xul

Officials: 13 killed, including gunman, in Fort Hood shootings It seems like Canadian voluntary soldier system is the better way to avoid such embarrassing tragedy.

I think justice is a relative concept. When George Washington and his great rebels were writing the Declaration of Independence, which was full of allegations of how they were treated unjustly by their king's government as the excuse of their betrayal, they even didn't notice that there was hundreds of slaves who was working in the basement right beneath the room they were writing the the declaration. Actually there are terms in laws or constitutions defining the conditions that a country can go into a war. Since no one would approve a law or a constitution without believing in its justness, people may conclude that almost all wars are just---- from the war starters's point of view, not from the war victims's. The problem is the war victims's laws or constitutions can not restrict the war starters

If there is interest that's important enough to risk our soldiers' lives in, then we need to be there, regardless of whether it fits some legal definition. -I think Bush would say this if he got an ID here. Obama would not say this but he would act on this way if he got an ID here too. I'm not blaming them, because all sorts of politicians, such as presidents, PMs, chancellors, chairmans, general secretaries, kings, emperors, caliphes, Fuhrers....and essentially the people behind them also submit to this universal value of human but not only human race. Before all war-haters went sadness, I'd like to point out there is also something hiding behind this method: If there isn't interest that's important enough to risk our soldiers' lives in, then we need not to be there, regardless of whether it fits some legal definition or political-correctness.

If the allegation is true or partly true, I guess it's just that some NATO members were trying to fund some Afghan tribes for helping them against Taliban and they were not aware those guys they funded were real Taliban. Media is used to blame American air raids responsible for killing a lot of innocent people in Afghanistan but isn't used to ask who give these misinformation to American. I guess 90% of these misinformation givers are real Taliban agents and the CIA pays their salary for their helpful "cooperation".

In WW2, there were millions of Jews ended up in gas chambers years after they had lost their freedom. It's a myth that saying terrorists who hate west is because west has freedom.

Exactly the real attacks have been carrying out for years. Besides those indigenous separatist mobs, there are also some cases that Chinese workers and engineers were attacked in Pakistan by Taliban after Musharraf ordered an aggression against indigenous Taliban. Some Chinese media quoting Pakistanian source said Abdullah Mehsud, the leader of the attacks, was also a former prisoner of Guantanamo and was released by American in 2004 for he showed "no intention attacking American".(It looks like he didn't lie, but... ) Abdullah Mehsud In any case, I don't think overreacting AQ's threats or attacks is a wise strategy or policy. Obviously, AQ's strategy is using every excuses they can make to convince Muslims around the world that there is a worldwide conspiracy ploted by American and Israeli against Islam so AQ can turn them to AQ supporters. If China overreacts these events, china will fall into their scheme.

China's react is just like what it reacted the event that America released the Guantanamo uyghuristan terrorists, who were cought in an Al Qeada training campe in Afghanistan, and kindly managed to find a safer place keeping them from China's "persecution"---I mean, making a statement, then totally forgeting such trifle things and keeping eyes on its own business.

Really? Maybe the Nobel Peace Prize was originally for Bush. Maybe the old men of the committee locked themselves in the meeting room several months checking old newspapers and found out no one in the world could match Bush's exploit of forcing the value of democracy and freedom to whole world. They were so dedicate on their job that when they made the decision they even didn't realize the president had been changed. The spokesman was called in and the committee told him they had chosen American president, then the spokesman went out and told reporters that the chosen one was Obama.....

I agree with you, because he is an American. I feel most European doesn't understand American at all becasue they have never been trying to understand American. I guess they just think American culture is a duplication of their own culture so there is no need to do more study on it.

If I was a Russian in 1990s, I would wish the communist oaf boss had 10% of the perspicacity you possess.... In any case, I'm wondering how Obama will deal with the bait?

I'm not sure. If Harper has not been prototyped or has not prototyped himself as a stubborn right wing leader, it may be possible to draw some votes from those who want to take middle ground. But since these part of voters have no choice, I mean they fear Harper's ideology more than they fear Harper's policy, they will still vote for the Liberal Party regardless who is its leader and how he or she is incompetent. In any case, I agree that NDP will gain a lot from the liberals's situation.

