another 9-11 attack planned?

[naomiglover]

First of all, how do you know that they aren't a target? Secondly, as I already pointed out, they do not have the same association with the U.S. that Canada does, so if it really is only the U.S. that they are angry at, as you seem to believe, you're still going to be a target because of your association with us. Pulling out of Afghanistan isn't going to change that. You have close ties to us, and have benefited from those close ties. You think they don't realize that?

China, Mexico and Japan are the biggest trading partners with the U.S. after Canada, so your argument does not make sense.

It's about the Canadian military being in Afghanistan.

You were the one who said Canadians weren't "targeted" and that it was the WTC that was targeted; that they attacked a "symbol." I pointed out the flaws in that theory while raising another question in response to what you had posted. I see you have no answer to my question, and the rest of your response has nothing to do with my post.

The end result is that they were not targeting Canada. They wanted to hijack a plane and hit America's symbol of capitalism and create a fiasco. They succeeded. Canada was not the target and Canada did not and does not have to concern itself with Afghanistan. A mess that is costing Canada unnecessary deaths, billions of dollars and increasing the chances of terrorist attacks.

So as long as the target wasn't Canada, you have no reason to be in the fight.

U.S. has helped to create this atmosphere. Canada should not suffer for US' mess.

Thanks, neighbor.

If you want our help during forest fires, hurricanes or earthquakes, we'll be there for you. But if you're going to create an unstable political atmosphere around the world and then ask us to put our lives at risk, then go somewhere else.

Edited October 7, 2009 by naomiglover

[ReeferMadness]

That's the weakest cop-out of all, because Canada has voluntarily supported and benefited from the very same US policies while providing the uranium that made US and UK nuclear weapons possible, to war materials for Vietnam (including napalm and defoliants), all the way to LAV III's / Stryker assault vehicles coming out of Ontario today, and lots more in between. Since WW2 always seems to be the popular demarcation (wink wink, because Canada was jolly well saving the Empire), we can still count Korea, Gulf War I, Balkans/Bosnia/Kosovo, Haiti, and Afghanistan for that strong "moral stand". I am always amazed at the cognitive dissonance routinely on display in this forum.

I was wondering how long it would be until you showed up. I see you haven't lost the art of twisting the context of what was said.

It's mildly amusing that the best you can do to rationalize your country's behaviour is say "well you're just as bad". I could point out some of Canada's moral victories such as the campaign to ban landmines, our stand on the international criminal court and our refusal to engage in the illegal (and immoral) war in Iraq. I could point out that our contribution to the US military is, in the big picture, trivial and immaterial. Really, though, none of this is relevant.

The predominant characteristics of international politics are (and have been for most of history) greed, self-interest, aggression, and backroom dealing. But democratic governments also have to convince their own citizens and citizens of other countries that they are morally good and so lots of good things get done as well. But the good that is done is usually calculated carefully to get the best possible return in terms of geopolitical aims, goodwill or economic returns. And when it comes to conflicts over competing ideologies or similar geopolitical differences, governments are capable of breathtaking hypocrisy and cynicism. It seems to me they get away with it due to varying degrees of apathy, self-interest, and xenophobia on the part of the citizenry. Often, the media seem to cooperate. A good example is the furore over Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Now, it's an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons - perhaps as many as 400. Yet Israel's western allies (Canada, US & others) won't even acknowledge this fact, much less challenge them on it. And the media (with their "left wing bias"), rarely if ever bring it up.

All governments engage in this cynical, hypocritical behaviour, particularly in international politics, to varying degrees. The question of moral superiority is academic and largely irrelevant. So why do I focus on the US instead of just criticizing my own government? The first answer is simple. Canada isn't a big enough player to make much difference. If tomorrow, Canada stopped participating US-led attacks on third world countries, it make very little difference. The US invaded Iraq in spite of Canada's refusal to participate. The second is that Canada does not typically engage in some of the most egregious behaviour. Canada doesn't go off and invade countries on its own. Canada doesn't typically have secret agents undermining governments or 'advisors' training and otherwise assisting brutal dictators. For the most part, Canada sends in its military only when there is a solid consensus of the international community (ie the UN). As much as I have serious reservations about the UN, it is far better than having individual countries deciding on their own to 'save' some third world country by bombing it to bits.

