DND Spending

[jdobbin]

Har!....yeah that was the issue that sunk them.....

It certainly led to the founding of the Reform party in Winnipeg which pretty much destroyed them in the west.

[eyeball]

So...were the reasons for getting involved in WW1 and WW2 as confounded as our reasons for getting involved in Afghanistan?

You need to clarify your position here, because if it is valid, it must be able to bear the weight of scrutiny.

The reasons don't seem confounded at all: national self-interest, plain and simple. And I think there are times when that is a valid reason.

Recall that history is often politics projected backwards. It interesting that I'm cast as a revisionist for doubting official records, when the official reasons for going to Afghanistan have changed from; capturing Bin Laden for 9/11, to the War on Terror and then something called the Global Struggle Against Extremism. I suspect that Manley's recent call for the government to better explain our reasons for being in Afghanistan will yield yet another variation of the theme, whatever it is.

I'm far more interested in an open public examination of the causes of the conflict through a Truth and Reconciliation process. Because it looks and feels like the reasons given are intended to deliberately mask the conflict's root causes. "They hate our freedoms" sounds lame, so do God, King and Country. There's obviously far more to it than that.

Blowback - the idea that people would not be able to put the unintended consequences of their governments covert operations, like a terrorist attack, into a meaningful context is actually working to the governments benefit. God help the "king" read government, if the people actually spent too much time thinking about why their country was actually at war.

Forgive me for being dense, sometimes I'm just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But why -- if as you say,you question everything that is put before the public -- would you question the history of the first World War (which has borne historical scrutiny for almost a hundred years now) while at the same time coming out so powerfully for isolationism when it comes to current events in Afghanistan that have not yet been examined by history?

How can you question issues related to the first World War (almost a century ago) and concurrently be so certain regarding what's happening in Afghanistan now? It would seem a direct comparison by your own criteria between WW1 and Afghanistan should not be possible for another hundred years

.

As I've said, I'm more concerned about examining what's lead us to being in Afghanistan. What's happening now is a quagmire. Information is a lot more available than it was in 1914 and I don't have to wait 100 years to interpret what's happening now. I'm quite certain that I've interpreted events correctly, that western meddling and interfering in the affairs of other country's and the region around Afghnaistan have resulted in a widening disaster. I fail to see why more of the same won't result in even greater disasters down the road. If people think its fair to make comparisons between WW1 or 2 in light of the governments obvious manipulation of information now I think its fair to question the governments past handling of information used in its pretexts for leading people into war.

On another note, why the concern with the United States possibly invading Canada? That is the last thing that one would ever expect to happen, even with often-strained relations between the two nations. Why wouldn't you take a lesson from history here? It seems world events would show that as being almost impossible: if the US&A and coalition forces still haven't been able to put down the insurgency in a nation the size of Iraq, how on earth would they manage to occupy a nation with the land mass of Canada?

Ask the posters who suggested the US would invade us if we withheld our natural resources from nations who aid dictatorships with money and arms. I think its a ludicrous idea myself.

You seem to be fairly articulate but your arguments are weak, and because of that you are coming across as cynical, which is the antithesis of open-mindedness.

cheers

A really cynical person would suggest we just pass the bong around and sing Kumbiya. I'm suggesting instead that;

1. Canada declare the export of arms to be a crime against humanity

2. Offensive military action outside our borders be authorized by the public through referendum and that war-bonds be used to fund them or allow the redirection of objectors taxes away from the military.

3. Canada use economic sanctions including withholding its natural resources from any country's that arm, fund, aid and abet dictatorships.

4. Canada initiate and host a Truth and Reconciliation process to deal with the actual casues of the last 100 years or so of global conflict.

I think this would cost a lot more than 2 cents of every tax dollar. In fact the overall effect on Canada would probably be comparable to the sacrifices we are often reminded our forefathers made in their attempt to make the world a safe and better place for everyone.

[Wilber]

1. Canada declare the export of arms to be a crime against humanity

Are you suggesting that countries which are not capable of producing their own armaments should not be allowed to defend themselves from those that can? That includes us for the most part.

