GostHacked

Just ran across this article. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ational/Toronto That perception makes us more free, but perhaps more vulnerable than our friends in New York, Madrid and London. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on whether we put a higher premium on freedom or security. And I guess this is what this thread is all about.

Mirror. My bad, I am not used to the quote system here, this style of message board is still new to me. I have screwed up those f'n tags often here.

Interesting and I think it is a bad analogy. It is not like a US trained 'freedom fighters' to only have then get drunk and start shooting people. The difference here is that the stuff Osama did after the USSR left was planned and intentional. A drunk driver does not get in the car HOPING he kills someone. The US did help out Bin Laden during the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, that is well known. http://www.ict.org.il/articles/bin-ladin7.htm eventhough he was just one factor in the whole scope of things. Osama took it to another level. The Taliban DID help him establish some camps in the the country and allowed him to do what he wanted. But I also think him being regarded as a 'Sheikh' was due to im helping out the Taliban and driving out the USSR forces. Also Interesting to note that both the Taliban and the U.S. claim that they alone were the driving force to have the USSR forces leave and then the eventual fall of Soviet Russia (which we all know was rotting from it's core and fell upon itself). That was back in the 70's and 80's. So it is only 20 years AFTER the US decideds that the Taliban are a bag group and needs to be culled. Why wait so long if they were a threat and harboured terrorists. There is also something else I saw being thrown around in this thread. Not caring what the reasons are for the terrorist attacks and just kill them. The virus analogy fit that like a glove. Killing the patient will not cure the desiese and you will gather no information on how that vuris attacks and harms the human body. Same thing goes for the terrorists attacks. Find out WHY they happen then you can find a cure. If you simply say, fuck it and kill them, they have alreayd won. Without justification and solid reasoning for going after them, this will feul the fire and add more applicants for those terrorist networks. The US has been in the buisness of attacking other countries, some with valid reasons, but for the most part just horrible reasons. So if the terrorists respond by attacking US and US interests, for their invasions of other countries for the wrong reasons. Nothing has been learned. NOW THE OIL DILEMMA!!! This ties in to it all somehow. We are so dependant on oil it is insane. Every day we use oil. Not just for cars (transportaion, manufacturing, ect) but things we use every day. Plastics is a huge user of oil based petrolium products. The computer most of you use has many plastic components (most likely your case IS plastic). This feuls our dependancy on it. Saying we can move overnight (or in ten years) to other forms of energy is simply is being ill informed. It will be a slow process but it can happen. If it did happen overnight, the economies that depend on the sale/import/export/manufacturing ect of oil will crumble. Those other methods have to be streamlined, integrated and the transfer has to be smooth. Which brings me to this : So once really all these wars are about obtaining resources for our current way of life and lifestyles. We know now that Iraq had little IF anything to do with the WTC attacks or international terrorism. Afghanistan was the focal point of the War on Terrorism and really should still be. Osama was and still IS in Afghanistan. So why was the fight brought to Iraq? Also the US military (Rummy included) thought that war would last about 6 months. Such shortsightedness. Now there is a flood of insurgents and (local and to a greater number from other countries). The US calculated wrong in the attack on Iraq, and now they are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it for years to come. I don't think that made us safer. More terrorists have been borne out of this invasion of a country that had little to do with international terrorism. This has been a pretty interesting thread so far, and some personal attacks that were just not needed. I have done them as well but that was in retaliation to (and I will point this out ) BHS saying that I would be one that loved Americans getting killed in another attack. Which a wrong assumption to make.

I don't like the way this is being presented. What we need is LESS fear not more. These articles just add to the problem. Making us all fear what may or may not happen. It is good to be prepared and aware that we could be a target. But let's not let it rule our daily lives. We can't run around all paranoid like those south of the 49th. Don't let it change your daily activities. One you do that, the terrorists have already won. I am glad the Canadian media is I live downtown Ottawa only 4 blocks from the big US Embassy, which could be just as much of a target as the rest of Canada. I would actually suspect this place would be the first place attacked in Canada. I am aware that we COULD be a target, but that will not make change my daily routine at all.

Keep it out of the schools. The seperation of church and state should remain absolute. Parents have the option of teaching their children in their religion of choice in the comfort of their own home. Or what can be done is have the prayer at a local Church on a daily basis. But that can easily be done in the home. Religion is a personal thing. And a personal relationship with their god of choice. Since it is a private matter it should remain out of the general public funded systems.

