segnosaur

Actually yes. In order to be considered a 'soldier' an individual must be wearing a clearly designated uniform, and must be a member of a clearly defined chain of command. (One of the reasons why this is the case is to prevent innocent people from being casualties after being used as human shields.) It should also be noted that the taliban soldiers were not representing any recognized government. On the other hand, they (the Taliban members) were also not mere criminals... unlike your garden variety murderer, they were A: acting as a unit (or with a cohesive plan) with at least some military tactics, B: often were from foreign countries, and C: were acting against people who were not from Afghanistan (e.g. American and other soldiers). That's why we have the term 'unlawful combatant', to handle individuals who do not fit into the basic division between POWs and Criminals. While things like the Geneva Convention do not define this term, it has been used for decades in international court cases. There are very specific rules of engagement that a U.S. soldier in afghanistan must follow. Failure to follow those rules can result in penalties. In fact, in some cases people have complained that those very same "rules of engagement" have actually caused U.S. deaths because at times they've been too restrictive. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803760.html for some descriptions of some of the U.S. rules of engagement.

I do not expect Afghanistan to be a perfect country with western style laws and respect for human rights in the near future. I expect that there will be some cases of injustice/intolerance and other areas of criticism that would probably not happen here in the western world. However, even if there are problems in Afghanistan, I do think they can be better than the Taliban. Whatever human rights abuses exist now (and will probably exist in the future), they do not compare to a society where women have no right to work or for education, where women are stoned to death for adultery, and athiesm was punishable by death. I think the improvements in human rights (even if not currently at western standards) was worth fighting for.

It's hardly ignorance, I looked at the bigger picture and it still fit in a wallet. So you claim that your ideas are not based on "ignorance", yet: - Earlier on you admitted you made a mistake regarding testing done on the vaccine - Even in this post (well, the one I'm responding to) you claimed that part of your analysis was based on 'pure speculation' And those are just the problems you've admitted to! I said undiagnosed previous conditions. Meaning there was probably another factor involved that the doctors missed. The person could have had an unknown undiagnosed precondition that would have made them more susceptible to H1N1. Ummm.. your argument makes no sense. The article specifically said "no previous health issues". If there are no health issues, there's nothing to diagnose. Heck, even if there were preexisting but undiagnosed health problems, that doesn't necessarily help your case, since if the health problem is undiagnosed it is likely so mild that it wouldn't have affected individual's infection with H1N1. And if it did, what does that say about people who don't get vaccinated because they think they're "healthy"? Heck, if your claiming that those people who died from H1N1 were impacted by "undiagnosed health problems" then you yourself can have one of these ticking time bombs in your system. Well, I know you wouldn't want to complicate the argument by bringing facts and science into the argument. That's great because the pandemic was in full swing according to officials long before that. And there were shortages from Sept 2009 when it was introduced. That carried on for some time. Ummm, so? I have never denied that large number of people died before the vaccine was available. I never claimed there weren't problems with the distribution and/or manufacter. And I never claimed that some people were given a low priority for receiving the vaccine. Go back and look at my posts. What I've done is specifically concentrated on the time frame after the vaccine was available to everyone, and after the shortages were no longer an issue (i.e. December onwards). And I pointed out the deaths that occurred after that time. Those are the deaths that were preventable. I do not criticize someone who failed to get vaccinated in October if the were not in a priority group. I do not criticize someone who didn't get the vaccine because it was unavailable. I am criticizing people who had the vaccine available, and still did not get it. Given that, why do you think pointing out vaccine shortages in September was relevant? Do you think the vaccine caused people to time travel? Do you not understand that December comes after September? Yet even though the disease was overblown, over 3000 people in the U.S. were hospitalized for mostly no other reason than people were too ignorant to get the vaccine. Why do you dismiss the hospitalization of thousands of people, just because there weren't quite as many as some predicted? There were also problems with distribution methods. There were also problems with the way they handled multiple vaccine types. If you want to debate government incompetence regarding vaccine distribution, then fine, create a thread for that. Heck, I might even agree with you on some points. But that doesn't necessarily mean the vaccine itself was useless or that it is not advisable to get it. Maybe, but that is not the view I hold. Yet when I point out that these were people who had died or were hospitalized after the vaccine was available to everyone you ignore that point, and return to the same tired mantra of "overblown! Overhyped!" If you really didn't think those people deserved to die, why aren't you doing like I'm doing? Why aren't you telling people "There was overhype, but you don't deserve to die. Get the vaccine. Even if the danger is overstated, it will still reduce your chance of death". Ummm... so? First of all, why should the location of that paragraph really matter (whether its at the start or end)? Secondly, Reuters (the source of the article) is a fairly well respected news organization, and they were quoting a scientific study. Do you have any reason to believe their information was incorrect or not properly reported? 55% of ALL admissions 59% of H1N1 deaths with no problems, but yet say that 50% of those had asthma. So 1/2 of 59% means about 28% of those who had died from H1N1 had a previous condition, asthma. I could be reading this wrong. Its not so much that your reading that wrong (you are, but that's beside the point. You can't just multiply the numbers like that). Its that your analysis is pointless. I never denied that some (heck maybe many) who died or were hospitalized had preexisting problems. Your early posts suggested that healthy people need not worry about H1N1. This study that was quoted suggested that while they shouldn't panic, there is a risk for those who consider themselves "healthy".

