Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[mcqueen625]

I think it is high time that we stop this corporate push to control the world by making the whole globe into their private marketplace. Free trade deals have done nothing to spread democracy. In fact Canada itself has lost much of our own democracy by allowing our government's to sign onto and adopt the corporate agenda. We have lost untold numbers of jobs to third world countries that continue to remain virtual dictatorships, including countries like China and North Korea, yet these corporate types still persue their agenda of converting the whole world into their private revenue generator. Canada is certainly not better off, we instead losing our own independence to corporations, and their puppet governments.

The bottom line is that these countries are not going to chnage the way they treat their own people, regardless of how many jobs get outsourced to them. THey instead end up working long hours in sweatshops for little compensation and the U.N. just chooses to thurn a blind eye, and pretend that everything is just rosy.

[BHS]

It is not a premise! The rest needs no answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your premise is, that LICO is an acceptable measurement of poverty, which you justify by saying that many governments use it. Which I have argued is an example of the ad populum fallacy.

I love that I ask a legitimate question about the meaning of your post, and rather than just leaving it hanging in the air, you go to the trouble of making it clear that the question doesn't justify a proper answer. I guess your opinion is that the question was meaningless. In which case, I'll have to assume that the post was meaningless as well.

[Guest eureka]

LICO is an accepted measure of poverty not a premise for an argument. You can say, if you want, that poverty is not poverty but you can advance no argument to say it is not.

Neighbours! It is obvious what neighbour I referred to. I would not describe Russia as a neighbour.

[BHS]

Frankly, that's just wrong. For one thing, Al Qaeda doesn't really exist anymore in terms of being a cohesive organization with central leadership etc. Rather, Al Qaeda has become an ideological movement, its adherent scattered and operating independantly. This is a direct result of the "war on terror", which to date has had the equivilant effect of of destroying a dandelion by scattering its seeds across the lawn.

.

So I guess I won't be seeing and arguments from you that the war in Iraq is taking resources away from the real war on terror in Afghanistan.

It's hard to argue that thousands of Iraqis would have suddenly taken up arms against their occupires if there was no occupation,

You are apparently unaware that the bulk of insurgent activity is carried out by non-Iraqis.

nor would foreign jihadis flock to Iraq to learn tactics and establish ties with other factions if the U.S. hadn't stepped in.

So much for the jihadis being scattered across the lawn, or whatever.

So its safe to say that the war in Iraq has most definitely given Al Qaeda a boost, whereas yopur speculation that not invading Iraq would have given Al Qaeda a boost is mere speculation.

This is true. It's not fair of me to assume events in a timeline that doesn't exist. My speculation is based on the previous growth of Al-Qaeda during the years when America wasn't repsonding to their attacks, being 1993 to 2000, when jihad-sympathisers globally were encouraged by perceived American weakness.

Since we are dealing with the present realities, the point that western responses to terror to date have not hindered terrorism, but have advanced the cause of the "enemy" is decidedly NOT moot.

My mooting statement was based on the premise that my speculation was correct, that Al-Qaeda would have continued to grow apace if America hadn't gone into Afghanistan to route them out.

There may be some value in that the 9-11 attacks place dteh U.S. in a Catch 22 situation, but its interesting that the one main course of action that hasn't been put forward (that is: a re-evaluation of foreign policy and an decrease in foreign entaglements) is the only one that would have likely reduced the terrorist threat to western nations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you insist that we argue from present realities, and then switch to suppositions at the end of your argument. Very nice.

And how, pray tell, would the US "decrease foreign entanglements" post 911 without giving the terrorists an even bigger boost? You are assuming that the terrorists can somehow be placated, now that we've earned their ire. I disagree. I don't thing there's a way in the world to go back to the days before terrorism was a fact of life. To suggest that it's possible is like saying you can unspeak a word.

[mirror]

We can always find reasons not to do something, like not sharing our wealth.

Well we Canadians are not the only ones who don't feel safer since the US invaded Iraq on the pretext of fighting terrorism, but al least we haven't spent 200 billion dollars, nor lost 1,700 troops in Iraq.

Iraq War Hasn't Made United States Safer, Author Says

[BHS]

LICO is an accepted measure of poverty not a premise for an argument. You can say, if you want, that poverty is not poverty but you can advance no argument to say it is not.

Neighbours! It is obvious what neighbour I referred to. I would not describe Russia as a neighbour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Holy crap. LICO is not an accepted measure of poverty. If you and all of the loony lefty think tanks and socialist political parties and poverty pests in the world choose to ignore the caveat that Stats Canada includes, and the fact that LICO is not a logically consistent way of determining poverty, that's your perogative. But it doesn't make your statement any more correct.

