Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[mirror]

Who knows what people will do in times of war? Maybe something went wrong, maybe it was a mistake, just like when US missiles go off course and kill innocent civilians. All violence does is create more violence. I thought we would have learned that by now. Too bad the US didn't listen to Canada and other nations when we said there is a UN for this kind of situation. Now the US is paying a huge price with close to 2,000 of their own troops dead, and probably over 100,000 Iraqi dead as well. What a wonderful Bush administration legacy.

[cybercoma]

The occupying forces in Iraq should be held responsible for the suicide attacks on UK and US soil.

If some country were to invade Canada, there would resistance in many different forms, and people would die. Of course it would be the invaders that would resposible for the Canadian deaths, civilian and otherwise. So why is it so hard for people to accept the fact that it is the US & UK that are responsible for all the deaths in the Iraq?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because when Mexico and Brazil invade Canada and your neighbour straps a bomb to his chest and blows himself up on the bus you took to work, it's your stupid moron of a neighbour who is to blame, not Mexico and Brazil.

[cybercoma]

I suppose killing, raping and torturing your own citizens isn't a breakdown in civil order.

Technically no, as those occurances were part of the civil order under Saddam.

Note that atrocities under Saddam, horrific as they unquestionably were, were limited primarily to the regime's political oppossition. Under the current set of circumstances, violence, daeth and destruction are far more indiscriminate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So killing innocent people is reprehensible unless they oppose you (oh it was horrific but understandable)? The children who just happened to be hanging around when the kurds were gassed were ok to kill, well not ok but understandable? Ok, maybe that's ancient history and the US didn't actually do anything about that when it first happened. Saddam capturing people and murdering innocent people who disagreed with his government was ok because they're opposition? Even the ones that just disagreed with his state funded industries and wanted nothing more than freedom?

The current set of indiscriminate death and destruction are not very indiscriminate at all when you take a minute to look at it. I'll assume you're not talking about the United States killing civilians because the argument falls flat considering they don't intentionally target civilians. You must be talking about these insurgents that think they can get their point across that they oppose the United States occupation by blowing themselves up in hospitals and police stations.

The way I look at it, they're just opposing the current regime and apparently that's not quite as bad, in fact it's even understandable as to why they're doing it.

Quite frankly, purposely targeting civilians and killing them to get a political point across whether you're Saddam Hussein, his sons, brainwashed terrorist assholes, political activists fighting for soveriegnty, the United States fighting for freedom, or whatever other stupid crackpot idea anyone can come up with is WRONG.

Well, unless they bring civil order. Rape, murder and torture are ok if it brings order to a society. Can't wait until they start implementing that over here against those who oppose the government.

[Black Dog]

Because when Mexico and Brazil invade Canada and your neighbour straps a bomb to his chest and blows himself up on the bus you took to work, it's your stupid moron of a neighbour who is to blame, not Mexico and Brazil.

Putting aside the fact that Iraqis don't seem to be behind the majority of suicide attacks (the U.S.blames an influx of Saudi and North African jihadis for 90 per cent of such attacks) we can accept that responsibility for such attacks ultimately rests with the individual committing the act. HOWEVER, the responsibility for maintaining civil order (and for preventing things like suicide attacks) rests with the U.S. military, which therefore is indirectly responsible for such events. Obviously, they cannot stop every attacker, just as the police here cannot prevent every crime. But even the most cursory look at the U.S.'s management of the occupation makes it abuntantly clear that their failure to establish a secure environment facilitated the rise of terrorist attacks. It's the crucial distinction between "fault" or "blame" and "responsibility".

So killing innocent people is reprehensible unless they oppose you (oh it was horrific but understandable)? The children who just happened to be hanging around when the kurds were gassed were ok to kill, well not ok but understandable? Ok, maybe that's ancient history and the US didn't actually do anything about that when it first happened. Saddam capturing people and murdering innocent people who disagreed with his government was ok because they're opposition? Even the ones that just disagreed with his state funded industries and wanted nothing more than freedom?