Yeah I'm sure you would lke to see everyone forced to take the cure. Ummm... first of all, a vaccine isn't "a cure". Its a preventative measure. Cure implies you've already contracted a disease. Vaccines prevent that from happening. Secondly, I do not want people forced to take the cure. I want to see them take the cure because they've realized that its the right thing to do. Please point out where I've suggested government enforced vaccinations. Uhhh... no. I'd just not rather see people I care about die because some dimwit doesn't understand enough about the issue and fails to get themselves vaccinated. Note that the only "shares" I have are in mutual funds. I doubt very much that there are any influenza vaccine manufactures in those holdings. Of course, financially, I would be better off if everyone got vaccinated. You see, whenever a dimwit gets admitted to the hospital with the flu (because they didn't get vaccinated) it ends up resulting in more health care money being spent on life support keeping those idiots alive. And when some dimwit misses a week of work because of the flu, it means the rest of us have to work that much harder to make up the lost productivity. So, believe it or not you too benefit financially from the flu vaccine, even if you don't take it yourself. Ok first of all, tell me, how many people do you think it needed to be tested on? Give me a number. I've already posted a studies with over 3000 people involved. How come 3000 isn't enough? How many people have to be involved before you admit its safe? Give me a number. Or is this going to be a big game of "moving goalposts", where regardless of the number of studies that are produced you'll always demand more? Secondly, they've been manufacturing influenza vaccines for many years now. The methods and technology has not changed significantly since last year, or the past decade. None of the influenza vaccines over the past decade have caused significant problems (either in clinical trials, or in the general immunized population, and we're talking about millions upon millions of vaccine recipients. So why do you expect there to be any sort of problem with H1N1 vaccines manufactured using the same basic technology? Please, point out these 'medical professionals', and more importantly, please show me their qualifications with respect to virology or epidiemiology. I do remember various conversations (although there were several ignorant people I was debunking at the time so I can't remember who posted what.) What I DO remember in that thread is that I clearly admitted that there was a chance that the dangers were over hyped; however, I still pointed out that even if the dangers were over stated, it is still better for everyone to get the flu shot. I still stand by that assessment. I've pointed out that since the flu vaccine was widely available (i.e. no more shortages, priority people handled) that there were over 3000 hospitalizations in the U.S. alone (and dozens more dead). Most of these could have been prevented if everyone got vaccinated. So, tell me, are those thousands of people somehow irrelevant just because there weren't quite as many sick as expected? Do the dozens of preventable deaths not matter because some people overstated the risk?