People need to wake up and smell the coffee. Bombing and shooting up third world countries may be satisfying to some and provide 'war porn' for others; but it isn't making us safer. On the contrary, it will ultimately make the world a more dangerous place.

So please put a "blanket trade ban" on the United States and "everyone else" just to reinforce an already overblown sanctimony and righteousness. We can always use a good laugh.

Again with the statement out of context. I wasn't proposing anything; I was only illustrating that Canada has very limited ability to influence behaviour.

[M.Dancer]

It's mildly amusing that the best you can do to rationalize your country's behaviour is say "well you're just as bad". I could point out some of Canada's moral victories such as the campaign to ban landmines, our stand on the international criminal court and our refusal to engage in the illegal (and immoral) war in Iraq. I could point out that our contribution to the US military is, in the big picture, trivial and immaterial. Really, though, none of this is relevant.

Ironically what you just pointed out is trivial and immaterial and quite irrelevant.Our declining the invitation to join the US had as much basis in "we can't" as in "we shouldn't"

Our camopaign to end land mines (wrong headed in my opinion" is as much a laurel for dozens of nations inlcuding the UK.

Our stand on the IC will be steadfast right to the moment we are brought before it for whatever imaginary sleight.....all irrelevant.

Whine as much as you like, while the US certainly has intervened many times across the Globe, we are lucky it was them and not the other guy. The people of Grenada are free today, Panama is a little less lawless, Libya a little less ballsy....and so one.

And while perhaps the US has intervened more than others, it certainly has chalked up the body count like some other who have only meddled a few times....

Bah...on your whole sophomoronoc premise....not eve worth a protest booth at frosh week.

[bush_cheney2004]

I was wondering how long it would be until you showed up. I see you haven't lost the art of twisting the context of what was said.

I never went anywhere...it is you who comes and goes.

It's mildly amusing that the best you can do to rationalize your country's behaviour is say "well you're just as bad". I could point out some of Canada's moral victories such as the campaign to ban landmines, our stand on the international criminal court and our refusal to engage in the illegal (and immoral) war in Iraq. I could point out that our contribution to the US military is, in the big picture, trivial and immaterial. Really, though, none of this is relevant.

Then why did you bring such things up? Your moral victories are just as meaningless as America's in that context.

...Now, it's an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons - perhaps as many as 400. Yet Israel's western allies (Canada, US & others) won't even acknowledge this fact, much less challenge them on it. And the media (with their "left wing bias"), rarely if ever bring it up.

Excuse me, but if you hadn't noticed, Israel is a US ally...every bit as much is Canada. I don't know why you persist from an assumed ivory tower of righteousness when clearly your own nation has chosen sides long ago.

All governments engage in this cynical, hypocritical behaviour, particularly in international politics, to varying degrees. The question of moral superiority is academic and largely irrelevant. So why do I focus on the US instead of just criticizing my own government? The first answer is simple. Canada isn't a big enough player to make much difference. If tomorrow, Canada stopped participating US-led attacks on third world countries, it make very little difference. The US invaded Iraq in spite of Canada's refusal to participate.

So you are saying that Canada gets a pass because of magnitude? That's very convenient.....the devil made me do it !

The second is that Canada does not typically engage in some of the most egregious behaviour. Canada doesn't go off and invade countries on its own. Canada doesn't typically have secret agents undermining governments or 'advisors' training and otherwise assisting brutal dictators. For the most part, Canada sends in its military only when there is a solid consensus of the international community (ie the UN). As much as I have serious reservations about the UN, it is far better than having individual countries deciding on their own to 'save' some third world country by bombing it to bits.