If you would take a breath from all your ranting, you'd note that nowhere did I say saddam's crimes were "understandable", "ok", or justifiable. Only that they did not constitute a breakdown of social order. If anything, society under Saddam was very highly ordered (authoritarian society's tend to be).

[mirror]

The occupying forces in Iraq should be held responsible for the suicide attacks on UK and US soil.

If some country were to invade Canada, there would resistance in many different forms, and people would die. Of course it would be the invaders that would resposible for the Canadian deaths, civilian and otherwise. So why is it so hard for people to accept the fact that it is the US & UK that are responsible for all the deaths in the Iraq?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because when Mexico and Brazil invade Canada and your neighbour straps a bomb to his chest and blows himself up on the bus you took to work, it's your stupid moron of a neighbour who is to blame, not Mexico and Brazil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh really! So if Mexico and Brazil had never invaded your neighbour would be doing that on his own. How ridiculous a statement to make. Kneejerk reactions or responses are useless and only make matters worse. You have to get at the root of the problem to fix it, not some superficial quick fix that actually fixes nothing but only makes matters worse. The root of the problem for the discussion in this case is limited thinking abilities of people who can't see that it is the occupation that drives the suicide bombers.

[cybercoma]

Because when Mexico and Brazil invade Canada and your neighbour straps a bomb to his chest and blows himself up on the bus you took to work, it's your stupid moron of a neighbour who is to blame, not Mexico and Brazil.

Putting aside the fact that Iraqis don't seem to be behind the majority of suicide attacks (the U.S.blames an influx of Saudi and North African jihadis for 90 per cent of such attacks) we can accept that responsibility for such attacks ultimately rests with the individual committing the act. HOWEVER, the responsibility for maintaining civil order (and for preventing things like suicide attacks) rests with the U.S. military, which therefore is indirectly responsible for such events. Obviously, they cannot stop every attacker, just as the police here cannot prevent every crime. But even the most cursory look at the U.S.'s management of the occupation makes it abuntantly clear that their failure to establish a secure environment facilitated the rise of terrorist attacks. It's the crucial distinction between "fault" or "blame" and "responsibility".

Man, even Israel can't stop suicide bombers and they've been dealing with them for decades. To demand that the United States prevent even the majority of suicide attacks is completely ludicrous. They've setup an Iraqi government, military and police service. Really, they've done all they can to prevent such things from happening. But as has been shown in Israel, it'is damn near impossible to stop.

So killing innocent people is reprehensible unless they oppose you (oh it was horrific but understandable)? The children who just happened to be hanging around when the kurds were gassed were ok to kill, well not ok but understandable? Ok, maybe that's ancient history and the US didn't actually do anything about that when it first happened. Saddam capturing people and murdering innocent people who disagreed with his government was ok because they're opposition? Even the ones that just disagreed with his state funded industries and wanted nothing more than freedom?

If you would take a breath from all your ranting, you'd note that nowhere did I say saddam's crimes were "understandable", "ok", or justifiable. Only that they did not constitute a breakdown of social order. If anything, society under Saddam was very highly ordered (authoritarian society's tend to be).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, there was a lot of social order and just as much death and killing. So what are we debating here, simply that there was order in his society?

Or are we arguing that the death of innocent civilians is wrong and that those running the country are responsible for ensuring that doesn't happen?

If the government just kills all the opposition, is that actual order? Do you suggest the United States use those sort of tactics?

[cybercoma]

Oh really! So if Mexico and Brazil had never invaded your neighbour would be doing that on his own. How ridiculous a statement to make. Kneejerk reactions or responses are useless and only make matters worse. You have to get at the root of the problem to fix it, not some superficial quick fix that actually fixes nothing but only makes matters worse. The root of the problem for the discussion in this case is limited thinking abilities of people who can't see that it is the occupation that drives the suicide bombers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People have been blowing themsevles up on buses long before Iraq was invaded. The root of the problem is that these people have no problem murdering civilians to try and get their political points across. These kinds of tactics should never be humoured by politicians anywhere. Their demands should continue to fall on deaf ears, so this behaviour doesn't become the norm for idiotic fanatics trying to get what they want.

