Why isn't Canada helping to promote civil war?

[gerryhatrick]

1.2 billion people who apparently have nothing bad to say about the violence and terrorism being committed in the name of islam. where are the clerics speaking out my friend?

When I read comments like yours it makes me wonder if it's real ignorance or willfully done. Are you ignorant, or do you just dislike Muslims so you take pleasure in your dishonest slander?

Just wondering.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry,

Argus's statements are pure facts, not opinions. The Americans are keeping Iraq sane, this link (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/NEWS07/603030355/1009) proves most of the violence is being committed kills Iraqis, and the U.S. is democratizing Iraq and killing mostly terrorists, not Iraqis.

Well, Argus did not say anything that your link is relevant to. I think you missed something there, but don't worry about it.

I will address the meat of your post...your link:

The majority of attacks are against coalition forces. That is the point I made.

I said the VAST MAJORITY of the violence is against US troops.

Your link points out that the civilian toll is higher than military, but if civilians are getting killed by roadside bombs which are targetting US convoys, that is still violence against US troops.

And to put this in context of the topic for you, it goes back to the point that if the Americans leave the violence will drop.

[JerrySeinfeld]

1.2 billion people who apparently have nothing bad to say about the violence and terrorism being committed in the name of islam. where are the clerics speaking out my friend?

When I read comments like yours it makes me wonder if it's real ignorance or willfully done. Are you ignorant, or do you just dislike Muslims so you take pleasure in your dishonest slander?

Just wondering.

please. instead of attacking the person ad-hominem, i'd like to see examples of muslim clerics and "non-militant muslims" speaking out against islamic terrorism. if terrorism is not representative of "the msjority of muslims" - please show me documented examples of muslims speaking out against terrorism.

stick to the facts.

[gerryhatrick]

please. instead of attacking the person ad-hominem, i'd like to see examples of muslim clerics and "non-militant muslims" speaking out against islamic terrorism. if terrorism is not representative of "the msjority of muslims" - please show me documented examples of muslims speaking out against terrorism.

stick to the facts.

No, I think ad hom works very well in your case.

I understand your game. I've seen it over and over. You claim you haven't seen examples of Muslims speaking against terrorism and violence, and therefore it must not be happening (because OF COURSE you're plugged in)

It's anti-Muslim garbage, nothing less.

There are many examples, but I will not go find them for you. I've played that game with Muslim haters before, and won't be played again.

Now, let me guess your response. I won't provide the examples you demand because they aren't available. See, told you I've seen your anti-Muslim crap before.

[JerrySeinfeld]

please. instead of attacking the person ad-hominem, i'd like to see examples of muslim clerics and "non-militant muslims" speaking out against islamic terrorism. if terrorism is not representative of "the msjority of muslims" - please show me documented examples of muslims speaking out against terrorism.

stick to the facts.

No, I think ad hom works very well in your case.

I understand your game. I've seen it over and over. You claim you haven't seen examples of Muslims speaking against terrorism and violence, and therefore it must not be happening (because OF COURSE you're plugged in)

It's anti-Muslim garbage, nothing less.

There are many examples, but I will not go find them for you. I've played that game with Muslim haters before, and won't be played again.

Now, let me guess your response. I won't provide the examples you demand because they aren't available. See, told you I've seen your anti-Muslim crap before.

And yet you continue with ad hom.

I await logic and facts.

[BubberMiley]

I said the VAST MAJORITY of the violence is against US troops.

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has 2300 dead troops. The Iraqi dead are between 30,000 (Bush's estimate) to over 100,000 (everybody else's estimate). So even by Bush's skewed numbers, that's 10 times more violence.

[geoffrey]

I said the VAST MAJORITY of the violence is against US troops.

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has 2300 dead troops. The Iraqi dead are between 30,000 (Bush's estimate) to over 100,000 (everybody else's estimate). So even by Bush's skewed numbers, that's 10 times more violence.

Your right. More Iraqi's have died. Also when you quote that number though, be sure to not be misleading and explain that this also includes insurgents and terrorists killed in combat. That isn't the innocent population number.

[BubberMiley]

From

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Iraq_war.php

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by U.S.-led coalition forces has been responsible for the death of at least 150,000 civilians (not including certain of Iraq), reveals a compilitation of scientific studies and corroborated eyewitness testimonies.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, documents a well-researched study, that had been released by The Lancet Medical Journal.

The report in the British journal is based on the work of teams from the Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the U.S., and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.

The figure of 100,000 had been based on somewhat "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, U.S., who led the study.

That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the compiled studies point to about 250,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of the U.S.-led war.

[geoffrey]

How many Iraqi's have been killed by insurgents though? I would hesitate to say that all deaths above the normal rate are the responsibility of the US.