To the war in Afghanistan, if the purpose is merely to reduce the casualty of the troops, more tanks is a better solution--maybe staying in the millitary fortresses only firing missiles is more better. If the purpose is to win the war and defeat Taliban, I think General Petraeus's proposal is right---the soldiers should get out of their tanks and armored vehicles to go into Afghan people to protect them and show them the determination and perseverance that they will stay and help them. But I read in some Chinese media, since Obama can not recruit more troops from his allies, and of course from America itself, he will look for more missile attacks and unmanned aerial vehicles raids instead. Such strategy may be helpful to him to win the next election, but obviously can not help American to win the war. Anyway, I feel that most Canadians don't think the war is an Canadian war. And except the war in Afghanistan, it seems like there are not any urgent needs to spend more nomey on military. Most equipments of Canadian armed forces are purchased from foreign manufacturers, that means there will not be many voters gaining from the increase of military budget like American, so politicians can not gain much votes from "supporting soldiers" except in word only. It obviously is a negative factor to Canadian armed forces to persuade their government to spend more on military.

His statement is more "accurate" than Harper's..... If Obama had 10% smartiness like this, he would change the name of U.S.A. to D.P.R.A. or something and issue some of this D.P.R.A passports to some immigrants named Zhangs, Yamamotos and Abdullahs, and then he would have no need to pay any USA's debts.

This is the future he looked for... Nikola Tesla I didn't deny America was the most favourable destination for European immigrants at the time, but that doesn't mean it could draw the best European moving to America just due to its merit. Most best European scientists moved to America just because of wars and persecutions in Europe---Hitler and Stalin helped a lot. Einstein left Europe becasue he was a Jew and Hitler was raising at the time. Werner Von Braun on the contrary came to America becasue he was a Nazi, major of SS and "chose slave labours from a concentration camp in body to build his V2 rocket", "people died for building V2 rockets were far more than people killed by them"---according to BBC I heard, he needed American covering up his crime in the war.

Where do you think American industry and technology come from? All created by Indian aboriginal?

If British surrendered, that meant Hitler had ruled Europe, he would have whole European industry, technology, natural and human resource. It would just be a matter of time he would be able to rule the Oceans and then lanched a aggression to North American even if without Japanese help. Exactly, Hitler did not need to land his troops directly to America, he got a lot of friends in South America then. It could be worked to Hitler as British to America in D-day. The "multiple resistance movements" mostly just some myth creaded by Hollywood war movie writers. The culture in Europe doesn't like the culture in Afghanistan, European people had used to conquer or to be conquered for thousands year, the history told us if the kings or governments give up, most of the people will accept the fact of their defeat and stop to fight.

I just said that ironically because Wild Bill thought America had been as powerful as today before WW2. By the way, American submarines did not sink many Japanese ships in 1941,1942 and maybe 1943, because the fuzes of the torpedos they equiped were all malfunction and the manufacturer spent years to figure it out, according to the autobiography of Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz I read many years ago. American fighters could not match Japanese Zero fighters when the war began. American tanks were powered by gasoline engine and thanks heaven almost all German diesel tanks were in Russian side so there were not a lot of American boys died for these tanks. Generally, American industry then was kinda like today's China, it could mass produce a lot of good with low cost because of its scale and because there were huge population and domestic market proped it, which did give it strength, but its technology could not be considered as the first class at the time. America gained a lot from the war(mostly because it spent more time being a spectator than anyone else. ).

