80's, the US funded weapons/training for the mujaheddin, who are now members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda etc. who we are fighting now. Have we not learned ANYTHING?

Canada and NATO are training the Afghan army, for many reasons of course, but supposedly primarily to defend the new Afghan gov't from the Taliban. However, if most of the most powerful nations in the world with the most advanced military tech in the world are basically at a stalemate vs the Taliban and cannot defeat them, exactly what chance does a rag-tag group of Afghan soldiers (no matter how well-trained, and whom will have nowhere near the military tech of NATO) have to defend the country/gov't against the Taliban over the long-term? The only chance i see this new "army" being successful vs Taliban attacks is the fact that many of the insurgents fighting NATO are not doing so to take over/replace the current gov't, but are fighting the foreign occupiers so they may leave. Some of the Taliban/insurgents also are fighting primarily because its a job/paycheck. Therefore, if NATO leaves then the Taliban may be slightly weaker if it decides to overtake the current gov't. NATO has an agreement with Karzai that it will leave Afghanistan in 2014 (ya right). What is paradoxical is that, unless there is a deal with the Taliban, the US/NATO will likely need to stay to support the Afghan army to secure the country. However, NATO staying actually makes the Taliban stronger for the reasons i cited (ie: many are fighting the foreign occupation, not to retake the gov't...althought the "puppet" govt can be seen as a kind of foreign occupation in itself so many Taliban/insurgents will want it abolished). So again, what is the logic of training the Afghan army?

Saw Joe Biden on Larry King tonight. First time i remember seeing him in anywhere in a long time. I actually forgot this guy even existed, no joke! Hillary's been all over the place, not this guy. Maybe they hid him during the run up to the mid-term elections because of his big mouth? Dunno. But weird to have the VP not even on the radar most of the time. I wonder if he'll even be on Obama's 2012 ticket?

i like it!

I agree.

Television news has many pros and many cons. No point in pointing them out. The internet has been the biggest revolution to news media since, well, television. The internet is virtually limitless in its potential to deliver news. It is instant, it is cheap to make, the amount of info it can provide is virtually limitless, and it can present info with any kind of media that can be digitized (video, audio, photos, charts & interactive images etc.). And all while the user can choose what they want to be exposed to & customize their news the way their like it presented.

It very likely won't. But all it takes is for people to massively pressure their congressmen to do so. Until then, money OWNS ALL.

That article is mostly one big brown pile of crap. With chunks of corn in it.

I'll admit that i have sometimes seen you argue views that are conservative/right-wing, leading me to think that the "left-wing yank" comment is sarcasm. I guess it ain't. But ya, i think it's that you have strong views on both sides of the left-right spectrum that leads to confusion.

I see your point, but there is also diplomatic value in meeting other leaders face-to-face. It strengthens relationships bn leaders. However, these face-to-face meetings must be done sparingly, or in a financially responsible way. I'm alos sure most day-to-day international relations are done via telephone etc., and not face-to-face.

I see your point, but there is also diplomatic value in meeting other leaders face-to-face. It strengthens relationships bn leaders. However, these face-to-face meetings must be done sparingly, or in a financially responsible way. I'm alos sure most day-to-day international relations are done via telephone etc., and not face-to-face.

Yes it does. The Harper gov ran a budget surplus in fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, before the recession. And their surpluses were greater than most of the Liberal surpluses. But i give great credit to Chretien/Martin for turning around the debt-spiral.