[BubberMiley]

Oh, I'm sure they weren't directly responsible for all of them, but whose invasion started the insurgency?

[geoffrey]

Oh, I'm sure they weren't directly responsible for all of them, but whose invasion started the insurgency?

I call bullshit.

It's our fault that terrorists kill people? I don't think so.

Terrorists started the insurgency. Religious freaks started the insurgency. American's did not star the insurgency.

They chose to be insurgents. They chose to be against freedom. They chose to kill their countrymen, mostly innocent everyday. They kill their police officers. They bomb polling stations. All by their choice. No American said go out and kill and overthrow all the work we've done!

Stop sympathizing with these disgusting excuses for humans.

[Riverwind]

It's our fault that terrorists kill people? I don't think so.

Most governments will refuse the negotiate with hostage takers. The rational is giving into hostage takers simply encourages them to take more hostages - this is sound logic.

Terrorists bombers are like hostage takers because the are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people in order to get something from a government that they oppose. However, unlike the hostage takers, bombers are not looking for specific concessions or money. What they want to do is provoke an over-reaction from their enemy that will turn more their own people against the enemy.

The invasion of the Iraq was a gross over-reaction to the 9-11 attacks and has caused exactly the reaction in the Arab world that Al Qaeda wanted. More Arabs hate the US now than did before the 9-11 attacks. There are more people willing to sacrifice them now in suicide bombings because of the invasion of Iraq.

However, that does not mean the US is directly responsible for deaths caused by terrorists. OTOH, the US cannot claim to be the innocent victim either. The US is like a government that gave into the demands of one set of hostage takers and now has to deal with hundreds of similar incidents.

[geoffrey]

Terrorists bombers are like hostage takers because the are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people in order to get something from a government that they oppose. However, unlike the hostage takers, bombers are not looking for specific concessions or money. What they want to do is provoke an over-reaction from their enemy that will turn more their own people against the enemy.

Do you feel that Afghanistan was an over-reaction?

I still don't think you can blame the US for terrorists actions. It may be the reason that these terrorists do what they do, their hatred of the west for whatever grievences they may have. But it doesn't change that at the end of the day, these people aren't rational or reasonable, and are completely responsible for their choice to murder.

The invasion of the Iraq was a gross over-reaction to the 9-11 attacks and has caused exactly the reaction in the Arab world that Al Qaeda wanted. More Arabs hate the US now than did before the 9-11 attacks. There are more people willing to sacrifice them now in suicide bombings because of the invasion of Iraq.

Lets assume for a moment that the Iraq war was justified by whatever means. Even if it pissed of the Arabs, does it mean we shouldn't have conducted that war? Should we try to appease people and make them happy, even if it means people suffer?

Now I know there is lots of debate whether the Iraq war has improved human rights and stuff like that. But would a war be not only justified, but morally required, in a situation where it would make 30% of the world extremely upset, but liberate a few million people?

From the ol' wise, yet semi-crazy, Jimmy Carter "If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest common denominator of human achievement. "

However, that does not mean the US is directly responsible for deaths caused by terrorists. OTOH, the US cannot claim to be the innocent victim either. The US is like a government that gave into the demands of one set of hostage takers and now has to deal with hundreds of similar incidents.

Hold on here. I would agree with you to some extent that the US isn't an innocent victim. But the choice of innocent civilians as targets does require some action and condemnation. If the terrorists were attacking government and military targets, I would agree that, well, thats a consequence of war. But the fact that they purposely target civilians... Iraqi citizens too... eliminates this reasoning in my mind.

Do you think appeasement or in your terms, non-appeasement of these terrorists will end terrorism? Or at least slow it?

I don't think so. These terrorists have been so brainwashed by both religion and politics in an anti-Western, anti-American viewpoint, that the only way they can exist safely with society is either dead or behind bars. The US pulling out of Iraq and leaving the middle-East alone forever now won't end terrorism, these people will hate until the last day of their life.

Terrorism is such a difficult enemy and scourge to combat, for many of the reasons you've stated. We can be too weak, ignore the attacks, and just hope and pray that it doesn't happen again. Or we can be too harsh, and take measures too far. It's a very tough balance, I'd slightly want to side with the US in their methods of dealing with this than your suggestion that any action encourages further violence. But I'm still uncomfortable with many actions of the US since 9-11 as well.

It's a tough one, I'll agree to that.

[margrace]

Hold on here, when this invasion was planned, I was one among many who predicted that the US was getting into another Vietnam type war. For this I was severely castigated, I didn't know what I was talking about. However now how long has this war been going on?

In world war one the allies, not including the US, slugged it out for three years before the US deigned to join the war, it lasted one more year. Claims the US, we won the war. In the second world war we fought for 2 years before they decided that we might win and so they joined. The war ended in three years, the US won the war.

