eyeball Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 And clearly, we responded to that motivation. Without examining it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Without examining it. And if we would have examined it (I don't agree that we didn't), then what would we have done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 And if we would have examined it (I don't agree that we didn't), then what would we have done? The appropriate thing, but lets face it, the bone we're picking over here is the motivation. If I truly believed 9/11 was a true bolt out of the blue that was strictly motivated by religious extremism only, I'd be with you. Unfortunately it just wasn't that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 The appropriate thing, but lets face it, the bone we're picking over here is the motivation. If I truly believed 9/11 was a true bolt out of the blue that was strictly motivated by religious extremism only, I'd be with you. Unfortunately it just wasn't that simple. But it was that simple....NATO charter....UN charter....human rights....responsibility to protect....not Iraq...yada yada...the perfect storm for a Canada wishing to take the high, "moral" ground. IIRC, Canada was also in on the 1991 occupation and attack on "Muslim land". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) No, more in the context of a guy who retaliates against someone for aiding and abetting the torture, imprisonment and oppression of many other family members, friends, co-workers etc etc. Ah, I see. So they're outraged that the US aids and abets opression, torture and imprisonment..... even though they themselves enthusiastically embrace oppression, torture, murder and imprisonment of anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. Got ya! I mean, they join up with the Taliban, a regime which made Iraq and Syria seem liberal by comparison, a regime which was, by any definition, more cruel, more bloody, more vicious in its use of torture, murder and oppression than any other in the middle east - and you want to somehow believe it's because of their concern about human rights abuses? Are you for real? Edited December 31, 2009 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 A NATO country was attacked, so we went to war. We were helping our friends. that's true we accepted our treaty obilgations...but I do think the attack on afghanistan was hasty and not enough diplomatic pressure was applied for them to give up Osama...the USA wanted blood and they wanted it quick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 that's true we accepted our treaty obilgations...but I do think the attack on afghanistan was hasty and not enough diplomatic pressure was applied for them to give up Osama...the USA wanted blood and they wanted it quick... Article 5 of the Nato treaty The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. One Question for you how to apply diplomatic pressure on a country that has nothing? That statement is as smart as Curtis Lemay Remarking "we will bomb them into the stone age". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 What a despicable thing to say. America isn't some kind of saint, but they certainly didn't deserve that....I don't even need a citizens assembly to tell me that such an attack against the United States of America was wrong on so many levels. ya they did...US foreign policy has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the globe it was only a matter of time before someone hit back...americans were hardened to seeing innocent people being killed, because what they see in their News programs aren't really people they're merely "colateral damage"...when a people are immune to the consquences the havoc their country's policy causes elsewhere it's an eye opener for them when they get a taste of what it's like...now they know what it's about... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Clearly though there was still a motivation. for Osama it was the destruction Beruit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 The appropriate thing, but lets face it, the bone we're picking over here is the motivation. If I truly believed 9/11 was a true bolt out of the blue that was strictly motivated by religious extremism only, I'd be with you. Unfortunately it just wasn't that simple. but for the simple it is...they don't see any connections to previous conflicts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjre Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 A NATO country was attacked, so we went to war. We were helping our friends. No NATO country was attacked by Afghanistan or Iraq. NATO counties are attacking those 2 countries for profit of oil companies and weapon companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No NATO country was attacked by Afghanistan or Iraq. NATO counties are attacking those 2 countries for profit of oil companies and weapon companies. Afganistan was harbouring those that attacked the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No NATO country was attacked by Afghanistan or Iraq. NATO counties are attacking those 2 countries for profit of oil companies and weapon companies. The Taliban government provided a safe haven for people who did attack a NATO country and would likely do so again if they had the oportunity. That same government refused to turn over the perpetrators or stop their operations. That is an act of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 but for the simple it is...they don't see any connections to previous conflicts... As for the "simple" Bonsia was largely a fight supported by the west in an effort to protect the muslim citzens that were being ethincally cleansed. The war in afgansitan is largely a war against the infidel, not connected in a linar way to past conflicts as you think. Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ælˈkeɪdə/; Arabic: القاعدة, al-qāʿidah, "the base"), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida, is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[5] and late 1989/early 1990.