2. Offensive military action outside our borders be authorized by the public through referendum and that war-bonds be used to fund them or allow the redirection of objectors taxes away from the military.

Are you suggesting that if Canada is attacked it could only fight within its own borders and that any action outside its borders should be subject to a referendum thereby giving our enemies several months advance notice while the referendum is taking place and funding is found? Why not tie both hands behind your back?

3. Canada use economic sanctions including withholding its natural resources from any country's that arm, fund, aid and abet dictatorships.

We already do that on a case by case basis.

4. Canada initiate and host a Truth and Reconciliation process to deal with the actual casues of the last 100 years or so of global conflict.

Your joking right? The actual causes are the same as they have been for the last 6000 years. I can see another Durban anti racism conference in the making.

[eyeball]

Are you suggesting that countries which are not capable of producing their own armaments should not be allowed to defend themselves from those that can? That includes us for the most part.

I suppose in the short term and until present stocks of arms are used up that some countries might be vulnerable. I suspect that once the aggressors supply of arms dries up they'll be reduced to fighting with sticks and stones. I doubt if they'd be willing to exhaust their conventional arms if they knew they couldn't be replaced.

Are you suggesting that if Canada is attacked it could only fight within its own borders and that any action outside its borders should be subject to a referendum thereby giving our enemies several months advance notice while the referendum is taking place and funding is found? Why not tie both hands behind your back?

I'm not tying anything behind our backs, I said offensive military action. If we happen to see something like an Islamic Expeditionary Force crossing the Pacific headed our way then we should defend ourselves. I highly doubt that day will ever come though.

We already do that (apply sanctions) on a case by case basis.

Its obviously not enough. We should be doing this as an automatic matter of course in every single case bar none.

Your joking right? The actual causes (of war) are the same as they have been for the last 6000 years. I can see another Durban anti racism conference in the making.

Nope, I'm quite serious. But you're probably correct in observing that powerful wealthy leaders have been abusing their privileges since day one leaving their hapless followers to pick up the pieces.

[Wilber]

I suppose in the short term and until present stocks of arms are used up that some countries might be vulnerable. I suspect that once the aggressors supply of arms dries up they'll be reduced to fighting with sticks and stones. I doubt if they'd be willing to exhaust their conventional arms if they knew they couldn't be replaced

Easy for you to say as long as it is "they" and not you.

I'm not tying anything behind our backs, I said offensive military action. If we happen to see something like an Islamic Expeditionary Force crossing the Pacific headed our way then we should defend ourselves. I highly doubt that day will ever come though.

When would you fight them, when they are coming up your driveway?

Its obviously not enough. We should be doing this as an automatic matter of course in every single case bar none.

What constitutes a dictator in your mind? Some people would say our PM has near dictatorial powers.

Nope, I'm quite serious. But you're probably correct in observing that powerful wealthy leaders have been abusing their privileges since day one leaving their hapless followers to pick up the pieces.

Another talking shop where the participants get to bash their favourite "Satan" Good luck.

[jbg]

Recall that history is often politics projected backwards. It interesting that I'm cast as a revisionist for doubting official records, when the official reasons for going to Afghanistan have changed from; capturing Bin Laden for 9/11, to the War on Terror and then something called the Global Struggle Against Extremism. I suspect that Manley's recent call for the government to better explain our reasons for being in Afghanistan will yield yet another variation of the theme, whatever it is.

Many thinking people believe that we're in a war of (un)civilizations between the civilized West and the Islamosphere. Does any political leader care to make that announcement?

I doubt you'd want things explained that way.

[james rahn]

The big US industrial military base is no doubt making a killing (pun intended) off the whole war on terror. Political leaders if not outright corrupt are at least all whores, they'll get into bed with anybody. The media must sell deodorant and soap to pay the bills, so they will go for an angle on a story that causes the most controversy so they can increase readership or viewership. History is politics projected backward (inevitably).

None of this changes the fact that we are ina fight against forces that would destroy western civilization if given the opportunity. Bin Laden might be a fashionable dresser, but he is one bad dude. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are nothing but gangs of thugs.