So they decided that, great conquerors that they are that they would go into Korea. They were chased out of Korea and left a terrible mess behind them. Then, not learning from that, we have Vietnam, what a mess that was, once more they were chased out.

So how can anyone in the world have any faith in the great US.

[BubberMiley]

Oh, I'm sure they weren't directly responsible for all of them, but whose invasion started the insurgency?

I call bullshit.

It's our fault that terrorists kill people? I don't think so.

Terrorists started the insurgency. Religious freaks started the insurgency. American's did not star the insurgency.

They chose to be insurgents. They chose to be against freedom. They chose to kill their countrymen, mostly innocent everyday. They kill their police officers. They bomb polling stations. All by their choice. No American said go out and kill and overthrow all the work we've done!

Stop sympathizing with these disgusting excuses for humans.

The U.S. was well aware there would be an insurgency when they invaded. I'm not sympathizing with the insurgency for saying that. I'm just saying the U.S. knew the consequences of their actions and chose to proceed because there was a lot of money in it for Halliburton.

[Riverwind]

Do you feel that Afghanistan was an over-reaction?

No - but neither did most Muslims. Al Qaeda is not all powerful. They hoped that the invasion of Afghanistan would provoke Muslims but it unlikely that Afghanistan alone would have caused that effect since there was such a clear connection between the 9-11 attacks and that country.

Fortunately for Al Queda, they were able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat when Bush invaded Iraq.

Lets assume for a moment that the Iraq war was justified by whatever means. Even if it pissed of the Arabs, does it mean we shouldn't have conducted that war? Should we try to appease people and make them happy, even if it means people suffer?

If the war in Iraq was justified then you would have seen a different reaction from Muslim populations. The response to the first Gulf War was not nearly as hostile for exactly that reason: Muslims recognized that Saddam was in the wrong in that situation.

Do you think appeasement or in your terms, non-appeasement of these terrorists will end terrorism? Or at least slow it?

I think terrorism would wither away if it was treated as a 'police' problem and not a military one. Terrorists feed off fear and the rhetoric about the 'war on terror' feeds that fear. The worst thing you can do to terrorists is ignore them and treat them like an annoying insect.

[Wilber]

Hold on here, when this invasion was planned, I was one among many who predicted that the US was getting into another Vietnam type war. For this I was severely castigated, I didn't know what I was talking about. However now how long has this war been going on?

In world war one the allies, not including the US, slugged it out for three years before the US deigned to join the war, it lasted one more year. Claims the US, we won the war. In the second world war we fought for 2 years before they decided that we might win and so they joined. The war ended in three years, the US won the war.

So they decided that, great conquerors that they are that they would go into Korea. They were chased out of Korea and left a terrible mess behind them. Then, not learning from that, we have Vietnam, what a mess that was, once more they were chased out.

So how can anyone in the world have any faith in the great US.

Wow, what did the Americans do to you?

WW1

The US did join a little late but it wasn't really their war. WW1 was a European civil war between a bunch of colonial powers and Continental empires. Canada as part of the British Empire had no choice, we were in at the beginning whether we liked it or not. No, the US did not win the war but their addition of a million or so fresh troops to an exhausted allied force was the reason it ended in the fall of 1918. In their short time there 126,000 of them managed to get killed compared to 66,000 Canadians for the whole war. Canada certainly lost far more as a percentage of our population but 126,000 is not a number to be sneezed at.

WW2

While the Empire and China did occupy a substantial portion of the Japanese army, it was the Americans who destroyed their navy, air force, their ability to wage war and took the war to Japan itself. Yes, the Americans did win the war in the Pacific.

In Europe, their material help before they entered the war was substantial. The US navy was also escorting allied ships before they entered the war. They couldn't admit it at the time because of domestic politics.

No, the Americans did not win the war but without them it would certainly ended differently. Without the US there would have been no landings in Italy in 1943 and more importantly no landing in France in 1944, if at all. Once Stalin's armies had defeated the Germans there would have been nothing between them and the English Channel were it not for D Day. It was predominately the US military which made sure the Warsaw Pact stayed on their side of the Iron Curtain for the next forty years. Nearly 300,000 Americans died in WW2.

Korea

It was the North who invaded the South, not the other way around. The war was sanctioned by the UN. The Americans nearly were chased out but recovered and after Inchon it was them who did the chasing until the Chinese entered the war resulting in eventual stalemate. Fifteen UN nations participated in the Korean War, the great majority Americans. When it came to paying the ultimate price over 54,000 were Americans followed by 717 Turks, 710 Brits and 309 Canadians.

Fly into Seoul on a clear night sometime. South of the 38th parallel is a brightly lit, vibrant country. North of it is a black hole run by a dingbat who is willing to starve his whole country in order to have a 2 million man army and nukes.