Well personally I think the root cause is that people are not taught the act of critical thinking in school. They never learn how to judge the credibility of an information source, how to filter out bad data, and how to judge risks/rewards. And they never learn to think logically or apply Occam's razor to any situation. So, instead of people listening to what respectable scientists write in peer-reviewed journals (possibly the most credible source of information), they listen to anecdotes (not understanding how worthless they are), they listen to quack medical 'experts' (who have no real medical qualifications) and they listen to general idiots like Jenny McCarthy and Alex Jones. So when some quack posts "vaccines are dangerous" on its web site (even if that person has no proof to back up their claims) they are mistakenly given the same credibility as a study where hundreds of patients are examined in a proper double blind study.

Its not really possible to judge the effectiveness of a flu vaccine by comparing annual flu deaths for a number of reasons. First of all, we've been vaccinating against the flu for years. You end up comparing one vaccinated population (e.g. those vaccinated in 2009 against H1N1) with those vaccinated in other years against other strains. In order to do a 'proper' comparison you need a control group (e.g. a totally unvaccinated population, under roughly the same economic/social/geographic conditions) Secondly, there are other factors (such as the development of antiviral drugs, or improved methods of handling secondary infections) that might skew the results. Yeah, lets let hundreds if not thousands of people die all in the name of an "experiment".

Ummm... keep in mind that it wasn't just emergency rooms that were being overwhelmed. Hundreds if not thousands of people were admitted to the hospital due to the flu. (Smallc paints a pretty good description of this.) These were people who typically did have H1N1, and needed to be admitted, not just people who "got scared". Umm.. the H1N1 vaccine was tested. Multiple times. Both for safety, and for its ability to create antibodies. These tests often appeared in peer reviewed journals (or were run by governments). And many of the tests were done before the vaccines were given to the general public. Here's a study that was done on over 2000 patients: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa0908535 Here's on that was done on over 100 pregnant women: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00963430 Here are a couple of studies done on over 600 children and adults for the nasal version: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/168418.php Here's a test involving another 350 people: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2962039-0/abstract I could go on, but why bother? Just in 5 minutes I've found tests that were done on over 3000 people. Ooooo... big bad evil medicine. Big bad evil drug companies. Only testing vaccines on thousands of people. By the way, sarcasm was intended. I wish I could say this was just "Darwin at work" (i.e. kill off the dumb people, and let the smarter people survive). Unfortunately, as I stated before, individuals who fail to get vaccinated can put other people at risk (e.g. people who can't get vaccinated do to their age, or allergies) by compromising herd immunity Yup, and by vaccinating the people that they did, they probably prevented hundreds if not thousands of hospitalizations and a bunch of deaths. I think the best take on the whole "companies earn profits on vaccines" arguments was made on the TV show House M.D. Dr. Gregory House: [examining a baby] No fever, glands normal. Missing her vaccination dates. Young Mother: We're not vaccinating. Dr. Gregory House: Think they don't work? Young Mother: I think some multinational pharmaceutical company wants me to think they work. Pad their bottom line. Dr. Gregory House: ... You know another really good business? Teeny tiny baby coffins. You can get 'em in frog green, fire-engine red, really. The antibodies in yummy mummy only protect the kid for six months, which is why these companies think they can gouge you. They think that you'll spend whatever they ask to keep your kid alive. Wanna change things? Prove 'em wrong. Few hundred parents like you decide they'd rather let their kid die than cough up forty bucks for a vaccination, believe me, prices will drop really fast!

Well you should be surprised. Flu vaccines are not a big money-maker for drug companies. I'm not necessarily saying they loose money, but profit margins are not exactly great. The market for vaccines is only around 2% of the size of the global market for drugs, mutations to the flu virus require changes to the vaccine every year, and unused does can sometimes get thrown out (which also harms profits.) Furthermore, its often governments who purchase the vaccines, and the single purchaser model gives them the ability to influence prices. The fact is, there used to be dozens of companies involved in the manufacture of the flu vaccine. Now, there are only a few (at one point there were only 2). If there is so much money in flu vaccines, why aren't more companies involved in this biological gold rush? http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/flushot.asp Ummm... first of all, do you have any, you know, PROOF that people connected to Harper benefited from the production and sale of flu vaccine? Secondly, if I remember correctly, Canada's flu vaccine came from a company called GlaxoSmithKline. This is a publically traded company, and its based in Britain. There is no single "owner of the company", and its doubtful that any Canadian owns a signicant part of the company. Ummm... proof? The fact is, new viruses and strains of viruses appear from a number of well known biological processes, including mutation and gene transference. Its all natural... no need for some evil scientist to make it happen. Ummm... its not really reality to anyone. It may however be fantasy pretending to be reality. Ummm, so? Lets pretend you're right, The fact that you tend to make unsupported statements bordering on insane conspiracy theories not withstanding... All I can say is, so what? There are probably millions of pigs in Mexico. There were probably hundreds if not thousands of them that would have caught the swine version of the flu. Why exactly do you have to assume that there were "evil scientists" involved when a more rational, likely explanation is that there were just too many animals involved to identify "patient zero"?