When it comes to America, there are things about their media, politics, government, hell, their whole world outlook that ticks me right off. But if the terrorists are going to be stopped, the USandA is the only nation that can do it. And they need to...they're the biggest target.

[eyeball]

None of this changes the fact that we are ina fight against forces that would destroy western civilization if given the opportunity. Bin Laden might be a fashionable dresser, but he is one bad dude. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are nothing but gangs of thugs.

That's right, they really are no more than that. How did gangs of mideavil thugs in the boonies of Afghanistan became so menacing and fearful that people seriously suggest I'll have to fight them in my driveway here in Canada one day? I wonder what would have happened if the real shock and awe of 9/11 didn't occur, that is, if the towers didn't come crashing down. Would the West's response have been more muted? We'll never know I guess. It's just as likely that western civilization will be wrecked because its economy is spiralling out of control under the weight of military spending against...a gang of thugs. As for being fearful of individual 'bad dudes' like Bin Laden, G Bush scares me a lot more, he has launch codes to an entire nuclear arsenal and believes in pre-emptive strikes and that Jesus told him to go free the world.

Many thinking people believe that we're in a war of (un)civilizations between the civilized West and the Islamosphere. Does any political leader care to make that announcement?

I doubt you'd want things explained that way.

Many thinking people also believe we're reaching the End of Times, they can hardly wait for it in fact. Others think we're now entering an ecological bottleneck - a protracted period of time characterized by a narrowing of opportunities due to collapsing ecosystems, acute shortages of food, water and other natural resources and lots of fighting over these just to survive. The Islamic Invasion will not be coming because it won't be able to feed itself let alone reach my driveway. Speaking of shortages lots of people think we're over there fighting and interefering in other people's affairs to secure a supply of oil.

What constitutes a dictator in your mind? Some people would say our PM has near dictatorial powers.

I'd be one of those people. One apt description I heard recently likened Harper's cabinet to a committe of assistants. I think we have a fairly primitive form of democracy that's changed little since horse and buggy days. Information in the form of debate or input to decision making between the electorate and elected doesn't seem to move much faster. I really get a laugh out of Conservatives describing themselves as the party of incremental change. Compared to what, a Liberal Party that did nothing but talk about what it was going to do for the decade and a half it was in power? To give you an idea of where I think we should be, I'd be perfectly willing to vote on a range of issues, say every three months or so. I don't think legislation should be passed by Parliament until Canadians have had a direct say in matters. These don't neccesarily always have to be binding votes such as in cases involving minority rights or environmental protection but I'd definitely make a vote to go to war in a foreign country one.

So am I to believe we can force a people and culture accustomed to mideavil feudal systems of government make the leap to a horse and buggy era parliamentary government like ours between now and 2009 or 11? Does the futility of utopian idealistic social engineering projects ever cross anyone's minds around here? I bet it does all the time in other cases. Its taken the west nearly a thousand years to crawl the distance between its own mideavil age to the present and what have we got to show for it? PM's and Presidents that operate more like the Wizard of Oz than anything. Maybe the sorcerer's apprentice is more apt, given how often events spin completely out of their control.

[Wilber]

I'd be one of those people. One apt description I heard recently likened Harper's cabinet to a committe of assistants.

So do we boycot ourselves?

To give you an idea of where I think we should be, I'd be perfectly willing to vote on a range of issues, say every three months or so.

You realize that general elections cost the taxpayer about 300 mil a pop.

I don't think legislation should be passed by Parliament until Canadians have had a direct say in matters.

So why elect anyone? There is a point where size makes direct representation unworkable. Although I don't have a problem with some issues being attached to provincial ballots at election time as they do in US. I'd like to see more of it. The problem with doing it on a federal level is that the larger population centers will be even more likely to bulldoze their will over the rest.

Its taken the west nearly a thousand years to crawl the distance between its own mideavil age to the present and what have we got to show for it?

You can't be serious?

[james rahn]

No offense, Eyeball, but the big problem with Anarchy is that it doesn't work.

