another 9-11 attack planned?

[Shady]

I'll ask eyeball once again...

Is it our fault that homosexuals are stoned to death?

Is it our fault that women are treated like second class citizens, beaten for wearing pants?

Is it our fault that females are forbidden from obtaining an education or holding important jobs in soceity?

Is it our fault that school girls have acid thrown in their faces for the outrageous act of walking to school?

Is it our fault that the boys in these countries are educated soley through the madrases?

And is it our fault that these extremists want to kill the infidels, non believers, no matter what religion a person happens to be?

Go take your moral equivalence garbage somewhere else, it doesn't fly here sport.

[DogOnPorch]

The entire planet was pretty much ruled by dictators before the US was a country, what's your point? Your post completely overlooks the fact that western societies regard for democracy and basic human rights was barely a few decades more advanced than what was developing in, say Iran in 1953 for example.

The first English parliment where the Commons was fully represented was way back in 1283 at a place called Acton Burnell in Shropshire. You can visit it to this day. I think our culture/society has got a few years invested in this parlimentary democracy biz.

[eyeball]

Is it our fault...

No.

Is it their fault we've supported their dictators?

[eyeball]

I think our culture/society has got a few years invested in this parlimentary democracy biz.

All the more reason it should know better then to supporrt dictators don't you think?

Its got quite a few more years invested in imperial colonialism too.

Edited October 1, 2009 by eyeball

[naomiglover]

This is why I am looking forward to our military getting out of Afghanistan. That would reduce the chances of Canada being attacked.

[M.Dancer]

This is why I am looking forward to our military getting out of Afghanistan. That would reduce the chances of Canada being attacked.

Cowardice isn't a viable policy.

[Guest American Woman]

This is why I am looking forward to our military getting out of Afghanistan. That would reduce the chances of Canada being attacked.

I honestly think you're naive if you think that. But seriously, do you always plan on doing what they 'demand?' You might want to think about that .....

[naomiglover]

I honestly think you're naive if you think that. But seriously, do you always plan on doing what they 'demand?' You might want to think about that .....

This is not about being a coward and giving into their demand. This is about us not having a reason, except to help the Americans to fight an unwinnable war.

Pissing off the extremists and terrorists aside, being in Afghanistan has brought and will continue to bring nothing but negative results to Canada. From the deaths of our soldiers to the money being wasted. It looks like even our current minority government realizes this.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is not about being a coward and giving into their demand. This is about us not having a reason, except to help the Americans to fight an unwinnable war.

So what is Canada's "reason" for being a charter member of NATO? Why NORAD? Why NHL ?

Pissing off the extremists and terrorists aside, being in Afghanistan has brought and will continue to bring nothing but negative results to Canada. From the deaths of our soldiers to the money being wasted. It looks like even our current minority government realizes this.

But that's what they said about Iraq, not Afghanistan, which was the perfect storm to demonstrate "Canadian values" and "Responsibility to Protect". Did Canadian values change?

Edited October 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

This is not about being a coward and giving into their demand. This is about us not having a reason, except to help the Americans to fight an unwinnable war.

I'm Canadian while my wife grew-up in Minnesota and Alaska...but she was born in St John's. Keep that in mind while you try to make Canada and the US into two alien countries in relation to one another; we're very close with family on both sides of the 49th in a great many cases. It's Hyphenated-Canadian FOBs that seem to view us as two countries that are worlds apart in our culture, lifestyles and what-have-you...Israeli-Canadian.

Pissing off the extremists and terrorists aside, being in Afghanistan has brought and will continue to bring nothing but negative results to Canada. From the deaths of our soldiers to the money being wasted. It looks like even our current minority government realizes this.

Screw that attitude. Canada is plenty familiar with warfare and its results. Canadians have been involved in battles that make your Israeli-Arab conflict look like two old women fighting with brooms.

As for pissing off terrorists and extremist...sounds like a hell of a lot of fun. I think I'd like to piss them off with an A-10 Warthog if I have a choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Iz5MwPsfyo

Edited October 2, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[M.Dancer]

If Canada in Afghanisatan serves only one purpose (it doesn't, it serves many) that harbouring terrorists who attack us, the payback will be your regime deposed, your children killed, your goats slautered, your lands taken and your hopes shattered, then it is worth the effort.

But even better that that....we are there giving Afghans hope....even the slim hope that a crooked election is better than no election at all and that slim progress for women is better than a bullet in the head of a lippy broad.

Baby steps sometimes, but with combat boots on.

[eyeball]

But even better that that....we are there giving Afghans hope....even the slim hope that a crooked election is better than no election at all and that slim progress for women is better than a bullet in the head of a lippy broad.

Consider this in light of your constant apologies/denial of how we robbed Iran of their hopes and set the slim progress they'd made back more than 50 years.

Baby steps sometimes, but with combat boots on.

Backward steps with blinders on is more like it.

[M.Dancer]

Consider this in light of your constant apologies/denial of how we robbed Iran of their hopes and set the slim progress they'd made back more than 50 years.