[BHS]

We can always find reasons not to do something, like not sharing our wealth.

WTF??

Well we Canadians are not the only ones who don't feel safer since the US invaded Iraq on the pretext of fighting terrorism, but al least we haven't spent 200 billion dollars, nor lost 1,700 troops in Iraq.

Iraq War Hasn't Made United States Safer, Author Says

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I don't feel safer since September 2001. But what're you gonna do?

From now on I'm not going to bother explaining myself when I reply to your posts on this issue, I'm just going to follow your lead and plow right ahead with my opinion unexplained:

The war in Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror, and very little to do with oil. The US hasn't spent 200 billion dollars on Iraq. There haven't been 1700 troops lost. Any price paid in blood and treasure so far is cheap when compared to the inveitable benefits the Iraq invasion will bring to the world.

[Guest eureka]

Why don't you just keep ploughing ahead with your opinions. They are all you have going for you. Certainly, fact is not your forte.

[BHS]

Why don't you just keep ploughing ahead with your opinions. They are all you have going for you. Certainly, fact is not your forte.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You astonish me. You positively astonish me.

In all of your posts, I've only ever once seen you link to a source that backs up any of the points you're trying to make. And that link was dead when I tried it.

You quote newspaper articles that you half remember reading three years ago as if it was solid evidence.

You pull facts and figures out of thin air, that are provably wrong.

And when someone presents evidence from the real world that doesn't jive with your theories, you either ignore it completely or refute it using, again, facts and figures that you can't be bothered to back up with third party evidence.

And then you have the gall to accuse other people of having an unfamiliarity with the facts? Who the hell are you?

I'm starting to think you're some sort of super-troll, sent here just to stir up (WORD DELETED TO MEET FORUM LANGUAGE CRITERIA).

[I Miss Trudeau]

The war in Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror, and very little to do with oil.

How exactly does it relate to the war on terror? Heck, even the Bush administration has given up on this lie. But you just can't let it go.

[Riverwind]

The war in Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror, and very little to do with oil. The US hasn't spent 200 billion dollars on Iraq. There haven't been 1700 troops lost. Any price paid in blood and treasure so far is cheap when compared to the inveitable benefits the Iraq invasion will bring to the world.

Perhaps a more useful rebuttal:

The war in Iraq was about American ego - not oil. The neo-cons in the Whitehouse wanted to make Saddam a poster boy for what happens to leaders that defy America. Back in 2003, I sort of agreed with their logic: IF the US could go into Iraq quickly, depose Saddam, set up a democratic govt and leave then the world would be a safer place because the other Saddam like dictators would know they could be next.

Unfortunately, due to a combination of factors (many of which were predicted by opponents to the war) the US is now stuck in a quagmire with its military over extended. Other dictators now know the US is a paper tiger that will not be able to muster the economic or political will to launch another strike for another generation - if ever again. Muslim radicals now hate the US even more than before and Iraq will likely distintigrate shortly after the US finally cuts it losses and runs.

The net result is the world is a much more dangerous place as a result of the Iraq war.

[BHS]

The war in Iraq was about American ego - not oil. The neo-cons in the Whitehouse wanted to make Saddam a poster boy for what happens to leaders that defy America. Back in 2003, I sort of agreed with their logic: IF the US could go into Iraq quickly, depose Saddam, set up a democratic govt and leave then the world would be a safer place because the other Saddam like dictators would know they could be next.

Good, good, I'm with you so far.

Unfortunately, due to a combination of factors (many of which were predicted by opponents to the war) the US is now stuck in a quagmire with its military over extended. Other dictators now know the US is a paper tiger that will not be able to muster the economic or political will to launch another strike for another generation - if ever again. Muslim radicals now hate the US even more than before and Iraq will likely distintigrate shortly after the US finally cuts it losses and runs.

The net result is the world is a much more dangerous place as a result of the Iraq war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dang. You had me at the first paragraph, but the you lost me.

"Paper tiger"? You've got to be kidding me. This is nonsense. The only response from other dictators of note: Qaddaffey duck relinquished his covert arms operation, Asshat pulled out of Lebanon, and Kim Jong Ill sang another verse of "I"m So Ronery" before heading back to the negotiating table. You should have stuck with you're 2003 line of thinking.

Any danger incurred for "the world" (but I thought we were safe because we're a bunch of pansy fence-sitting "soft power" advocates?) has more to do with our own coddling of foreign cultures that harbour an active animus to our own, than the Iraq invasion.

[Guest eureka]

BS, you are full of it. You bluster and attempt putdpwns that you are not yet schooled enough to carry off.

If you cannot understand LICO without nonsensical requests for "links" then you are a lost soul.