First of all, the Khadrs were not from Afghanistan. The father was of Egyptian heritage, the mother was of Palestinian heritage. And even though they had lived in Afghanistan, they had never given up their Canadian citizenship. So to claim they were fighting for their homeland against invaders is a rather thin argument. Secondly, you seem to be engaging in a certain amount of moral equivalence. Personally I believe that a theocracy which (for example) supports the flogging and execution of women for breaking religious laws should not be viewed as an acceptable system of government, and while the current Afghan government has significant problems, civilians in Afghanistan have greater human rights than they did under the Taliban. Anyone defending such brutal tactics does not deserved to be idolized, even if they are seen as "defending their homeland".

Ummm... why exactly are you assuming that in the entire "war on terror" and 9/11, bin Laden is the only one who deserves punishment? At the risk of Godwinning this thread.... Hitler could not have carried out his holocaust plans alone. He had to have assistants, from the generals making up his immediate staff right down to the prison guards. While those people were not in a leadership position, many of them were completely committed to carrying out the barbaric policies. Similarly bin Laden may be the public face of al Quaeda, but he is not acting alone. He needs people to carry out his plans/policies, and those people are just as dedicated to terrorist acts as he is. To assume that arresting someone who carried out bin Laden's policies is just a "fall guy" is a misrepresentation. Khadr may be guilty of the terrorist acts for which he was charged. He may be innocent of the acts for which he's been charged but involved in other terrorist acts. Or he may be completely innocent. He may also have been too young to understand the impact of what he was doing. But to suggest he's a 'fall guy' for an untouchable bin Laden is foolish. Ummm... context is rather important here. Yes, NATO forces have caused the deaths of innocent civilians. However, for the most part, American and NATO forces usually take steps to limit civilian casualties. (i.e. the Americans are not specifically targeting innocent Afghanis, and the goal is to bring an improved quality of life to the country.) Compare that to the actions of the Taliban and al Quaeda, organizations who deliberately kill civilians both in Afghanistan and abroad, and who seeks to re-implement a theocracy in the country.) Oh, and by the way, American soldiers are charged when they engage in the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. (See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/05/jeremy-morlock-us-soldier_n_601631.html )

You know, I'm really quite impressed. When you first posted in this thread, you exhibited classic ignorance of the facts. But here' you've gone quite beyond that. You've raised points that I've already debunkedearlier in the thread. I've dealt with most of the issues you raised back on the first page. (See, for example post #14: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16906&st=0&p=568652entry568652 ) Ummm.... No. From: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE66B6XA20100712 The Thorax study found that 55 percent of all hospital admissions and 59 percent of H1N1 deaths in hospital occurred in people with no previous health problems. Ummm... repeating idiotic statements does not make them any truer. As I pointed out in post #14: - The vaccine was widely available to everyone by December 2009. - Even though the disease may have peaked prior to that there were still over 3000 hospitalizations in the U.S. alone in the months that followed the widespread availability of the vaccine (and not just in the target groups). Hundreds more died. That's thousands of people, even after the "crisis" was over, that were sick enough to be confined to the hospital, draining health care resources, who's problems could have been prevented if not for the idiotic attitudes of the vaccination ignorant. Thousands of people who could have gotten the vaccine because it was available to everyone by then, but chose not to, and as a result ended up hospitalized (not just stuck in some emergency room, but committed to hospital beds with serious illness.) Perhaps you feel that all those people hospitalized after the vaccine was available to everyone (not just the priority people) just wanted to eat hotel food for a few days. Maybe the healthy people who died after the vaccine was available actually deserved to die. Here's a suggestion: Before posting more idiotic nonsense, why don't you actually go back and read previous posts to see if the stuff your saying has previously been debunked. I can understand someone missing a post in a thread that's a dozen pages long, but this thread so far is only 3 pages.... you should be able to keep up.

