bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 I have a problem with the CIA helping to establish a dictatorship in Iran. I have an even bigger problem with this knowing the CIA's actions triggered a chain of events resulting in 9/11 and worse. Why? Which "triggers" do you approve of (if any)? Was toppling "democratically elected" President Aristide of Haiti OK? Canadian Armed Forces secured the Toussaint Louverture Airport ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Disolving parliament having opposition leaders conviently die, threatening opposition and banning the secret ballot are in your mind consistent with a democratic regime, but the are more consistent with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.What's undemocratic about a Democratic Republic of Iran? Maybe he'd be more happy if it were called the Democratic People's Socialist Islamic Republic of Iran? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Posters on the wikipedia discussion page associated with the 1953 Iranian coup d'état are similarly conflicted over what "democracy" or "elected" or "democratically elected" means. The conflict comes from trying to apply the terms as we understand them now to the conditions that existed at the time of the coup. In other words people are projecting their politics backwards and being called on it. What is clear is that Mohammed Mossadegh was legally elected according the democratic system they used at the time. One poster in the wiki disscussion pointed out that it wasn't until 1920 that women's suffrage was permanently granted in the US. According to our present day standards no US president can claim to have been "democratically elected" until after 1920, in other words the US was a dictatorship for nearly 150 years. I found this reference to Mohammed Mossadegh on the wiki article about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the dictator that the US propped up after engineering its coup d'état. The American Embassy in Tehran was reporting that Mossadegh had near total support from the nation and was unlikely to fall.Source Note the neutrality of this wiki-article is not disputed. Albright announces the lifting of a ban on American imports of Iranian luxury goods. She acknowledges America's role in the 1953 coup, coming closer to apologizing for it than any American official ever has.Source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergonomic Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Posters on the wikipedia discussion page associated with the 1953 Iranian coup d'état are similarly conflicted over what "democracy" or "elected" or "democratically elected" means. I'm with you. There are many examples of America's 'commitment to democracy' just like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Hey Morris, I find it particularly interesting your Time magazine smear of Mohammed Mossadegh occured two days before the CIA overthrew him. Yeah ...go figure, a newsmagazine reporting news....must be a zionist plot eh|? No, just the usual suspects. Britain, motivated by its desire to control Iranian oil fields, contributed to funding for the widespread bribery of Iranian officials, news media and others.Operation Ajax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 No, just the usual suspects. Those pesky British and that steely eyed Queen - oh my! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 It would sure be refreshing to hear Harper also get up and say, "sure, they were oily little bastards but at least they were our oily little bastards". Canadian enthusiasm for this filthy war would drop faster than you could say, "um, that was taken out of context..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/cartoon/ Pretty much sums it up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 The report on going over budget in Afghanistan is leaked. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...12?hub=Politics The Conservative government scrambled Tuesday to explain a report that the Afghanistan mission will run $1 billion over budget this fiscal year.The government did not deny the budget blowout for 2007-08 reported in Montreal's La Presse newspaper. It simply warned that the $1 billion was based on preliminary estimates that cannot be confirmed until after the end of the fiscal year later this month. The report came two days before a scheduled confidence vote in the House of Commons on extending Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. It also came as John Manley, who headed a panel on the future of the mission, said violence will drag on in the wartorn country unless there's a political agreement with the Taliban. Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act indicate the mission has cost Canadian taxpayers at least $7.5 billion since 2001 - double what was budgeted. The documents say the mission cost $538 million more than expected over the first six months of the current fiscal year, and is projected to overshoot its budget by another $539 million by March 31. The Globe and Mail among other publications point to an increase in violence in southern Afghanistan even over last year. Manley reiterated yesterday that if Canada does not get the 1000 troops its needs, it should end the mission. There is still no indication of where those troops will come from. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home A year ago there were foreign When managers from all the major humanitarian agencies in Kandahar gathered in a high-walled compound to swap war stories last month, it wasn't the tales of kidnappings and suicide bombs that caused the most worry. Nor was it the reports of insurgents enforcing their own brutal laws and executing aid workers."The scary thing was, no foreigners attended the meeting," a participant said. "Everybody had evacuated." Most aid organizations quietly withdrew their international staff from Kandahar in recent weeks, the latest sign that the situation here is getting worse. It's now almost impossible to spot a foreigner on the city streets, except for the occasional glimpse of a pale face in a troop carrier or a United Nations armoured vehicle.aid workers in Kandahar. The Globe and Mail reports that you cannot find anyone aside from the military in the south now because it is too dangerous and growing worse. Meanwhile, another U.S. soldier was killed today, three Romanian troops were injured in a blast and a Canadian convoy was attacked. NATO troops are also implicated in the shooting deaths of two children and a woman. The situation is getting away from NATO and we still see reluctance on the part of our allies to do very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 ....The situation is getting away from NATO and we still see reluctance on the part of our allies to do very much.dMaybe "our allies" should follow Canada's lead and commission a blue ribbon panel to write a comprehensive report about the situation with numerous options. Then they should check their budgets...maybe buy some used helicopters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 Some sanity from the SCoC... Detainees do not have Charter rights: judgeThe Canadian Press March 12, 2008 at 3:06 PM EDT A judge has ruled that prisoners captured by Canadian troops in Afghanistan are not covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What an absurd proposition it would have been for foriegners captured on foriegn soil to have Canadian rights.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Today the Commons vote on the Afghanistan issue. I would like to know were the Manely report got the 1000 troops needed for Canada and if WE don't have a 1000 troops ourselves, can we really ask others for them? I heard the US is coughing up the 1000 and they are going to put another 3000 in the south for at least 3 months. I also wonder what is going to happen AFTER this war is over. Will women still have rights, will the people be able to have their own religion and not the one government says. We have no guarntees that all the work and lives that will be lost, will not change once the government has full power of this country and the foreign military is gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Today the Commons vote on the Afghanistan issue. I would like to know were the Manely report got the 1000 troops needed for Canada and if WE don't have a 1000 troops ourselves, can we really ask others for them? I think you are confused, The report didn't ask for 1000 troops for canada, it called for 1000 troops for Southern Afghanistan, which is somewhat east of Vancouver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 I think you are confused, The report didn't ask for 1000 troops for canada, it called for 1000 troops for Southern Afghanistan, which is somewhat east of Vancouver. OK, Dancer so I worded it wrong no one is perfect. The question still remains where are the 1000 troops coming from? Ideas are France or the USA, is the latest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 OK, Dancer so I worded it wrong no one is perfect. The question still remains where are the 1000 troops coming from? Ideas are France or the USA, is the latest. Bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 The question still remains where are the 1000 troops coming from? Ideas are France or the USA, is the latest. It's now confirmed that the US will provide those 1000 troops even if no other country does: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...566&k=13927 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 It's now confirmed that the US will provide those 1000 troops even if no other country does:http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...566&k=13927 Isn`t it their war? Canada should be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 Isn`t it their war? Canada should be there. "Canada" is there....so what's the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 "Canada" is there....so what's the problem? That is exactly the problem... Canada is there. Why? I know why the US is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 That is exactly the problem... Canada is there. Why? I know why the US is there. Might have something to do with NATO membership....just a guess. And let's not forget UN worship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 The U.S. has committed 1000 troops to southern Afghanistan. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories Washington has made an iron-clad commitment to provide 1,000 combat troops to bolster the NATO mission in southern Afghanistan, CTV News has learned.Sources told CTV that Canada will also lease aerial drones from the U.S. at a cost of $165 million, and procure between four to six Chinook helicopters and an unspecified number of light-armoured vehicles from the U.S. army. "The 1,000-troop commitment was a personal commitment made by President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Stephen Harper," CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Tuesday night. "U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made similar pledges to their Canadian counterparts." I was thinking that only the U.S. would commit themselves to keeping Canada in place. The rest of NATO is just not up for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 The rest of NATO is just not up for it. ...and neither is Canada, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 ...and neither is Canada, apparently. Why would you say that? We are there and just recently voted to extend it. The NDp isn't up for it, but the NDP is not Canada. Thank God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 Why would you say that? because Canada isn't up to putting in 1000 more troops? Sorta like the rest of NATO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 because Canada isn't up to putting in 1000 more troops? Sorta like the rest of NATO? Well, aside from the 1000 from france and the few thousand from US...But if you would like to add your voice and ask for more Canadian troops, I will seconf the motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.