Nonsense.....there was no UN for Kosovo...the Canadian bombs were just as "egregious" as the American's...because they came from the same arms plant...as did the weapons systems. Again...your defense is that the "devil made us do it". In your mind, when is Canada ever responsible for its own actions, taking full ownership for the decision to bomb the crap out of people or execute peacekilling missions. I make no apologies for America, embracing the good with the bad, and not living in a fog of sanctimony.

I guess that's what sucks the most....sending men and women to die in far away places while blaming the decision to send them on somebody else..including the goddamn UN.

People need to wake up and smell the coffee. Bombing and shooting up third world countries may be satisfying to some and provide 'war porn' for others; but it isn't making us safer. On the contrary, it will ultimately make the world a more dangerous place.

I got news for you, the world will always be a dangerous place. Kissing ass won't guarantee peace....there is no "safer"...just probability and statistics.

Again with the statement out of context. I wasn't proposing anything; I was only illustrating that Canada has very limited ability to influence behaviour.

Aww...c'mon. Show us what you got...remember South Africa ? Close the borders to the evil US of A and teach those American barbarians a lesson in civility and righteousness, even as your own forces battle the locals in Afghanistan. After all...the devil "made us do it".

Edited October 8, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Don't worry too much...there are still Canadians who view Juno as a moment of triumph alongside our allies rather than an award show.

[M.Dancer]

Don't worry too much...there are still Canadians who view Juno as a moment of triumph alongside our allies rather than an award show.

It was also a damn funny movie

[DogOnPorch]

Gotta love Diablo. Part of Dave's Book Club...

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't worry too much...there are still Canadians who view Juno as a moment of triumph alongside our allies rather than an award show.

Right...and there are still Americans who remember what it means to believe in something:

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/Visitor_i...dian_Cross.html

[DogOnPorch]

Right...and there are still Americans who remember what it means to believe in something:

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/Visitor_i...dian_Cross.html

As I've mentioned...many Canadians have relatives on the other side of the 49th...at least multi-generational types. The FOBs less so, I'd imagine. I've never understood some Canadian's hostility towards the USA. Those who rant the most have often have never set foot in the States.

Edited October 8, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

As I've mentioned...many Canadians have relatives on the other side of the 49th...at least multi-generational types. The FOBs less so, I'd imagine. I've never understood some Canadian's hostility towards the USA. Those who rant the most have often never set foot in the States.

I don't mind well placed US hostility when it is deserved, but Canada has real national interests that won't be served by pretending it has no past, ignoring the present, and hoping for a utopia in the future.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't mind well placed US hostility when it is deserved, but Canada has real national interests that won't be served by pretending it has no past, ignoring the present, and hoping for a utopia in the future.

Many thousands of Canadians fought in Viet-Nam as volunteeers. Some Canadians have gone on to become generals et al in the US military if I recall. Many Canadians occupied and still occupy key positions in US agencies like NASA/JPL. We're brothers and sisters.

Gordon Sinclair gave an address on Canadian radio back in 1973 that deserves a repeat...

The Americans

The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany.

It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help?

The Americans did.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help.

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped. The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans. I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes. Come on... let's hear it!

Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas (Boeing) 707? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws..are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here. When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?

I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians.

And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke. This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Our_Culture/americans.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Sinclair

Edited October 8, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

....Gordon Sinclair gave an address on Canadian radio back in 1973 that deserves a repeat...

Y'know...that address from Sinclair also got air time on American radio. Vietnamization was coming to an inglorious end.

Here is the audio:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/g...heamericans.htm

[ReeferMadness]

If you truly believe that, I suggest you take a course in World History.

No, no, no. You don't get off that easily.

What I said is that the US leads the world in terms of attacks and other aggressive actions on other countries. And I'm talking modern history, ie post WWII. Sure, it's possible the Ghengis Khan and the Mongols were worse but that isn't really relevant, is it?