I have heard it being as high as 120,000 civilain deaths as well. BUT lets look at this just released today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692589.stm Up to 25,000 civilain deaths and 1/3 was caused by US operations, during the initial invasion which lasted only a few months. That seems damn high to me. as when you compare the number of deaths caused by insurgents over the next 2 and a half years. The ratio is quite disproportionate. I think the death toll is alot higher myself. but aside from the Iraqis I doubt anyone will know their true cost of the war.

Derision. Woe betide the president that would take a hatchet to the Pentagon's budget. There are millions of Americans whose livelihoods depend on the permanent war economy and millions of American companies who's bottom lines are dependant on the welfare program that is military spending. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And yet, military spending decreased between 1987 and 2001. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/001221.php And I would guess has jumped considerably since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read the article. This is not a distraction at all, it is a concern however. And the rest of that statement reads. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4685535.stm "A senior Chinese general has warned that China might respond with nuclear weapons against the US if Washington attacked his country over Taiwan." So as long as the US stays out of Taiwan, the Chinese won't retaliate. This has been going on before all the new evidence of Rove came out. So no it is NOT a distraction from the Rove investigation which I have now accpeted as, and heard in some circles as 'Palmegate.'

Let's take a small look at who actually has nuclear ICBMs. http://encarta.msn.com/column_nukes_tamimh...osgotnukes.html Country Warheads United States 10,455 <----- Russia 8,400 China 400 France 350 Israel* 250 <----- United Kingdom 200 India** 65 Pakistan** 40 North Korea*** 8 TOTAL 20,168 Now really the only other countries on the horizon that COULD have ICBMs within the next 5 years are Iran, Egypt, (Lybia may still be on this list despite their political turn around by Khadafi.) and a few others. The reason I point out the US and Isreal specifically is that the US does not care if Isreal has them. And yes France was the country to really get Isreal's nuke program started. Now this article does say at the end that the threat from ICBMs are still there and will back BHS up some. However : http://www.kirschfoundation.org/care/nucle...isarmament.html Black Dog had it right, reducing and totaly getting rid of nukes is the way to go. And from those websites, all countries are well on their way. It is a pipe dream, but never be afriad to dream of a peaceful world. It also seems that the US is the only state that is pursuing the use of new nukes in the form of bunker busters. The more weapons we have the more unsafe the world becomes. You have ICBMs, you have an MDS, then you have new ICBMs with counter measures to bypass the MDS, then the MDS gets upgraded to counter THAT technology. This game just does not end. And we will all loose in the end. All this time money is spent on trying to keeping up with the Jones'

As per Black Dogs post. I could not have said it better myself. I sat here for about 10 minutes trying to add to it, but I just could not.

in·vi·o·la·ble adj. Secure from violation or profanation: an inviolable reliquary deep beneath the altar. Impregnable to assault or trespass; invincible: fortifications that made the frontier inviolable. Can you tell me where I even mention Iraq Soveriegnty, and where do I defend the inviolability of said soveriegnty? I am not understanding this. And yes I had to look up the word to try to grasp it. Eventhough I am claiming ignorance on the word, I bet you have something negative to say about it. That is fine that you can have your own take and I see and understand it. But when you look at the public record of what was said before Sept 11, then the speaches AFTER 9-11, your own take on it is irrelevant. Let's deal with the facts and what was said before and after. And how the tone towards Iraq was drastically changed. Also you should know that Bush DID try to tie Iraq with 9-11, or are you completly ignoring what was really said by the Bush Administration? In that context, the war is not justified, and that is what the public saw and heard. Not the other reasons you are holding faith in. It is what went on the public record that we all hear and see. So let me beat some dead horse sense into this. If the Bush Administration was smart, they would have tried other legitimate reasons for invading Iraq and ousting Husein. You may very well be right 20 years down the road, and I will be humble and eat my words without protest. Untill then...

The fact that the Arrow was cancelled to support some type of missle defence that was eventually cancelled due to it's inefectiveness is the same reasons it will not work today. It is also interesting to know that the Arrow was a superior aircraft at that time. The F-104 that eventually took the place of the Arrow was inferior to the Arrow. This was known before the cancellation of the project. It was also known that the BOMAC and SAGE system end up costing Canada more than the Arrow project in the long run. Notice that the Americans also abandoned the BOMARC/SAGE missle plan after some time. Proving that is was all a waste of time and money. Same deal today. Don't be fooled by them. MDS is a waste of money and is a system that will eventually be scrapped/replaced by something else.