Progress? The standard of living for iranians rose sharply after the Mossy totalitarian was deposed and the constitution was upheld. Shame for you that we can't all have outhouses and wipe our arses with paper bags...

But as I said, there ain;t a anto west totalistarian that Eyeball doesn't love...

[eyeball]

Progress? The standard of living for iranians rose sharply after the Mossy totalitarian was deposed and the constitution was upheld. Shame for you that we can't all have outhouses and wipe our arses with paper bags...

Deflecting as usual I see. The reference to progress (that yiu made) was to women and democracy. As for their standard of living, it would have risen even more sharply under Mossadegh due to his efforts to ensure Iranians were the first in line to benefit from their oil.

But as I said, there ain;t a anto west totalistarian that Eyeball doesn't love...

What ever garbledy goop you say.

[M.Dancer]

Deflecting as usual I see. The reference to progress (that yiu made) was to women and democracy. As for their standard of living, it would have risen even more sharply under Mossadegh due to his efforts to ensure Iranians were the first in line to benefit from their oil.

Women made impressive gains under rthe leadership of the Shaw...which of course earned him the hate of the Mullahs....under the Tyrant Mossy, well, he became a dictator usurped constitutional power and closed the parliament and regged elections.

But you like him as you do all anti western dictators.

[eyeball]

Women made impressive gains under rthe leadership of the Shaw...which of course earned him the hate of the Mullahs....under the Tyrant Mossy, well, he became a dictator usurped constitutional power and closed the parliament and regged elections.

But you like him as you do all anti western dictators.

I'll say one thing, you have a real talent for making diddling and interference seem like an honourable rightous thing. You do realize just how much you come off sounding like Whoopie Goldberg don't you?

I suppose next you'll be telling me that SAVAK was a benevolent department of the government that dedicated to the welfare and well being of the people.

[DogOnPorch]

The mini skirt and the Middle-East...popular in the 1960s to about the end of the 70s. But suddenly...they've all been wearing burqas for centuries...it's always been like this.

http://ikbis.com/triplem/shot/78949

[DogOnPorch]

I suppose next you'll be telling me that SAVAK was a benevolent department of the government that dedicated to the welfare and well being of the people.

SAVAK was putting the screws to the religious nut-barz in charge now. The current lot is far-far worse than the Shah ever was.

[Guest American Woman]

This is not about being a coward and giving into their demand.

I didn't say anything about cowardice, but let me remind you what you said: This is why I am looking forward to our military getting out of Afghanistan. That would reduce the chances of Canada being attacked. So you look forward to Canada getting out because it would, in your mind, reduce the chances of Canada being attacked. That sounds like 'if we do what they say, we'll be less likely to be attacked.'

I think you're wrong, btw. In the long run, Canada wouldn't be any 'safer' simply by being out of the war. You're still part of the 'West,' and unless you want to cut off ties with us completely, seems to me you're tied to us in their eyes even if you're not in Afghanistan. I have to say that threatening countries that help the US in the fight would be an effective way to weaken the US -- and thereby, the West.

This is about us not having a reason, except to help the Americans to fight an unwinnable war.

Canadians being killed on 9-11 isn't a reason? Canada being threatened isn't a reason? The West being threatened isn't a reason? And what about helping Afghans -- can I assume you want Canadian troops out as Peace Keepers too?

As for it being "unwinnable," I suppose that depends on what one is hoping to accomplish; what one would consider a "win." Surely it's unwinnable in the sense that the Taliban and al Qeada aren't going to wave a white flag in surrender. I think the best way to 'win' is to help make the Afghans strong, which in turn, would weaken the Taliban and al Qeada. Until that happens, Afghans will fall prey to the Taliban and al Qeada, as some look to them for a better life.

Pissing off the extremists and terrorists aside, being in Afghanistan has brought and will continue to bring nothing but negative results to Canada. From the deaths of our soldiers to the money being wasted. It looks like even our current minority government realizes this.

All wars bring death and debt. Are you saying none of them were worth Canada's involvement?

Edited October 2, 2009 by American Woman

[naomiglover]

I didn't say anything about cowardice, but let me remind you what you said: This is why I am looking forward to our military getting out of Afghanistan. That would reduce the chances of Canada being attacked. So you look forward to Canada getting out because it would, in your mind, reduce the chances of Canada being attacked. That sounds like 'if we do what they say, we'll be less likely to be attacked.'

That is one of the reasons, but I did outline the other reasons in the last post that you've responded to. I included the word 'coward' because the post above yours mentioned it.

I think you're wrong, btw. In the long run, Canada wouldn't be any 'safer' simply by being out of the war.

You're still part of the 'West,' and unless you want to cut off ties with us completely, seems to me you're tied to us in their eyes even if you're not in Afghanistan. I have to say that threatening countries that help the US in the fight would be an effective way to weaken the US -- and thereby, the West.

I don't think I'm wrong. I look at countries like Iceland or New Zealand or many other countries who are considered to be part of the West, but they are safer than Canada because they are not involved.

Canadians being killed on 9-11 isn't a reason? Canada being threatened isn't a reason? The West being threatened isn't a reason? And what about helping Afghans -- can I assume you want Canadian troops out as Peace Keepers too?

Canadians have been killed in many other countries. That's not a reason to attack a country. They attacked a symbol when they attacked WTC. I don't think they calculated to attack Canadians.

I would like to see Canadians out of Afghanistan in every form. Mostly because after almost a decade nothing has improved in Afghanistan.

As for it being "unwinnable," I suppose that depends on what one is hoping to accomplish; what one would consider a "win." Surely it's unwinnable in the sense that the Taliban and al Qeada aren't going to wave a white flag in surrender. I think the best way to 'win' is to help make the Afghans strong, which in turn, would weaken the Taliban and al Qeada. Until that happens, Afghans will fall prey to the Taliban and al Qeada, as some look to them for a better life.

If you are fighting in Afghanistan to curb terrorism, then the mission has failed. Having military control over Afghanistan (which still has not happened) is not going to stop an angry man whose relatives have been killed in Afghanistan or Iraq and who has nothing to live for except for revenge, to build a bomb in his basement in some US city and then blowing up a stadium.

If you want to reduce the power of the Taliban and the extremist war lords, then the mission has failed. After almost a decade there, the forces only have power in 2 major cities. The rest of Afghanistan is controlled and run by different groups. It's also interesting that since the attack on Afghanistan, the opium market as flourished.

If you are fighting in Afghanistan to help the Afghanis, then the mission has failed: Not only are the Afghani people are still unsafe, but we've participated by killing innocent civilians. I'm not sure what the count is for the number of Afghani civilians who have been killed by the allied forces. It doesn't matter to the dead and their families if they were killed by accident because the end result is that they're dead.

All wars bring death and debt. Are you saying none of them were worth Canada's involvement?

We are talking about Afghanistan. The evidence is there for everyone to see that being in Afghanistan brings a lot more negatives to Canadians than positives. In fact, I cannot find one positive that it brings to Canada.

I am looking forward for my country to be out of Afghanistan.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think I'm wrong. I look at countries like Iceland or New Zealand or many other countries who are considered to be part of the West, but they are safer than Canada because they are not involved.

Do you honestly think that Iceland and New Zealand have the same relationship with the U.S. that Canada does, and vice versa?

Canadians have been killed in many other countries. That's not a reason to attack a country. They attacked a symbol when they attacked WTC. I don't think they calculated to attack Canadians.

They "calculated" to kill whoever they could. They didn't attack a symbol, they attacked people, or they would have attacked when the "symbol" had the fewest people in it instead of during business hours. But I'm curious. Those planes they used to attack the symbol, were they merely symbols too? Did they not "calculate" to kill the people on the planes?

It's a false sense of security if you don't accept that they realized that NYC and the planes and the WTC would include people other than Americans, and I don't recall their apologizing for killing anyone other than Americans.

I'm on my way out, so that's all I have time to address for now.....

Edited October 2, 2009 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

I don't think I'm wrong. I look at countries like Iceland or New Zealand or many other countries who are considered to be part of the West, but they are safer than Canada because they are not involved.

New Zealand has had Special Service troops is Afghanistan.

http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/new_zealand/

I suggest you don't know what you are babbling about.

[naomiglover]

Do you honestly think that Iceland and New Zealand have the same relationship with the U.S. that Canada does, and vice versa?

You mentioned that if you're part of the West, then you are a target. I showed two of many countries who are part of West that are not targets because of their disassociation from the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

They "calculated" to kill whoever they could. They didn't attack a symbol, they attacked people, or they would have attacked when the "symbol" had the fewest people in it instead of during business hours. But I'm curious. Those planes they used to attack the symbol, were they merely symbols too? Did they not "calculate" to kill the people on the planes?

It doesn't matter how you want to phrase it. The end result is that, it's wrong and counterproductive to attack a country because a few Canadians were amongst the innocent people killed at WTC.

It's a false sense of security if you don't accept that they realized that NYC and the planes and the WTC would include people other than Americans, and I don't recall their apologizing for killing anyone other than Americans.

Their target was United States as the WTC is in NY and NY is in the United States. Their target was not Canada.

I'm on my way out, so that's all I have time to address for now.....

Okay. Looking forward to your response.

[M.Dancer]

You mentioned that if you're part of the West, then you are a target. I showed two of many countries who are part of West that are not targets because of their disassociation from the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

How do you know that Christian Iceland is not a target?

New Zealand in in Afganistan, so without question you are wrong all around.

Cowardice will not shield you from terrorism.

Edited October 2, 2009 by M.Dancer

[naomiglover]

New Zealand has had Special Service troops is Afghanistan.

http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/new_zealand/

I suggest you don't know what you are babbling about.

Then they will be seen as a target as well. Maybe less than Canada as their 200 or so troops do not have much of a combat role in Afghanistan, whereas, Canada does.

I searched but I couldn't find any European countries, not participating in Iraq or Afghanistan, who have been attacked by terrorists or there has been an attempt to attack them. Tell me if you find any.

Edited October 2, 2009 by naomiglover