Just wondering... the 2 of you seem to be pretty rational/logical over the issue. Is there any particular reason you didn't get the vaccine? (I can understand people waiting until high-priority people get it.) Its a good thing that SmallC insisted members of his family get vaccinated. The problem is, there are a small number of people for whom the vaccine isn't effective. (And no, that doesn't mean the vaccine should be scrapped). There's a small chance that his sister or mother was one of those rare individuals for whom the vaccine was ineffective, and they might run the risk of catching the disease anyways (possibly from smallc).

Ummm... go back and look at post #8, where I already admitted that H1N1 had a lower death rate than the seasonal flu in previous years. Once again though, the fact that having a lower death rate does not mean that the risk was zero. I've explained that already. Why won't it sink in? Ummm... so? Do you think the virus was just going to appear, infect people, and disappear all within a few weeks? The vaccine was introduced in November 2009. Now, assume that it took a few weeks for vaccinations to be available, and for people to build up immunity. In the months following the introduction of the vaccine, there were roughly 800 deaths related to the flu in the United States. There were roughly 10 times the number of people hospitalized due to the illness. So, you're talking almost 10,000 people who's lives could have been saved, and/or who would not have been hospitalized had either they, or the people around them, gotten vaccinated (after the vaccine was available). And that's just in the U.S. Not to mention the people that caught the disease and were miserable for weeks (perhaps even missing work) due to the flu. I got my vaccine in December (after all the 'priority' people got theirs). Anyone who wanted the vaccine at the time could get it, no problems (no claims of "lineups are too long). After my immunity built up (it takes a week or 2 for a vaccine to actually fully protect someone), there were roughly 3600 hospitalizations in the U.S. due to the flu, most of which were H1N1. And this was off peak. Do you think having thousands of people hospitalized for an easily preventable disease is a "good thing"? http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2009-2010/data/AHDRA20.htm Yes, the vaccine came to late to stop the illness among many at the 'peak' of the epidemic, but your still talking about thousands upon thousands of people who could have been helped by the vaccine had they had the sense to get vaccinated. People claiming the vaccines "weren't needed" usually are wrong about a lot of things.

Yes, but the majority of flu strains tend to affect either the elderly, or those who are otherwise weakened more than they affect the strong and healthy. Its very rare for any strain of flu to hit the younger, healthy people more than elderly people. This was one of the causes of concern. And they were right. Yes, the regular seasonal flu shot doesn't stop H1N1, but non-H1N1 strains were still circulating, and it was still wise to vaccinate against them as well as H1N1. I got both shots the same day. Which is completely incorrect. The H1N1 vaccine had undergone multiple double-blind studies to demonstrate both its safety, and its ability to generate resistance prior to its release to the general public. I've not had a flu shot in over 20 years. And my choice was not bases on ignorance or stupidity. Actually, from the quality of your response, your choices certainly were based on ignorance and stupidity.... Which is the problem that those in the health care field have to deal with. While it is true that H1N1 caused fewer deaths, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a need for the H1N1 vaccine. Fewer deaths is not the same as no deaths. Its like playing russian roulette. Playing Russian Roulette with 1 bullet in the gun causes fewer deaths than playing with 2 bullets in the gun, but its still not as safe as avoiding the game altogether. First of all, H1N1 wasn't just affecting people with weak immune systems. It was affecting otherwise healthy people. And even if you didn't think you were at risk from dying, why would you want to risk getting a disease that will make you feel miserable for weeks, miss work, etc.? I know people who were otherwise healthy adults who caught H1N1. Didn't die, but felt miserable for weeks. Secondly, even if you're not worried about dying, you should be worried about passing the disease on to people who might be at risk. Granted, maybe you don't have anyone in your life that you love. But some of us do. First of all, define 'serious threat'. People died of the flu. The fact that fewer died (or were going to die) doesn't mean that the threat is not worth dealing with. Secondly, yes there were problems with vaccine distribution. But guess what? Even if the distribution of the vaccine was not optimum, it doesn't necessarily mean it was worthless. Even giving it to a normal healthy adult (rather than someone at risk) contributes to herd immunity.

