xul

The someone also needs a bullet proof vest like the gunman's for having an even chance...

I bet there were less anti-terrorism security messures in American ariports and there were less terroristic attacks in America many decades ago, so the new security measures US applied today are totally useless.

It seems like that Americans has got their reward for supporting those "theocratic democracy" in Middle East. The "universal value" of democracy is a lie which is created by all sorts of political-correct books's writers and ammunition makers. Let's review how (or the sequence of) the modern democracy was established in Europe: Phase 1. At first, during known as the Mediaeval period, Europeans were no better than those head-hooding theocratics today---all of them had the tendency to burn anyone desecrating their holy books at the stake; Phase 2. then, the mundane autarchy rised and weakened the power of theocracy, and forced the theocrats to reform their holy stuff into moderate modern religions and away from politics for survival; Phase 3. and then the democrats kicked their kings's asses and established the modern democratic systems. The phase 2 is a vital premise to phase 3. Without weakening theocracy first, what would come out if those mediaeval Europeans went in polling boothes?

It seems like our dear writers, singers....lol....probably the CEOs and lawyers of this "industry" are out of touch with the rest part of the real world. I have a Canon HD camcorder but the original 4GB SD card is too small to record 1920x1080p video, so I just bought a 16GB microSD card with a SD adapter instead(the store only had this type, probably the manager thought that using single type of merchandise to cater two kinds of consumer's need was a good idea). How on earth my purchase related with the business of this industry? Most recently produced mini cameras and camcorders directly using microSD cards instead of SD or CF cards.....perhaps the CEOs of Sony Canada, Canon Canada, Nikon Canada....donate to conservative politicians more generously than The Canadian Private Copying Collective

Because there haven't been many grand exotic temples yet.

Sorry! I didn't read the entire story.

I have read the comments under the story. It seems like every conservative commenter is blaming that the "union" should be responsible for such things. Sometimes I wonder, the name of "Harper" or the name of "Union", which is the most hated one in Canada Is the "contractor" in the story an union worker or the union itself? LOL, it is obvious that the contractor is a company or the boss who hires workers. I doubt any company or boss would pay a worker $143 just for screwing 5 screws even if this worker is an union worker. Considering a carpentry company usually is a small business, it probably doesn't have any union at all. The question of mine is simple: who authorized the payment or who awarded the job to the contractor? Once the questions above answered, it will be no difficult to reach the guy who sucked the gravy from the jobs.

It seems like a good news. Now every soul which has been sent and will be sent to another world by recent events has two "writers" making "story" for them or of them.

Maybe just like Harper, he also thought the jihad was an unwinnable war and, on second thoughts, the best tactic of wealthy jihadists like him were to aim at the most vulnerable spot of democracy---that meant jihadists should live in peace in the USA as model citizens--each of them shoud marry dozens of wives and breed hundrends of kids, so one day the USA would become the greatest Islamic state in the world and if there still were some nations un-Islanmic, F=35s, lol, F-350000000s would bravo them to follow this new fashion of universal value.

Maybe Russian themselves should be responsible for the mess-up in their country after communist regime collapsed, but what about those new NATO members and missile shield bases around Russia? Let's go back to the thread. If Russian may mess up their country after the dictatorship collapsed and then blame the West responsible for their woe, it is unlikely that those self-bombing-prone Arabian tribes will live in piece each other after their dictators were NATO-bombed down and will be grateful for what the West did for them.

As a humbly common individual, I'm not aware I'm so significiant that I need to convince anybody for China As for China, honestly, as a rising great power, sometimes saying No is more convincing for showing its significance than always saying Yes.

I suspect that Wild Bill, and most members of this forum of course, also predicted that Russian citizens and their elected government would become an ally of the West and an enemy of "Red China" when they had won their freedom 20 years ago. It would be true if the West treated Russia as an equal, which is what Russian always wants but the West won't give them, so just as everyone has seen, Russia has become an ally of China on this vote.

1 for those Europion political leaders like Nicolas Sarkozy, considering the catastrophic economical/financial situation of the countries they ruled, what could they do to show their voters their strength and ability of leadership except going into a "winable" war? 2 as for Barack Obama, considering his clumsy effort to make any "change" in his country as he promised to his voters, what would he do better than following Bush's old way to "change" the world? 3 as for Stephen Harper, maybe the conservative "economist" boss thought another war in the oil riched region would rise oil price and CAD...etc, so his oil riched political home province would gain from the situation? 4 as for media "writers", they just want to exploit more "stories" for selling their papers. More wars, more human right issues, more news, more readers, more money....