If you think it's bad now, imagine how bad it would be if they realized it worked to get them their demands.

[mirror]

If you think it's bad now, imagine how bad it would be if they realized it worked to get them their demands.

What are their demands? That the US leave Iraq. A reasonable demand IMO.

[cybercoma]

If you think it's bad now, imagine how bad it would be if they realized it worked to get them their demands.

What are their demands? That the US leave Iraq. A reasonable demand IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reasonable? So the religious fanatic zealots can work their way in and take over the country? Not such a good idea, imho.

[Black Dog]

Man, even Israel can't stop suicide bombers and they've been dealing with them for decades. To demand that the United States prevent even the majority of suicide attacks is completely ludicrous. They've setup an Iraqi government, military and police service. Really, they've done all they can to prevent such things from happening. But as has been shown in Israel, it'is damn near impossible to stop.

Nonsense. The summary dismissal of Saddam's former army and security forces not only created a security vacumn, but sowed the seeds of the insurgency. The number of troops put on the ground, while sufficient for a military victiory, were and are not sufficient for ensuring a stable environemnt. As the insurgency has progressed, U.S. forces have been pushed into force protection mode, ensconced in fortified areas and only venturing out for patrols and combat operations. They have done a shoddy job of winning Iraqis over. Their prescene and tactics tend to lead to escalations in violence, not the deescalation required to ensure security. I could go on, but by no means can it be said that the U.S. has "done all it can" to safeguard Iraqis.

Here's an article that details some of the methodological shortcomings of the way the U.S. has conducted security:

Doing it right

ust as having soldiers who want to fight is important in Second and Third Generation war, so not wanting to fight is key to success in the Fourth Generation. Any fight, whether won or lost, ultimately works against an outside power that is trying to damp down a Fourth Generation conflict. Fighting ramps up disorder, and Fourth Generation entities thrive on disorder. Disorder undermines the local government’s legitimacy, because disorder proves that government cannot provide security. Fighting usually means that locals get killed, and when that happens, the relatives and friends of the casualties are then obliged to join the fight to get revenge. Violence escalates, when success requires de-escalation.

You're right, there was a lot of social order and just as much death and killing. So what are we debating here, simply that there was order in his society?

Apparently, since that was the point you initially disputed when you said:

I suppose killing, raping and torturing your own citizens isn't a breakdown in civil order.

Or are we arguing that the death of innocent civilians is wrong and that those running the country are responsible for ensuring that doesn't happen?

Those conclusions are pretty much self-evident, so where's the argument?

the argument is whether or not conditions post-Saddam are less ordered than conditions under his regime. My point is that life under Saddam was nasty, oppressive and oftentimes brutal, yet society as a whole was still able to function, unlike the chaos that has marked the post-Ba'ath era.

A major study by the UN and Iraqi officials found that life in Iraq has decayed significantly since foreign forces invaded, following a general trend seen in most sectors since the imposition of a global embargo in 1990.

If the government just kills all the opposition, is that actual order?

That point could be argued I suppose, but I don't really know what relevance it has.

Do you suggest the United States use those sort of tactics?

Don't give 'em any ideas.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."George W. Bush, Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000

[mirror]

Here is an article that suggests Canada is going to be hit probably sooner rather than later. The terrorists seem to be winning this psychlogical war as Canada has already spent over 10 billion on security since 9/11 so unfortunately we will have to forgo all those tax cuts people keep clammering for. Now you can't blame the government for not making tax cuts as they have spent all the money on security. Which would you prefer?