The Americans have maintained a substantial military force in Korea for over fifty years and even with the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan there are still around 30,000 or about half Canada's entire military stationed there. This is in addition to around 45,000 stationed in Japan. Tell us again how the US failed Korea.

True, Americans tend to discount the contributions of others at times but if they want to do a little bragging, they have certainly earned the right.

Perhaps you should bone up on your history a little.

[gerryhatrick]

I said the VAST MAJORITY of the violence is against US troops.

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has 2300 dead troops. The Iraqi dead are between 30,000 (Bush's estimate) to over 100,000 (everybody else's estimate). So even by Bush's skewed numbers, that's 10 times more violence.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear.

The majority of attacks in Iraq by enemies of the USA are against US troops.

Violence by the coalition is not included in the point.

[Montgomery Burns]

From

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Iraq_war.php

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by U.S.-led coalition forces has been responsible for the death of at least 150,000 civilians (not including certain of Iraq), reveals a compilitation of scientific studies and corroborated eyewitness testimonies.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, documents a well-researched study, that had been released by The Lancet Medical Journal.

The report in the British journal is based on the work of teams from the Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the U.S., and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.

The figure of 100,000 had been based on somewhat "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, U.S., who led the study.

That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the compiled studies point to about 250,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of the U.S.-led war.

Good grief. A link to "the progressive voice of Canada" trumpeting the thoroughly discredited Lancet survey.

So now the 100,000 figure has been upped to 150,000 in the "reality-based" community. Why don't you just go for the Gold? How about a nice even figure of 1 MILLION Iraqis killed with 99.9% of the killed being women and children?

After all, everyone knows that the USA's goal is to kill as many civilians as possible--especially women and children.

[gerryhatrick]

Good grief. A link to "the progressive voice of Canada" trumpeting the thoroughly discredited Lancet survey.

The Lancet survey was never discredited. It was questioned, but not discredited.

It's pointless to argue the extra Iraqi deaths caused by the US invasion. It's obvious they're happening. Just the other day 11 people - mostly women and children - were killed by a bomb.

Oh well, huh?

[geoffrey]

Good grief. A link to "the progressive voice of Canada" trumpeting the thoroughly discredited Lancet survey.

The Lancet survey was never discredited. It was questioned, but not discredited.

It's pointless to argue the extra Iraqi deaths caused by the US invasion. It's obvious they're happening. Just the other day 11 people - mostly women and children - were killed by a bomb.

Oh well, huh?

No. Those deaths are caused by a terrorist insurgency. Thats like saying the British coming across the ocean in the 1500's created a situation for the US to grow into the world power which lead to an invasion of Iraq which caused an insurgency that caused the killing of 11 people the other day.

Damned British explorers.

The terrorists have a choice to kill or not. They choose to kill, and they are ultimately responsible for that action, not the American liberators.

[newbie]

The terrorists have a choice to kill or not. They choose to kill, and they are ultimately responsible for that action, not the American liberators.

The great American liberators. I think this quote puts the Iraqi situation in complete perspective.

Iraqis are certainly fee now to cower in their homes for days on end with the fear of insurgent reprisals. They are certainly free to not have electricity 24 hours a day, clean water and/or a fully functioning infrastructure that is getting blown up everyday by terrorists/insurgents. Iraqi women and children are certainly free to get slaughtered by U.S. operations looking to weed out an insurgent here and there.

And Iraqis are now free to kill our men and women in uniform, something Saddam just recently requested at the behest of his loyalists. I'm sure the embedded insurgents within the Iraqi military and police are anxious to carry out their dear leader's request.

Ain't freedom grand?

[JerrySeinfeld]

The terrorists have a choice to kill or not. They choose to kill, and they are ultimately responsible for that action, not the American liberators.

The great American liberators. I think this quote puts the Iraqi situation in complete perspective.

Iraqis are certainly fee now to cower in their homes for days on end with the fear of insurgent reprisals. They are certainly free to not have electricity 24 hours a day, clean water and/or a fully functioning infrastructure that is getting blown up everyday by terrorists/insurgents. Iraqi women and children are certainly free to get slaughtered by U.S. operations looking to weed out an insurgent here and there.

And Iraqis are now free to kill our men and women in uniform, something Saddam just recently requested at the behest of his loyalists. I'm sure the embedded insurgents within the Iraqi military and police are anxious to carry out their dear leader's request.

Ain't freedom grand?

Iraq shall be won. Meantime let the feeblehead lefties cry to mama 'cause god knows if it ain't easy, it ain't worth doing, right newbie?

[gerryhatrick]

Meantime let the feeblehead lefties cry to mama 'cause god knows if it ain't easy, it ain't worth doing, right newbie?

Shaving with a broken bottle probably ain't easy either. But god knows if it ain't easy, it ain't worth doing, right Jerry? Let us know how that works out for ya.