First if all, if I remember news reports at the time (I'd have to do some digging to find the reference), Canada actually HAD desert camouflage (although of an older design) but had chosen to get rid of them before the new ones were available. (Even if they weren't "as good" as what they eventually got, they'd still be better than the green ones.) Secondly, as someone else said, they had the option of buying them. I don't think what the Canadian forces got was significantly better than what other countries (e.g. the Americans) were already using.

Many of us here did. Some did not. Well, here are the problems... - Medicine is not always a perfect science. Without the ability to predict the future, there's no exact way to tell just how bad a particular disease/epidemic will be. Its possible that some of the dire predictions surrounding H1N1 were over-hyped, but its also possible that some people were taking a cautious approach. (Remember, while the death toll of H1N1 was lower than that of other flu strains, it was hitting young people harder.) - While some may have been overly pessimistic about H1N1, there were people who took the completely idiotic attitude that "I don't need the flu shot", a thought process usually based on ignorance and stupidity. Even if H1N1 wasn't as serious as initially predicted, it is still beneficial to get vaccinated. If doctors over hype the dangers of the flu, it may cause panic but it may save lives. When idiots claim "I don't need no stinkin' vaccine", people die. Which is the worse problem?

Actually, Uganda (definitely a country that would qualify as 'third world') has ordered several Sukhoi Su-30s. The Su-30 has thrust vectoring (something that the Super Hornet does not have), a higher maximum speed, and a longer range. (Not sure about its combat radius though).

The 'A' version is the one that makes the most sense. The STOVL B variant seems to be based around the needs of the U.S. marine core and British navy. Although there are some advantages to the Carrier 'C' version, I doubt Canadian planes will be be deployed in a position where such features will actually be necessary. (i.e. Canada's planes will likely be stationed well behind any front line positions.)

Minor point... The F-35s that Canada will be buying do not have Thrust Vectoring. There are 2 purposes of thrust vectoring... allow vertical takeoff/landing (as the F-35B variant and Harrier jets can do, although Canada will be getting the F-35), and for greater maneuverability (As the F-22 can do). The F-35A that Canada will be getting does not do either of these. That doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree with the choice of the F-35 though. (And in fact there are a couple of additional advantages of the F-35 over the Eurofighter.... Higher allowed weight capacity, and the opportunity for "spin off" contracts here in Canada.

Actually, you're only partly right. When the Arrow was conceived the danger was Russian long-range bombers flying over our airspace. The Arrow was designed to deal with such interceptions: It could fly very fast to reach its target. However, eventually the main danger shifted from bombers to long range missiles. The Arrow would not be effective at dealing with that particular threat. (The U.S. and Canada did implement missiles, most notably the Bomarc to handle bomber threats.) You are right, there is a need for manned aircraft. But the limitations of the Arrow would have probably made it unsuitable in roles other than as an interceptor.

Its not the only potential AIDS treatment... From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20100703/hl_hsn/scientistsmakeimmunecellsinmicethatfightoffhiv;_ylt=AstI7KVsxtz8vkI_AvNQ7f4PLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTNsYTIxYnRzBGFzc2V0A2hzbi8yMDEwMDcwMy9zY2llbnRpc3RzbWFrZWltbXVuZWNlbGxzaW5taWNldGhhdGZpZ2h0b2ZmaGl2BHBvcwMxMQRzZWMDeW5fY ...researchers engineered human stem cells -- cells that create other cells -- to lock a kind of "door" that allows HIV to enter. ... The researchers inserted these tweaked stem cells into the humanized mice and other mice, then tried to infect them with HIV. According to the scientists, the genetically engineered stem cells went on to create mature immune system cells, such as T-cells, in the humanized mice. After a couple of weeks, these new immune cells appeared to provide protection against HIV.