Last time it was corvette Cheonan, and this time it is: Five die in unexplained explosion on South Korean ship I wonder whom would be responsible for the event---N.Korean new dictator Kim Jong-Un or some poor quality ship builder

The U.S and Canada for example: No doubt the U.S. is the stronger and Canada is the weaker in this partnership. Howerver nowadays which country is so formidable that Canada needs America to protect from it? Today's NATO is not more than an African preditor club. The lion, which is the biggest and strongest, hunts down its preys like a cape buffalo or a Zebra and tears the most profitable piece of flesh from the prey, than others like hyenas and vultures will come forth finishing the rest of the prey. The lion doesn't need the club. The only reason that it still keeps in the club is because the club makes it isn't the only predator so it can feel better and less guilty when it is killing. The others want in the club, not only because they are so small but also because of their hypocritical moral criterion. When they are eatting the remains of the lion's prey, they comfort themselves: we are moral customers, we are not predator, we are not killing. Look! it's already dead... If I speaks for Americans, I will say today NATO isn't heathy at all. Half a century ago, there were many preys and a few predators. But today there are too many hyenas behind the lion and less weaker preys, so there will be some ecological balance issues.

If you calculate the ratio of military-expense/GDP or military-expense/population, you will find American bears far more responsibility than other NATO members. In other words, if the US seceded from NATO, NATO would no longer exist. But if any other country droped out, you would even hardly see any difference.

Why don't you ask: How does the U.S. become responsible for Poland's security nowadays? And how would other countries be responsible for the U.S. revenges for its two skyscrapers which were knocked down by some Islanmic jihadists? Because in 1939, the U.S. knew other countries like Britain and French had to be responsible for Poland's security---and nowadays, other countries know Uncle Sam has to fight jihadists regardless whether they would offer assistance or not, so what is the harm to have some rest like what Uncle Sam did in 1939? Or maybe just tell the U.S. "Do you need some help from us? Please pay for it..." like what the U.S told Britain after 1939

The truth is Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf kind used to fool CNN kind

Britain knew that the U.S wouldn't help. This is why Britain and France went soviet for help. Neville Chamberlain wasn't a naive fool as many historians commented in their books. He knew if Britain and France went into war, they would have to fight alone and would be financially bankrupt even if Britain eventually managed to win the war, so it also be the end of British Empire because America was waiting to replace it. As the successor of British, American also should know that it can't stop other countries hitchhiking its victory or protection meanwhile paying for it as less as possible because Leadership has its cost

Britain, France and Soviet began to negotiate a military treaty in March, earlier than Stalin decided to dance with Hitler in May. If the U.S. joined with British, France to defend Poland, even if it was just a gesture, Stalin would not turn to Hitler and Hitler would not dare to start the war. Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

Uncle Sam did nothing-- --exactly almost nothing for helping British to stop Hitler. In fact, as the last resort, British had to go for Stalin to defend Poland and aviod the war.

I was young when Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan, but was already old enough to remember everything. I agree with the most of what you said. If you notice the context, you will find I was just reminding Americans the same thing ---- Pakistan isn't an ally of the U.S., so Americans should not expect too much from Pakistanis. As for "Pakistan was basically a Taliban state themselves", I disagree with you. Most developing countries are multitriblism countries. In the backward parts of these countries, people used to be loyal to their tribal leaders more than their countries. The fact is that those tribes bordered Afghanistan are the same tribes carried Taliban. That's the problem of Pakistan. If you were the national leader of Pakistan, would you fully cooperate with the U.S. on anything to risk a civil war? Two Indian PMs were killed by their tribal-loyal countrymen because they intervened the tribal affairs in their country. The events show that the situation of ruling a developing country is far different from of ruling a developed country.

Emotion is one of the features by which a man is distinguished from a machine like a robot. For example, years ago, there was a thread about spanking. I remember some memebers of this forum insisted that spanking was a positive way for parents to educate their kids. However, I guess nobody would like others(teachers, policemen, neighbours..for instance) spanking his kid to educate them. What other allies (like Canada and the U.K.) are doing to the U.S. is just what the U.S. did to beleaguered British Empire before WW2, so Americans should not complain others too much.

My logic is to explain the difference between an ally and a non-ally. If America doesn't treat other countries as their allies, why does it think others should treat US as an ally?

If Taliban wanted help from these soldiers and their boss, they would not blown up them by a suicide bomer. Besides, if Osama was a pure-blood American, the reaction of Americans to the 9-11 event would be far more different Those muslims who live in Syria or Iran or India or Russia - or China are Syrian or Iranian or Indian or Russian - or Chinese. So did the old British Empire before WW2....what was Americans doing then? Leadership has its cost