I have known NATO was set up after WW2 for over 30 years and I knew the different between the ww2 and the war in Afghanistan. I also known the obligation of its members was described as "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." But can the september 11 terrorist attacts be considered "an armed attack against America"? Nevertheless, all NATO members finally agreed American that it was because they agreed to sent their troops there, so they legally fulfilled their obligation. But I guess there were no documents making certain that how many troops of each member had to plunge into such kind of war before the September 11 attacks, so there was a big loophole for anyone who didn't want to bear the heavy burden. And even to those who have sent troops in Afghanistan, they also have two option: 1)take initiative in fight or 2) stay inside their military fort to watch others fighting. So morally there is no difference between what America did in ww2 and its allies have been doing in the war of Afghanistan. In both two cases, every one has two choise: 1)help allies in earnest or 2) do the best to serve itself interests well. And in both two wars, everyone chose option 2. America was aware all along that if Britain fell or was forced to negotiate truce with Germany Hitler would win and America would fall, and it was also aware if it involved into the war too early if would be helpful to defeat Hitler and millions lives would be saved, but just not helpful to weaken British enough to give America a chance to replace it. What it did was the best way to serve its own interests. America also extended the lend-lease Act to Soviet after it involved into war, It obviously was not for the purpose of propping Statlin. All America did in and after ww2 was for itself interests, just as all its allies have been doing in Afghanistan or Iraq. Exactly, in history a coalition usually formed on common interests of its members, and broke after the common interests no longer existed, just as the coalition of the CPCanada's Boss's opposite politicians's formed earlier this year----it formed due to the common interests and broke for lacking common interests. That's not exactly what I wanted to say---American political leaders knew all the time that at some point involving into the war was their biggest national interest. America did not come to help British because it awared that British would keep fighting whether American would come or not at the time, just as all American NATO allies are fully aware American will have to fight terrorism even if they withdraw their troops, so there are not any risks being a spectator. Using some Chinese byword, when the roof falls, the tallest guy will bear it. So all NATO members include Canada have legally fulfilled their obligations, I'm sure of that. Americans can not complain them legally, but they can complain them morally--after making sure themselves taking the moral highground. I have to agree, compared to Soviet, America were more generous. China had to pay all its ammunition debt of the Korean War during 1960-1962, when Mao refused Soviet to build some military base in China, this is why there was a famine in the three years, it was not all due to the failure of Mao's communism phantasy the Great Leap. Nevertheless, if British did not fall into the war, there would be no war debt to pay, there will be no falling. Of course, I know it was not British fault. atom-bomb, rocket, radar, jet-engine, guided missile....all of these components of being a superpower were due to American scientis's genius. Yes, by the end of the war....not at the start of the war.... why? And at the start of the war, there were not as many infrastructure as it is after the war. Young army officer Dwight D. Eisenhower bumped six-two days to make a trip from American east coast to west coast in 1919. Transcontinental Motor Convoy and the idea of interstate highway is due to his experience in Europe. Interstate Highway System It happened mainly because all these countries are legally forbidden to make war to other countries. It was their own interests to stop the spread of communism....of course, the biggest communist country then was Soviet, the another superpower and their competitor. Russian has given up communism for over 20 years, America are still trying to deploy its military forces to enclosure its border. Vietnam was and is not a primitive country. Like China it has a lot of skilled but low-payed workers fitting to be the cheap labour force of Walmart Vietnamese factories to produce cheap goods propping the prosperity of America, and it also has some harbour fitting to be navy bases for American Navy to intercept Soviet navy sailing down Indian Ocean. If French stayed there, French would take the bonus of the supposed victory of the war made by a coalition.

Sometimes I feel it's a human defect. Didn't America do the same thing to British during the World War II? Yes, they did. When British was desperately fighting Nazi, American didn't come to stand with them at the first time. They just sold weapons and ammunition to British and watched----If the history book I leant in middle school wasn't wrong, British even had to sell some of its oversea assets to America to pay for the bills of the ammunitions. This is why British fell and America raised after WW2. When French was desperately fighting North Vietnamese communist rebels, American also didn't come to help---they just watched French falling, and gambled the chance they could take over when French left.

I think the real answer isn't relative to Bush's fault or peacekeeping. It is just relative to the fact that America no longer shares as many interests with its allies nowaday as it did during the Cold War. The other cause is----please allow me to crack a joke to explain it: Uncle Sam is a capitalist running a big corporation named NATO and holds the biggest share of the company. When everything of his business was OK, there were a lot of little shareholders named British, German, France, Japan and of course Canada telephoned him everyday asking to increase their shares in the company. One day, the economic depression struck and Uncle Sam had some financial problem. At first, Uncle Sam didn't take it seriously. There were so many little shareholders willingly to plunge money to the company, what did he need to worry about? But when he picked up the handle to call his shareholders, he found he really had something to worry about----because the replies were all the same----"sorry, my old friend. Our policy is not to put more money into a business which seems like financially unwinnable..." Ironically, when Uncle Sam didn't need money, he got a lot of shareholders trying to increase their shares. Now he really needs money, but he can not sell any share to anyone.

Historically if any general of the military had anticipated that the war would go into today's way before September 11 attacks, he would more fit to complain his government didn't armed the troops properly. Both American and Canadian armed forces were equiped with the weapons which were designed to defeat enemies like Soviet not Taliban then, though Soviet had no longer existed for 10 years. I remember that no one in military questioned the decision of sending such kind of troops to a place like Afghanistan in western military at the time.