[6] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm[7] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global jihad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda The has been against this group and expanded to those countries that harbour them, most notibly Afganistan. So to the simple this isn't just a result of the wests pasts conflicts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 The Taliban government provided a safe haven for people who did attack a NATO country and would likely do so again if they had the oportunity. That same government refused to turn over the perpetrators or stop their operations. That is an act of war. no Afghanistan asked for proof and if I recall correctly offered to turn the AQ/Osama over to a neutral country...just as Canada asked India for help in apprehending the Air India bombers, did Canada threaten war? did NATO countries like the USA come to our aid and bomb the crap out of India then invade?...has the USA ever turned over Luis Posada Carriles to the Cuban government to face terroism charges? or the Venezuelan government to face trial for blowing an airliner out of the sky isn't that an act of war by the USA?..the guy was actually on the CIA payroll, it seems there are two sets of rules being applied for the same behaviour... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 No NATO country was attacked by Afghanistan or Iraq. NATO counties are attacking those 2 countries for profit of oil companies and weapon companies. Iraq is not a NATO action. While there are some NATO members in Iraq, NATO has nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 no Afghanistan asked for proof and if I recall correctly offered to turn the AQ/Osama over to a neutral country... just as Canada asked India for help in apprehending the Air India bombers, did Canada threaten war? did NATO countries like the USA come to our aid and bomb the crap out of India then invade?...has the USA ever turned over Luis Posada Carriles to the Cuban government to face terroism charges? or the Venezuelan government to face trial for blowing an airliner out of the sky isn't that an act of war by the USA?..the guy was actually on the CIA payroll, it seems there are two sets of rules being applied for the same behaviour... You mean there's actually some who believes the Taliban would have turned bin Laden over, or that they were even in a position to do so? Well, I guess there is you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Just a second. Please tell us why you think Canada is involved in Afghanistan? To stop terrorism what the heck do you think they are doing there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I really have no sympathy. Oh please do go to an Army base and state that!!..............Lefties truly are a disgusting lot they really are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 ya they did...US foreign policy has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the globe The US has a foreign policy which is no more cruel, rapacious or thoughtless than any other nations, and a good deal less than many. It's simply that it has been so large, so powerful and so wealthy that it's foreign policies tend to have a lot more impact elsewhere, even if they don't know it. As Trudeau said, it's like sleeping with an elephant. It can roll over and squash you without even noticing. However, as world powers go, it has been far more benign, far more considerate of the lesser powers than any world power which preceded it, or is likely to succeed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) To stop terrorism what the heck do you think they are doing there! The treaty is rather non-specific. In part it reads;NATO Treaty The principle of providing assistanceWith the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances. So the NATO treaty did not compel this nation to go to war in Afghanistan. Edited January 1, 2010 by Jerry J. Fortin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 We went under our NATO obligations given the premedited and wholly unprovoked terrorist attack on the Americans launched by an organization headquartered in Afghanistan, protected by, and in league with the Taliban, who refused to turn them over. We were honoring our obligations then, and continued to honor them when NATO decided that it could not simply leave and let the shithole which was Afghanistan fall back into the hands of the crazed lunatics who had 'run' it before, because if we did it would once again become the world's terrorism central. We also stayed because the UN had a mandate to try and build that shithole into a real nation which could look after its own people. All of which should be clearly understood by anyone who has the temerity to even speak on the subject and does not wich to draw derision and contempt. Amen. ( I know it's politically incorrect to say that in Canada but let's pretend it's 30 years ago). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 no Afghanistan asked for proof and if I recall correctly offered to turn the AQ/Osama over to a neutral country... just as Canada asked India for help in apprehending the Air India bombers, did Canada threaten war? did NATO countries like the USA come to our aid and bomb the crap out of India then invade?...has the USA ever turned over Luis Posada Carriles to the Cuban government to face terroism charges? or the Venezuelan government to face trial for blowing an airliner out of the sky isn't that an act of war by the USA?..the guy was actually on the CIA payroll, it seems there are two sets of rules being applied for the same behaviour... The Indian government was not complicit with those who committed the Air India bombing. Quite the opposite. It was an attack on India by Canadians. Get your facts straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjre Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 The Taliban government provided a safe haven for people who did attack a NATO country and would likely do so again if they had the oportunity. That same government refused to turn over the perpetrators or stop their operations. That is an act of war. Historically, lots of those terrorists were started with groups that supported by the United States for fighting Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They were not created by Afghanistan government. They were created by US itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Historically, lots of those terrorists were started with groups that supported by the United States for fighting Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They were not created by Afghanistan government. They were created by US itself. Supported by the US against the Soviets but certainly not created by them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.