My whole point is that any link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq was IRRELEVANT. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is not irrelevant when it was one of the major supporting points for the invasion of Iraq. Which turned out to be total bull. I read that article, and you can come up with other credible sources? Look where Powel is now. Retired and totaly distanced himself from the allegations of the Al Queada-Iraq-911 connections. Also you may want to note what Powell was telling the world in 2001, before the WTC attacks. Then after the attacks, all that starts to come out that he DOES have WMDs. Why the change of speech? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm Watch the little video. Also the other reasons for war, was the WMDs and chemical weapons. Hans Blix found nothing in Iraq. And since then the US has stopped the hunt for WMDs in Iraq. If that was a major reason for war, why just give up? When you have a podium of Al queda links, WMDs, chem weapons, the threat to other neighbours ect, and they turn out to be all lies. The invasion of Iraq was wrong. Regardless of Saddams past history. Why was he not just taken out in the first Gulf War? Why was he even given the chance to build up WMDs and links to Al Queda. Tell me that.

Who started this thread? I did. I have read it over and over. I am not going to turn this into a BHS bashing but it is clear to me that you do not understand what is going on. the CNN was one example, but really it is all you need to know that the MDS is YEARS away of achieving the goal of intercepting an MDS. OK sure put the MDS in place now then. It will be nothing but a waste of money. And do you not recal history some? How did the Avro Arrow project get cancelled? The U.S. pitched it to the Canadian government that missles will make the interceptor obsolete. One of the worst incidents of shortsightedness EVER. That was 45 years ago. http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-75-521-2573-1...fenbaker_arrow/ A quote from the website/article "The Bomarc and SAGE were ineffective systems, and were soon phased out in both Canada and the United States. Both of Canada's Bomarc squadrons formally disbanded on April 7, 1972, and the missiles were returned to the United States." History repeats itself for those who do not learn it.

Here's some things you may have missed while you were awake and frantically skimming the headlines for signs of Bush-inspired Armaggedon: - The US didn't go into Iraq in retaliation for 911. Collusion between Al-Qaeda and Saddam over 911 was never an issue. The American effort was entirely pre-emptive in nature, and was based on Saddam's history of supporting terrorism, harbouring terrorists, attempting to acquire WMD and attacking peaceful neighbouring states. - Furthermore, the evidence available after 911 suggested that Al-Qaeda had supporters and sympathizers across the Middle East, and that the effort required to remove the threat of Islamist terrorism required a large, long-term American military presence. The pre-911 arrangement with Saudi Arabia was insufficient (and largely suspect, due to the large contingent of Saudis in the 911 group). The solution was a large, permanent base in a friendly nation in the centre of the Middle East. Hence the need for a democratic and pro-West Iraq. You can call this imperialism if it suits you. I suppose you also consider the continued presense of large American troop deployments in Germany and South Korea to be indicative of America's "imperialist" past lurking in the present. I call it defending allied nations against unstable former adversaries. Potato, potahto. I can't help you with your belief that the US has such a stranglehold on the global oil market that it considers an independant Iraq a threat. My only suggestion in that regard is lithium, and a good therapist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Before the war. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm Main quote from both articles. The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. During the invasion. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/...ain584234.shtml http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...rican%20Century Tell me what you see here. Or is this all just spin for the real reasons the US went to war against Iraq. Do your damn research and get YOUR head out of the sand/coma. Also just stop before you embarass yourself some more.

Of course she got special treatment. My Opa last year went in for a double bypass and had his pacemaker replaced. He waited for about 2 months before the surgury could be done. 2 MONTHS. If she had waited that long for the surgury then I would not complain, but I bet the diagnosis was one week, the operation the next. They do get special treatment. No doubt about it.

I request some pics and divx then please of your so called fantastic body. And He was talking about the Canadian population as a whole not pointing out you. I used to be skinny and active as a teenager, then the one job I got did not allow me much time to oppourtunity to get in shape. Being on the road all the time. I could have made better eating habit choices then but I did not. STOP eating out at fast food places like McDonals, Burger King, ect. This is the best thing you can do for yourself. And yes get off your ass and get out for some time. Get rid of your car as well. this makes people ultra lazy. Well it did in my case. I went from 150 and fit to 210 and lethargic in about 2 years. I was at that weight for about 7 years. I changed my job, eating habbits, routine and in about a year later I was down to 170lbs and getting back to shape. I am not where I was when I was a teenager, but really happy about my personal progress. It can be done. Now my job is help desk and I am a pc geek for the most part. But I do get off my ass and get out and about. Stop the fast food, turn off the tv,pc,console. Get some pals together, get outside and have some fun.

Those names gave me a good laugh!!! So it can be Quebtario, or Ontarebec.