Actually there were cases where soldiers providing relief aid had to fire on people: From: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6132RS20100204 ...food handouts were often chaotic in the capital. On a couple of occasions, U.N. soldiers fired tear gas into hungry crowds jostling for a limited amount of goods. From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/world/main6165428.shtml Twenty armed men blocked a road and tried to hijack a convoy of food for earthquake victims, but were driven off by police gunfire, U.N. officials said... Armed security forces are needed to ensure that: A: Food and other aid does not get stolen B: resources are distributed equally across affected areas (so you don't have a riot amongst hungry Haitians)

Actually, the article points out that the reporters were actually bumping security personnel off the flights, not necessarily refrigeration equipment. (And some security people were necessary, after all, you couldn't send supplies out without any protection. (The refrigeration equipment was bumped by "unnamed groups", so who knows what they were or what they were doing.) There does appear to have been a huge clusterf*ck going on, with a lot of mistakes by many groups. Not sure if "politics" played as big a role as other problems. (The article had mentioned other problems, such as "...the core group of military personnel that's supposed to be in a state of high readiness with equipment stored in a special ‘High Readiness Warehouse’ didn't appear fully ready to deploy.") Just wondering, has this been the first use of the new Canadian C-17 Globemaster for any sort of disaster relief? If so, that might explain part of the problem. (In the past, the Canadian forces sometimes had to rent space on planes. That would give our government time to organize things properly. Now, with our own large cargo planes we can deploy a lot more rapidly, but it means we might make more mistakes at the beginning.)

Well, a more accurate statement would be to say there hasn't been a reliable revenue stream. However, the fact that the country has been a pariah state for the previous 2 decades might have something to do with it. They have discovered some significant natural resources in the area...natural gas, copper, gold, precious minerals, etc. Even without those resources, Afghanistan could have exported handwoven rugs, and agriculture could be significant. (It might be feasible to also use their opium crop legally in order to make pharmecuticals.) So there are possible resources that could provide a decent living (even if they won't be 'wealthy') and support government programs, if wide scale violence is eliminated, and if they are allowed to produce and export goods without any sort of sanctions. That's a "what if" game that I don't think has any real answer. Yes, the government has spent more in Afghanistan than it lost as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks. However, there is no guarantee that simply ignoring terrorism won't cause even greater losses, or that the elimination of terrorism won't have positive side effects to the economy. I could be wrong about this, but I believe the majority of the Department of Homeland Security came from multiple smaller departments (i.e. it wasn't new spending, but simply amalgamated multiple smaller organizations under one umbrella.) Again, another "what if" question that really can't be answered. I suppose it all depends on what you think the ultimate cause of terrorism is. If you believe that it is due to "western agression" then fine, it may have made it worse. However, I'm under the opinion that the ultimate cause of terrorism is the oppression and lack of free speech inherent in certain societies. If you are talking about islamic terrorists, keep in mind that its likely that in order for them to be accepted in another country they probably need to find countries with like-minded individuals. I can't think of too many places where a government would actually welcome groups who could either A: result in military actions by the Americans, or B: destabilize the government.

How about the fact that the U.S. (and other NATO countries, due to the alliance) had justification to go in to Afghanistan because it was used as a base to launch terrorist attacks against American targets? (I don't recall anyone in Afghanistan attempting to attack the USSR.) And I rather suspect that the majority of Afghan citizens probably prefer a democratic system of government rather than the communist system that was implemented in the 70s/80s. Granted, I haven't seen any opinion polls, but the large number of refugees (plus those killed) during the soviet invasion suggest strong opposition to the Russians. On the other hand, almost 70% of Afghan people want the U.S. there, and only a small fraction actually support the Taliban. (See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/poll-7-in-10-afghans-supp_n_418252.html). So, the fact that the Afghani people want NATO troops there increases the chance of success.