Honestly, it's typical political-correct extremists's nonsense. I don't know any North Korean, but I bet they just like other people around the world---also have the organ named brain, that means they can think, not only take what the media tells them. If I was a North korean and only could gather information from North Korean media, I might also think, "why a former American President, which is usually described as the biggest oppressor of capitalism by our media, can come in body to rescue two humble common American citizens? If a common North Korean citizen like me was detained in somewhere, might our 'celestial boss' also come to save me?" If anyone wants to change them, the first thing he has to do is to contact with them, not to add a new Berlin Wall alongside the old one built by Kims.

As a politician, the smartest thing Obama should have done is what he has done. Nowaday the newspapers and TVs are full of bad news and Obama has no power to bring some good news instead. It is unwise for him to come forth on TV and tell American that there will be another big bad news---the war has failed. A political leader of a nation is just like the locomotive of a train. Even if he wants stop, he can not stop moving in a second, because the inertia of the cars will push and turn over him, so he must lets the reality to tell his people the truth. If anyone reviews the history of the Vietnam War, he will find Nixon escalating the war by bombing north for a time before the withdrawal carried out. Maybe "naive" people wonder what on earth is the porpose of the bombing, which was responsible for killing tens of thousand Vietnamese civilians, if Nixon had known the war was unwinnable. The cause is simple---he just wanted to go to TV telling Americans that he had done what he could do so there would be nobody to blame him. If he called back soldiers before everyone had realized it had to be done, he would be attacked by his political rivals like what happened on another President Bush, I mean that one who stopped American troops to go deep into Iraq. On the other hand, political leaders are more like gamblers. When they stand beside the table watching other gamblers, they thought, "how thick these fools are!". But once they seated on the seats, they will do the same things gambling that they may be more lucky than other fools. Nonetheless, Afghanistan is not Vietnam, I mean there are not great powers behind it against American, so American did have chance to win the war. And in my opinion the Pentagon did have figured out a correct way to win the war, though it may be too late, and merely 20,000 troops is unlikely enough to constantly control thousands of villages in a vast mountainous area to carry on the strategy.

That's the truth... And that's why some west blames on Chinese demerit are not always welcome in Chinese people, especially among those who know west well. And the reason is not all due to national pride. There is a joke. There were an American, a Chinese and a Canadian in a company working in different departments. One day, they decided to have a meeting in a meeting room to discuss something at 9 o'clock. When the time came, the American was the first one who entered the meeting room, the Chinese was the second and the Canadian was the third. After they all had their seats, the American and the Canadian blamed the Chinese, "you didn't come in time. Is it because your watch is made of China?....yes, no surprise it is. We think you'd better buy an 'made-in-America/Canda' one to instead. " The Chinese thought they might be right. He bought the watch in a Chinese bazaar with 80 cents and he never expected its accuracy. It seems that the time has come to replace it. Then he asked, "made-in-America or made-in-Canada, which one is better?" "Of course a made-in-America watch is better. Look at him, " the American pointed to the Canadian, "his watch is a made-in-canada one, so he is also late." "No, it is not." the Canadian retorted, "My made-in-Canada watch never makes me late. It's his made-in-American watch to make him coming too early..." When the American and the Canadian were arguing whose watch was better, the Chinese had rethought about his colleagues' accusement. "If they even didn't know whether their watches were correct or not,"the Chinese thought, " how on earth could they know that my watch was wrong?"

Theoretically, it will be no essential difference between his trial is in America and in Canada if we assume the legal systems are alike in two countries. If he is sent back to Canada, Americans can also come to a Canadian court and present evidence to sue him.(I know practically there has difference.) Even if he is trialed in America, there is also a posibility that he will be released in court or after many years in jail(He was only 15 when he committed the alleged crimes, so there is nobody who wants him facing death penalty, I suppose.). If he still wants to come back Canada, can Canada refuse his request since he is still a Canadian citizen? On the other hand, I agree M.Dancer's another statement. He was caught in Afghanistan, a foreign country, by Americans on the scene where American troops were engaging in militants, not in Canada. According to international law, America or Afghanistan have the legal rights to trail him first by their laws even if their laws are conflicted with Canadian laws. The two American "reporters" for one. If they were in China territory but kidnapped by North Korea agents or something, according international law, America and China can do anything to demand their release, including to make war on North Korea to force them being repatriated. But if they were in North Korean territory, it's North Korean government has the legal rights to deal with them and America has nothing to do except depending on North Korean communist emperor's mercy. This is why Clinton's trip practically can be considered as a successful rescue action.