Who said anything about "entitlement?" You think countries who do what we do but on a lesser scale are entitled to do what they do/have done? All I'm saying is that countries tend to act in proportion to their power. Maybe that's escaped you, but that doesn't make it any less true.

In that case what you're saying is irrelevant.

It's not weak at all. It's the truth, and the truth, apparently, hurts. Canada could take a moral stand, as you said, but then Canada would suffer monetarily. As I pointed out, Canada has benefited from being our neighbor, and that being the case, I doubt we'd need to attack you if you were to impose a blanket trade ban on us and everyone else who "exercises a dirty foreign policy." For one thing, you'd have to put a ban on yourself. For another, Canadians would lose so much money that they'd create enough of an uproar that we'd just have to sit back and watch Canada as we know it self-destruct.

You and bush_cheney should form a support group. Call it CJABAWA (Canada's just as bad as we are).

The facts remain. Canada doesn't run around unilaterally bombing or invading other countries. We don't have the equivalent of the CIA, running around destabilizing regimes who politics we don't like. If Canada stops doing bad things, it will make very little difference to anyone else. If the US stops, it will make a great deal of difference.

So, just stop.

Did I say I was worried about that?

Then why bring it up at all?

Do you know what it means when I say "bin Laden et al?" Because it means is that I'm not talking about bin Laden per se, but him and/or his ilk.

Oh. So your country went to war chasing a guy based on weak or perhaps even phony evidence and you don't think that's relevant? Maybe they're in the wrong country. Would that be relevant?

[M.Dancer]

Oh. So your country went to war chasing a guy based on weak or perhaps even phony evidence and you don't think that's relevant? Maybe they're in the wrong country. Would that be relevant?

Tr00ther Alert!

[bush_cheney2004]

The facts remain. Canada doesn't run around unilaterally bombing or invading other countries. We don't have the equivalent of the CIA, running around destabilizing regimes who politics we don't like. If Canada stops doing bad things, it will make very little difference to anyone else. If the US stops, it will make a great deal of difference.

This is progress...you have just conceded any assumed moral high ground. Also, many US interventions were not "unilateral" in that other nations supported the operations either directly or indirectly.

Edited October 8, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Tr00ther Alert!

Apologist alert.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: If you truly believe that, I suggest you take a course in World History.

No, no, no. You don't get off that easily.

What I said is that the US leads the world in terms of attacks and other aggressive actions on other countries. And I'm talking modern history, ie post WWII. Sure, it's possible the Ghengis Khan and the Mongols were worse but that isn't really relevant, is it?

If you think you have to go all the way back to Ghengis Khan and the Mongols to find another nation that "perhaps" was worse, you best RUN to your nearest university and sign up for that World History class quick as possible.

The facts remain. Canada doesn't run around unilaterally bombing or invading other countries. We don't have the equivalent of the CIA, running around destabilizing regimes who politics we don't like. If Canada stops doing bad things, it will make very little difference to anyone else.

It would make a difference to the people Canada is doing bad things to.

So just stop.

QUOTE: Did I say I was worried about that?

Then why bring it up at all?

How about because everything I concern myself with isn't all about me?

QUOTE: Do you know what it means when I say "bin Laden et al?" Because it means is that I'm not talking about bin Laden per se, but him and/or his ilk.

Oh. So your country went to war chasing a guy based on weak or perhaps even phony evidence and you don't think that's relevant? Maybe they're in the wrong country. Would that be relevant?

The answer would be no. None of that is relevant to my post.

Edited October 8, 2009 by American Woman

[ReeferMadness]

Tr00ther Alert!

Oh, please. Anyone who uncritically accepts whatever the White House says is either mentally feeble, a true believer or just not paying attention. Skepticism is healthy.

[ReeferMadness]

If you think you have to go all the way back to Ghengis Khan and the Mongols to find another nation that "perhaps" was worse, you best RUN to your nearest university and sign up for that World History class quick as possible.