Comparing the Al-queda terrorist organization to the Nazi government in Germany during WWII is very ignorant. That was a whole country's population caught up in the event. Al-Queada is scatterd and has yet to invade and take OVER an entire country. Nazi took over Poland in mere days. France in weeks. I would actually go as far as to compare the Bush Administration to the Nazi Goverment. Same rhetoric, kill the others, we are strong and we will prevail. And now they have taken over Afhganistan and Iraq. I fear the Americans more than any terrorist organization. And don't thing Canada has been free of terrorist activities. I hope you recall the FLQ. Don't think we are totaly complacent on this. We just don't put it as the main focus of daily life. Must be stressful for you to live in constant fear.

Yes the US is providing us protection by making themselves the bigger target. The only protection I see is that the US is stealing the limelight on this matter. Making themselved the target. The US can protect itself, leave the security of Canada, well to Canada. You don't hear Martin screaming out BRING IT ON !!! That will just invite more problems. When Bush talks, people listen to his crew's rhetoric and get angry with him. This is the protection you are talkin about. Him blabbing away about how they will clean house and make it all better. No other leader on the planet speaks like this. Not even Kim Jong Il. So when back to the main topic. Supporting gay rights will NOT lead to a terrorist attack on us. Well not from foreign terrorists. It will be a local dispute and be handled by local authorities.

Pocket Rocket Not much news on the Canadian front. This was the last I heard of it. http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/Vie...on-goose-050617 But for Inida, they just now totaly refused the MDS from anyone including the US. http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/arti...40&parent_id=22

The reasons countries build nukes (aside from allies) are to protect themselves from the US. Why else is North Korea building them. To launch an attack? No it would be in retaliation if the US attacks them. They are there mearly for protection. So far the US has not attacked them, but did invade Iraq, knowing their military was non existant, plus the fact that they had no WMDs. One word. Captilalism. And the fact that the US spends more on their military than France, Germany, Britian combined? Plus with a population of at least 10 times that of ours in Canada, there is alot more revenue to invest in a military. Yeah I am sure the Soviet Union wanted to control the world and make us all commies. Our '3rd world' health care system is still considered one of the best on the planet. It is not perfect, but 3rd world? I guess our government decided that the health and welfare of our citizens was more important than creating a military that will go to war on a whim and a prayer. Well since you said that Russia did not have the technology to create the Internet, I was pointing out that most of the problems online like spam viruses and spyware come from US based sites and ISPs. (trust me on this one) Check out The Power of Nightmares by BBC reporter Adam Curtis. Pretty convincing. But ignoring other facts that contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union is pretty ignorant. It may warrent to have the protection from the US due to our proximity to them. But when it comes down to it. We are not the one being looked at through the rifle scope. And we are not the ones invading other countries for the purpose of regime change. This is important when considering all of this. We do not need to install a missle defence shield, this will just make us more of a target. You coperate close with the US on these matters, THEN you get attacked. Example. Madrid train bombings, todays attacks in London ect.

Never said it didn't. But the best possible scenario now is that the missles will not be comming over the North Pole since Russia is no longer a threat to the US in terms of the cold war. They will come from the east and west. Where is North Korea again, and what would be the shortest path to the continental US. Also a missle defence sheild in Canada would be totaly fucking usless against launches that would happen from a submarine sneaking along the US coast. Reaction time is drastically reduced. Or someone trying to smuggle in a dirty bomb. That makes the missle defence sheild obsolete. Cutting back on the Military was needed for the fact we could not financially support it to the extent that it was. Also it was simply NOT needed. Cold War is over, so really no threat. Low blow on the Internet talk from you. **side note - Were do most of the Internet viruses/spyware/spam come from? That is right the US.** The downfall of the Soviet Union and the end to the cold war was brought by years of fighting in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the Russian military. The Soviet Union fell upon itself. It was corrupt and rotting from within. The moral was fading fast among the troops due to them not getting paid ect. The US did not really play a factor in that at all. You may have the argument that the overspending on nuclear capabilities in Russia and the US caused the downfall. Dollar for dollar the Soviet Union could not keep up. Also you had states that wanted to break away even before the Cold War ended. Belarus, Georgia ect, that also contributed to their downfall. Saying that the US was the only factor in bringing down the Soviet Union is a total lie.

It is pleasant to stand on the sidelines and watch. But how do you understand our Parliament's decision to pass same-sex marriage legislation? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Simple thing called equal rights. We are all equal we should all be granted the same rights by our government. If you are straight, gay, chrisitan, jewish, musilm, the government should give equal rights across the board. Basicly this treats everyone on the same level instead of treating people like second class citizens.