[jbg]

That's right, they really are no more than that. How did gangs of mideavil thugs in the boonies of Afghanistan became so menacing and fearful that people seriously suggest I'll have to fight them in my driveway here in Canada one day? I wonder what would have happened if the real shock and awe of 9/11 didn't occur, that is, if the towers didn't come crashing down. Would the West's response have been more muted?

But eyeball, they did come crashing down. And the reason for the worry about medieval thugs in Afghanistan is that they are willing to engage in virtually unlimited levels of savagery against the West. It may be more indiscriminate than that since Iran is exiling Afghan refugees in the middle of a brutal, unprecedented cold wave. These are cruel, savage people.

We'll never know I guess. It's just as likely that western civilization will be wrecked because its economy is spiralling out of control under the weight of military spending against...a gang of thugs. As for being fearful of individual 'bad dudes' like Bin Laden, G Bush scares me a lot more, he has launch codes to an entire nuclear arsenal and believes in pre-emptive strikes and that Jesus told him to go free the world.

And how many nuclear attachs has he launched? And why do you feel the need to slag Jesus? For effect?

I am Jewish, and do not believe in Jesus. Others do, and deeply. You do your argument no service by making a deep attack on a historical figure revered by many.

The Islamic Invasion will not be coming because it won't be able to feed itself let alone reach my driveway. Speaking of shortages lots of people think we're over there fighting and interefering in other people's affairs to secure a supply of oil.

September 11, 2001?

So am I to believe we can force a people and culture accustomed to mideavil feudal systems of government make the leap to a horse and buggy era parliamentary government like ours between now and 2009 or 11? Does the futility of utopian idealistic social engineering projects ever cross anyone's minds around here? I bet it does all the time in other cases. Its taken the west nearly a thousand years to crawl the distance between its own mideavil age to the present and what have we got to show for it? PM's and Presidents that operate more like the Wizard of Oz than anything. Maybe the sorcerer's apprentice is more apt, given how often events spin completely out of their control.

So what should the West do, die of medieval attacks in the meantime? If it's us or them, I definitely choose us.

[WestViking]

That's right, they really are no more than that. How did gangs of mideavil thugs in the boonies of Afghanistan became so menacing and fearful that people seriously suggest I'll have to fight them in my driveway here in Canada one day? I wonder what would have happened if the real shock and awe of 9/11 didn't occur, that is, if the towers didn't come crashing down. Would the West's response have been more muted? We'll never know I guess. It's just as likely that western civilization will be wrecked because its economy is spiralling out of control under the weight of military spending against...a gang of thugs. As for being fearful of individual 'bad dudes' like Bin Laden, G Bush scares me a lot more, he has launch codes to an entire nuclear arsenal and believes in pre-emptive strikes and that Jesus told him to go free the world.

Many thinking people also believe we're reaching the End of Times, they can hardly wait for it in fact. Others think we're now entering an ecological bottleneck - a protracted period of time characterized by a narrowing of opportunities due to collapsing ecosystems, acute shortages of food, water and other natural resources and lots of fighting over these just to survive. The Islamic Invasion will not be coming because it won't be able to feed itself let alone reach my driveway. Speaking of shortages lots of people think we're over there fighting and interefering in other people's affairs to secure a supply of oil.

I'd be one of those people. One apt description I heard recently likened Harper's cabinet to a committe of assistants. I think we have a fairly primitive form of democracy that's changed little since horse and buggy days. Information in the form of debate or input to decision making between the electorate and elected doesn't seem to move much faster. I really get a laugh out of Conservatives describing themselves as the party of incremental change. Compared to what, a Liberal Party that did nothing but talk about what it was going to do for the decade and a half it was in power? To give you an idea of where I think we should be, I'd be perfectly willing to vote on a range of issues, say every three months or so. I don't think legislation should be passed by Parliament until Canadians have had a direct say in matters. These don't neccesarily always have to be binding votes such as in cases involving minority rights or environmental protection but I'd definitely make a vote to go to war in a foreign country one.

So am I to believe we can force a people and culture accustomed to mideavil feudal systems of government make the leap to a horse and buggy era parliamentary government like ours between now and 2009 or 11? Does the futility of utopian idealistic social engineering projects ever cross anyone's minds around here? I bet it does all the time in other cases. Its taken the west nearly a thousand years to crawl the distance between its own mideavil age to the present and what have we got to show for it? PM's and Presidents that operate more like the Wizard of Oz than anything. Maybe the sorcerer's apprentice is more apt, given how often events spin completely out of their control.

Eyeball, you don't have to believe or accept anything. No one is duty bound to argue with you. Wallow in ignorance if you so choose. Looks good on you.

[eyeball]

These are cruel, savage people.

That's not really that surprising given the cruel savage governments and regimes they've been subjected to. Governments that our side aided and abetted I might add.

And why do you feel the need to slag Jesus?

ME slag Jesus? If I was Jesus I can only imagine how slagged I'd feel knowing a war criminal like GW Bush was invoking either my name or my dad's.

God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East...

GW Bush

Edited January 29, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

That's not really that surprising given the cruel savage governments and regimes they've been subjected to. Governments that our side aided and abetted I might add.

Which Afghan governments have our side aided and abetted?

Take your time.....

[Topaz]

www.informationclearinghouse.info/ Do we all know what the PNAC is? It's the Project for the New American Century and its founder is Dick Cheney and other members are most of GW's gang back in 2002. I believe the purpose of this group was letting 9/11 happen was to use this to get its foot in the door to the Middle-East and set-up a US strong military center. Now we know that OBL reasons for hating the west is their invasion of the US military into their Holy Lands. If you look at Baghdad today, you'll see the largest embassy anywhere in the world. GW's plan was for Afghanistan, Iraqi and Iran, to be taken over and put in heads of state that are friendly towards the US. Oil also comes into this, with the Capsian Sea Basin being a very rich oil there. So this being said has Canada and NATO being sucked in by the US under Bush/Cheney to help do their dirty work to capture these countries? What is Harper going to spend for the military 20 Bil plus? IF we stay in this war under the conditions we are now in, we could very well be there for at least 10 years or more. I really think Harper better do more serious thinking on his own.

[M.Dancer]

I believe the purpose of this group was letting 9/11 happen was to use this to get its foot in the door to the Middle-East and set-up a US strong military center.

Alcan stock is taking off again....

[eyeball]

Which Afghan governments have our side aided and abetted?

Take your time.....

Ever heard of the Taliban Morris?

Enjoy

[M.Dancer]

Ever heard of the Taliban Morris?

Enjoy

Yes...go one now. Who did we aid and abet?

[eyeball]

Yes...go one now. Who did we aid and abet?

Ever heard of the Taliban Morris?

Enjoy

[M.Dancer]

Ever heard of the Taliban Morris?

Enjoy

I have and so what. We did not aid nor abet the Taleban.

[eyeball]

We did not aid nor abet the Taleban.

Oh yes we did. They're amongst many dictators in the region who have benefitted from our aid and abetment.

I know you like being as anal as possible about these things so for the record; we = the coalition, the west. Us as opposed to them. Our side....whatever that is given we switch them like some people switch their underwear.

[M.Dancer]

Oh yes we did. They're amongst many dictators in the region who have benefitted from our aid and abetment.

I know you like being as anal as possible about these things so for the record; we = the coalition, the west. Us as opposed to them. Our side....whatever that is given we switch them like some people switch their underwear.

Yeah I'm being anal. I don't see how humanitarian aid to the people of afghanistan is aiding the Taliban.

I realize that your solution is to let them die. Good for you, that your pacifism at work.

No go on a limb and explain how we abetted them.

[eyeball]

No go on a limb and explain how we abetted them.

I already did, I can't help what you choose to accept as an explaination.

[M.Dancer]

I already did, I can't help what you choose to accept as an explaination.

No sorry, you didn't. General statements to the effect we are evil, we are bad ain't it sad will not cut it unles we share the same bong hit.

I want specifics. How did we abet them?

[eyeball]

You don't want specifics Morris, you want absolution without responsibilty.