Why don't you stop dancing around and tossing insults? Just tell me what other post-WWII country you think has done more invading or attacking other countries. Here's a helpful list of countries you've bombed.. If you'd like, I could find a much, much longer list that covers events like participating the overthrow of democratically elected governments (e.g. Iran and Chile).

So just stop.

Actually, we have plans to get out of Afghanistan. So, you you stop.

The answer would be no. None of that is relevant to my post.

Oh, OK. So you don't really care whether your soldiers are out chasing the wrong guy, possibly in the wrong country. They're killing people, occupying a foreign country and destroying people's homes but that's "not relevant". And why is it not relevant? Well, because, according to you, nobody is goint to retaliate because you destroyed their homeland, killed their parents, humiliated their country or left them with no future. If they attack, it's obviously because "they hate you for your lifestyle". Does that pretty much sum up the delusion you enjoy living under?

Hollywood has made tons of cheezy films where early in the picture, the hero's mother/sweetheart/sibling/favorite goat is killed in front of the hero's teary eyes. Anyone who has a higher IQ than an eggplant knows that the film is going to end with the hero extracting revenge. And audiences get it! They don't walk out of the movie theatre saying "So do you think Conan cut off their heads because he hated their lifestyles?"

Compare that with real life. A bunch of guys sacrifice their own lives in an attack. The guys come from an area of the world rich in oil where your country has been threatening, attacking and otherwise interfering with the affairs of countries for decades. Your president, widely considered a bit of an imbecile, says "They hate us for our freedom". And people take him seriously. It would never work in fiction because people would think it's too stupid. But apparently there are enough narcissists out there that it works in real life.

So, if you want to prevent another 9/11, stop. If you do, all of the rest of the countries who send soldiers to support you will stop also. And that includes us.

Edited October 8, 2009 by ReeferMadness

[bush_cheney2004]

....So, if you want to prevent another 9/11, stop. If you do, all of the rest of the countries who send soldiers to support you will stop also. And that includes us.

This was the strategy for Rwanda....didn't work out so well.

[GostHacked]

This was the strategy for Rwanda....didn't work out so well.

Or Somalia.

[M.Dancer]

Oh, please. Anyone who uncritically accepts whatever the White House says is either mentally feeble, a true believer or just not paying attention. Skepticism is healthy.

Use all the skepticism you want, don't believe the white house....but where you venture into paranoid denial is when you won't even believe Bin Laden. I mean, if the word of the leader of the terrorists isn't good enough for you....well bring out the tinfoil, it's mad hatter time.

[M.Dancer]

helpful list of countries you've bombed..

You know, while I am not going to argue over whether that list is accurate of simply out of context....I will just say that not only is that site biased to the extreme, it's a nutbar site that has no respect for the truth.

Take for example the photo they placed of Bush reading during the 9-11 attacks.

http://www.btinternet.com/~davidbeaumont/m...Upside_Down.jpg

I mean, anyone who will uncritically accept whatever these wingnut sites say is either mentally feeble, a true believer or just not paying attntion.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/bushbook.asp

[GostHacked]

I mean, anyone who will uncritically accept whatever these wingnut sites say is either mentally feeble, a true believer or just not paying attntion.

That same thing can be said about most modern MSM outlets now. Like Foxnews for example. Don't unilaterally accept anything anyone says, be ctirical of all of it. Don't be selective about it !!

[eyeball]

I mean, anyone who will uncritically accept whatever these wingnut sites say is either mentally feeble, a true believer or just not paying attntion.

That's why I prefer the insightful comments of people like Madeline Albright and Barak Obama - and Jean Chretien for all his other faults certainly managed to hit the nail on the head about why the attacks of 9/11 ocurred too.

Occam's razor, lex parsimoniae and common sense is all anyone needs.

Edited October 9, 2009 by eyeball