'We are not immune'

[vslayer]

http://www.jihadunspun.com/newsarchive/art...hive/index.php&

there is my source for the 128000 deaths

[GostHacked]

Here is an article that suggests Canada is going to be hit probably sooner rather than later. The terrorists seem to be winning this psychlogical war as Canada has already spent over 10 billion on security since 9/11 so unfortunately we will have to forgo all those tax cuts people keep clammering for. Now you can't blame the government for not making tax cuts as they have spent all the money on security. Which would you prefer?

'We are not immune'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't like the way this is being presented. What we need is LESS fear not more. These articles just add to the problem. Making us all fear what may or may not happen. It is good to be prepared and aware that we could be a target. But let's not let it rule our daily lives. We can't run around all paranoid like those south of the 49th. Don't let it change your daily activities. One you do that, the terrorists have already won. I am glad the Canadian media is

I live downtown Ottawa only 4 blocks from the big US Embassy, which could be just as much of a target as the rest of Canada. I would actually suspect this place would be the first place attacked in Canada. I am aware that we COULD be a target, but that will not make change my daily routine at all.

[cybercoma]

I don't like the way this is being presented. What we need is LESS fear not more. These articles just add to the problem. Making us all fear what may or may not happen. It is good to be prepared and aware that we could be a target. But let's not let it rule our daily lives. We can't run around all paranoid like those south of the 49th. Don't let it change your daily activities. One you do that, the terrorists have already won. I am glad the Canadian media is

I live downtown Ottawa only 4 blocks from the big US Embassy, which could be just as much of a target as the rest of Canada. I would actually suspect this place would be the first place attacked in Canada. I am aware that we COULD be a target, but that will not make change my daily routine at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ever since 9/11 it has been non-stop in The Windsor Star about the Ambassador Bridge being attacked. It would literally destroy trade between Canada and the United States. It would probably cripple our economy. They've been yammering on about this for 4 years now and honestly, I'm sick of hearing about it.

It's good that we've tightened security since 9/11, something the government should've been doing all along instead of reacting to the deaths of 3000 people.

[mirror]

I don't like the way this is being presented. What we need is LESS fear not more. These articles just add to the problem. Making us all fear what may or may not happen. It is good to be prepared and aware that we could be a target. But let's not let it rule our daily lives. We can't run around all paranoid like those south of the 49th. Don't let it change your daily activities. One you do that, the terrorists have already won. I am glad the Canadian media is

I live downtown Ottawa only 4 blocks from the big US Embassy, which could be just as much of a target as the rest of Canada. I would actually suspect this place would be the first place attacked in Canada. I am aware that we COULD be a target, but that will not make change my daily routine at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ever since 9/11 it has been non-stop in The Windsor Star about the Ambassador Bridge being attacked. It would literally destroy trade between Canada and the United States. It would probably cripple our economy. They've been yammering on about this for 4 years now and honestly, I'm sick of hearing about it.

It's good that we've tightened security since 9/11, something the government should've been doing all along instead of reacting to the deaths of 3000 people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where are the border crossings? On either side of the bridge or both on one side of the bridge? I forget.

[cybercoma]

I don't like the way this is being presented. What we need is LESS fear not more. These articles just add to the problem. Making us all fear what may or may not happen. It is good to be prepared and aware that we could be a target. But let's not let it rule our daily lives. We can't run around all paranoid like those south of the 49th. Don't let it change your daily activities. One you do that, the terrorists have already won. I am glad the Canadian media is

I live downtown Ottawa only 4 blocks from the big US Embassy, which could be just as much of a target as the rest of Canada. I would actually suspect this place would be the first place attacked in Canada. I am aware that we COULD be a target, but that will not make change my daily routine at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ever since 9/11 it has been non-stop in The Windsor Star about the Ambassador Bridge being attacked. It would literally destroy trade between Canada and the United States. It would probably cripple our economy. They've been yammering on about this for 4 years now and honestly, I'm sick of hearing about it.