If you cannot grasp what the world - and the US constitution - says without asking for "links" then you are a lost brain.

Just forget it. I have no patience for your arrogance.

[BHS]

BS, you are full of it. You bluster and attempt putdpwns that you are not yet schooled enough to carry off.

If you cannot understand LICO without nonsensical requests for "links" then you are a lost soul.

If you cannot grasp what the world - and the US constitution - says without asking for "links" then you are a lost brain.

Just forget it. I have no patience for your arrogance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Every [DELETED] word of this applies to you, more than anyone else on this site. You are nothing but a annoying troll that has no place butting in to legitimate discussions. Stay the hell away from my posts.

[Riverwind]

"Paper tiger"? You've got to be kidding me. This is nonsense. The only response from other dictators of note: Qaddaffey duck relinquished his covert arms operation, Asshat pulled out of Lebanon, and Kim Jong Ill sang another verse of "I"m So Ronery" before heading back to the negotiating table.

Qaddaffey could be called a win but a minor one. Syria was a short lived victory since after the pull out, Lebanese elected pro-Syrian candidates in election. North Korea is still playing the same games and there is no sign of any real change. On the downside: any baby steps towards reform in Iran are gone, China and Russia are very happy about the precident set by the US that will allow them to crackdown on Taiwan and Chechneya. Al Qaeda now has the hearts and minds of larger segmant of the Muslim population.

Any danger incurred for "the world" (but I thought we were safe because we're a bunch of pansy fence-sitting "soft  power" advocates?) has more to do with our own coddling of foreign cultures that harbour an active animus to our own, than the Iraq invasion.

The 'home-grown' terrorists in England were likely pushed over the edge by the Iraq war. Many of the detainees in Guantanamo were not Al Qaeda when they were captured but will definitely join as soon as they are released. I don't understand the US logic: "its ok to stomp your boot in someone's face if you have noble objectives - if they get mad it is because they always hated me - my stomping on their face has nothing to do with their hatred."

[newbie]

The US hasn't spent 200 billion dollars on Iraq. There haven't been 1700 troops lost. Any price paid in blood and treasure so far is cheap when compared to the inveitable benefits the Iraq invasion will bring to the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure what news media you read or listen to, but I have to dispute your assertions. There have been over 1700 U.S. troop casualites in Iraq:

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm

and the costs of the war will most certainly reach 200 billion + if they haven't already:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/issues/m...highcost/us.pdf

As I recall I don't think there were a lot of suicide bombers in Iraq prior to the US invasion, nor much terriorist activity. All indications were that Saddam had little or nothing to do with Osama and his organization (I'm sure I can find a link if you require it). The world is definitely not as safe as before 911. The invasion created, IMO, a mass movement from a small organization. London's home grown terriorists prove the point.

[BHS]

Qaddaffey could be called a win but a minor one. Syria was a short lived victory since after the pull out, Lebanese elected pro-Syrian candidates in election. North Korea is still playing the same games and there is no sign of any real change. On the downside: any baby steps towards reform in Iran are gone, China and Russia are very happy about the precident set by the US that will allow them to crackdown on Taiwan and Chechneya. Al Qaeda now has the hearts and minds of larger segmant of the Muslim population.

Southern Lebanon elected pro-Syrian candidates, Northern Lebanon elected anti-Syrian candidates. Which makes sense, since Southern Lebanon is more or less owned by Hezbollah, which has deep ties to the Syrian Baathists.

Okay, truce then about North Korea - neither of us will claim anything that Kim does to bolster our arguments. He's an isolated wacko anyway.

The "reformers" in the previous Iranian government were serious about reform the same way that Joe Clark was serious about conservatism. The only progress towards a free society that has been made in Iran since the revolution has been among the student unionists, Iran's own Solidarity movement. And they haven't gone anywhere.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Russia already in Chechnya before 911? Wasn't China threatening Taiwan throughout the bulk of the 20th century? If these situations have been made worse by the Iraq invasion, I haven't heard anything about it.

Sitting on the fence while Bosnia burned did more to disaffect European Muslims than anything that has happened since the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. Their hearts and minds were already turned away from us. The perception that America has Imperial intentions in the Middle East doesn't help for the time being (I will grant you) but that situation will slowly change over time as the Iraq situation improves and democratic notions spread throughout the Middle East.

The 'home-grown' terrorists in England were likely pushed over the edge by the Iraq war. Many of the detainees in Guantanamo  were not Al Qaeda when they were captured but will definitely join as soon as they are released. I don't understand the US logic: "its ok to stomp your boot in someone's face if you have noble objectives - if they get mad it is because they always hated me - my stomping on their face has nothing to do with their hatred."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I said above, Srebrenica was a more decisive event for British muslims than any part of the Iraq invasion was.

All of the detainees sent to Guantanamo, who are still in Guantanamo today, are hard core Al Qaeda. The rest have already been released. We'll see if they end up blowing targets up. If they do, do you think that helps the argument that Guantanamo should be closed and the rest of them released as well?

I'm sure that the Americans are happy with the notion that Al Qaeda guys hate them, and acknowledge fully that a large part of that has to do with America's recent actions. As for applying the same emotional state across the Muslim world, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Too many mental images of smiling Iraqis with purple ink on their fingers must be clouding my judgement.

[BHS]

Not sure what news media you read or listen to, but I have to dispute your assertions. There have been over  1700 U.S. troop  casualites in Iraq:

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm

and the costs of the war will most certainly reach 200 billion + if they haven't already:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/issues/m...highcost/us.pdf

As I recall I don't think there were a lot of suicide bombers in Iraq prior to the US invasion, nor much terriorist activity. All indications were that Saddam had little or nothing to do with Osama and his organization (I'm sure I can find a link if you require it).  The world is definitely not as safe as before 911. The invasion created, IMO, a mass movement from a small organization. London's home grown terriorists prove the point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But the numbers weren't exactly 1700 or $200B, right? I was just dicking around, as I said in that post.

There weren't a lot of suicide bombers in Iraq before the war because there wasn't a lot of freedom in Iraq before the war. Suicide bombers rely on freedom of movement and a modicum of privacy in order to carry out their attacks. They rely on our humanity when their identities are discovered, where Saddam would have wiped out entire extended families. We could completely eliminate the threat of suicide bombing in the West as well, if we were willing to chuck civil liberties and common decency right out the window. But we aren't willing, and so we remain vulnerable.

[mirror]

Now that we have proven that Bush's policies have drastically failed, what can we do collectively to create a solution when the UN's policies will succeed. I think the biggest impediment to world peace, reducing terrorism, etc. is the lack of support the US gives to the United Nations. I wish there was some way to make Americans realize that it is in their best interest to work as a global community. I know there is no hope for such a possibility with the present White House crowd, but perhaps if we haven't done too much damge by 2008, we might be able to start turning things around.

[BHS]

Newbie:

By the way, linking to Antiwar.com isn't going to get you anywhere with me. I don't even follow those links any more. I don't trust a single number they post. Try finding a more reliable and neutral source in the MSM or even the UN.

[mirror]

BHS

Please stop. If you disagree with those stats which happen to be correct by the way, offer up your own figures with URLs to back them up. Otherwise just go away. You are just being argumentative with no substance to the points you are trying to make.

[BHS]

Now that we have proven that Bush's policies have drastically failed, what can we do collectively to create a solution when the UN's policies will succeed. I think the biggest impediment to world peace, reducing terrorism, etc. is the lack of support the US gives to the United Nations. I wish there was some way to make Americans realize that it is in their best interest to work as a global community. I know there is no hope for such a possibility with the present White House crowd, but perhaps if we haven't done too much damge by 2008, we might be able to start turning things around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay. Let's put the UN's ability to act in a beneficial manner to the test. The Americans, in the face of hostility from France and likeminded "allies", has been reticent to get involved in Darfur yet - let's see how the UN proceeds to rectify the situation. Maybe while they're in the neighbourhood they can have a little chat with Mugabe about throwing poor people into the streets and starving political opponents.

PS - What to do about North Korea? Kim has already made it clear he won't deal with anyone but the Americans. How should that scenario proceed?

[newbie]

Well, I just figured it was common knowledge re the death toll of American troops in Iraq. But to be proper how about this link from the U.S. Department of Defence:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

[BHS]

BHS

Please stop. If you disagree with those stats which happen to be correct by the way, offer up your own figures with URLs to back them up. Otherwise just go away. You are just being argumentative with no substance to the points you are trying to make.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So how come you don't comment on about [OTHER MEMBER NOT NAMED, BUT (S)HE NEVER LINKS TO ANYTHING]'s crap like this? Ninety percent of the posts on this forum aren't backed up with URLs, and half of the ones that are use outside information that is unreliable and frequently wrong.

If that's the way it's got to be, then fine. Your posts get linkrich replies from now on. But I expect the same from you. And do make an effort to quote someone who isn't a partisan nutcase every once in a while, kay?

[BHS]

Well, I just figured it was common knowledge re the death toll of American troops in Iraq. But to be proper how about this link from the U.S. Department of Defence:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, I wasn't really disputing your figures. I was just plowing ahead with random gibberish as a way of flattering some other members, by way of imitation.