It's good that we've tightened security since 9/11, something the government should've been doing all along instead of reacting to the deaths of 3000 people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where are the border crossings? On either side of the bridge or both on one side of the bridge? I forget.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pay toll, drive across, interview with customs.

[mirror]

So you are saying the border crossings are on either side of the bridge.

I suppose then that the border guards on either side of the bridge gets to check the traffic before it crosses. But there is no way that everything could be checked and it wouldn't just be enough to check the people. What if someone has a bomb in a vehicle but controls it by remote and blows it when the vehicle is in the middle of the bridge. It could take the bridge down and all the people on the bridge as well. You don't even need a suicide bomber for that.

[cybercoma]

So you are saying the border crossings are on either side of the bridge.

I suppose then that the border guards on either side of the bridge gets to check the traffic before it crosses. But there is no way that everything could be checked and it wouldn't just be enough to check the people. What if someone has a bomb in a vehicle but controls it by remote and blows it when the vehicle is in the middle of the bridge. It could take the bridge down and all the people on the bridge as well. You don't even need a suicide bomber for that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the vehicle is checked after crossing the bridge. The problem is the logistics of having US customs officers carrying out their duties on Canadian soil. The United States customs officers carry firearms and our government refuses to allow our customs officers to carry guns. The United States will not station customs officers over here if they cannot carry their guns.

This is just one of the many problems. Anyway, you drop your toll in the booth (sometimes there's a customs officer in there, not always), you drive over the bridge, then you get interviewed by customs as you're entering the country you're headed to. This works both ways.

It's the same at the tunnel.

[Guest eureka]

No "troll" would go near your "posts." You are a stone-headed gargoyle with an ego that needs to be taken down many pegs.

You have been nothing but a damned nuisance since you started posting with your insults and posturing in response to many posters.

Why don't you take your "opinions" back to your schoolyard. Your debating style suggests that you have not long left there.

[cybercoma]

No "troll" would go near your "posts." You are a stone-headed gargoyle with an ego that needs to be taken down many pegs.

You have been nothing but a damned nuisance since you started posting with your insults and posturing in response to many posters.

Why don't you take your "opinions" back to your schoolyard. Your debating style suggests that you have not long left there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With whom are you avoiding the discussion and just tossing around personal insults, while simultaneously denouncing them?

[Guest eureka]

I am avoiding discussion with no one. I am responding to the self-important creature who called me a troll and has made snide remarks in other posts since.

[I Miss Trudeau]

You have been nothing but a damned nuisance since you started posting with your insults and posturing in response to many posters.

The feeding of trolls is strictly prohibited.

[cybercoma]

I am avoiding discussion with no one. I am responding to the self-important creature who called me a troll and has made snide remarks in other posts since.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose they have a Private Message function for this very purpose.

[BHS]

I suppose they have a Private Message function for this very purpose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Goodness gracious, don't get him sending PMs my way.

[BHS]

That's a ridiculous standard to hold the occupying authority to. We don't even hold our own government to such a standard. That's comparable to holding the Government of Canada responsible for homicides (or even deaths from drunk driving) by failing to uphold law and order.

The two situations (military occupation by a foreign power versus civil governance) are simply not analagous. The U.S. invasion precipitated the breakdown of the civil order in Iraq, therefore it is the occupiers' responsibility under international law (and their own standards) to uphold civil order. By summarily dismissing the entire Iraqi army, police, and security forces shortly after the war (without a back-up plan for maintaining order), the U.S. S. created the conditions for increased crime and lawlessness. Furthermore (as evidenced by the flurry of post-Saddam looting) the U.S. failed to fulfill its obligation to maintain public order.

The only way your analogy would work is if the government of Canada first disbanded the RCMP, instituted mrtial law, but neglected to intercede in the resulting civil strife.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse the lateness of my reply. Just something I'd like to add to the thread based on the above quote.

By your logic, the best course of action for minimizing American responsiblility for deaths in Iraq would have been for them to pull out immediately after major combat operations had ceased, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves.