The menace of terror must be confronted

[Leafless]

Prime Minister Harper is calling members of Canada's military in Afghanistan "heroes".

I always assumed any Canadian who joins Canada's military is fully aware of the risk associated of placing ones life on the line in the event of war and really deserves no other special credit outside of the one day reserved to honour our fallen soldiers.

To somehow justify the loss of 24 Canadians killed in the World Trade as part of the reason for Canada's role involvement in Afghanistan does not really make sense as this basically this was an isolated terror attack in the U.S. More people are killed on Canadian and U.S. highways or by killer diseases like SARS in which international air travel was not even banned to reduce the spread of this killer disease.

There is no way the U.S. or Canada is going to stamp out world terror with partial intervention in source in third world countries as new terror organizations will rise out of the ground to replace the old.

I usually fully believe in supporting U.S. led initiatives but not this one as our involvement is limited and does not lead to the same results as an all out war. Further more either the U.S. or Canada is directly threatened at the present time concerning any large scale attack.

I think world countries will demand substantial retribution on countries that harbour terrorist concerning an all out assault when the situation becomes that acute and demanded by world countries.

Until that time comes sit back and reserve our financial resources including rebuilding our badly decayed military and pay more attention to immigration concerns.

Terror attacks have now become part of every day life.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...27f&k=56748

[jbg]

Prime Minister Harper is calling members of Canada's military in Afghanistan "heroes".

I think world countries will demand substantial retribution on countries that harbour terrorist concerning an all out assault when the situation becomes that acute and demanded by world countries.

That may take some time. I do point out that existing engagements are keeping the jihadis "busy" elsewhere. Even the attacks that have occurreed, the London and Spanish train attacks, were puny compared to September 11.

[watching&waiting]

I disagree. The attacks by the Al queda and other terrorists groups were planned from the safety that the Taliban afforded them in Afghanistan. This soon became a haven for terrorists groups and it was obvious that the Taliban was not ever going to act against they terroist allies. This then made them a rogue state where the innocent people of that land were suffering while the government and terrorists were treated like gods.

I also think that the attack on the World Trade Center was not just an attack on America but on all the western values and principals. Canada by its very nature has always stood against such actions and yes we believe the guilty must be punished. The Taliban is not longer ruling in afghanistan, but they are still a threat to the people and the new government. So we are still needed there. We also are there to seek out the Al Queda and bin Ladin, and that is still very much a job in progress. It is very possible that it will take years to accomplish this task. But it is one that the UN has sanctioned and I happen to agree with.

Also afghanistan is in need of help to rebuild its army and government to where it can hold its own against the terrorists, and other enemies. Canada should not and I hope will not cut and run from this battle, but I do hope that soon the other UN crontributors will send in their armies so that Canada can take a step back from the battlefield actions. With the recent operation Medusa, Canadian troops have been gievn a very dangerous first and front action of actively taking the fight to the Taliban hideouts. Yes we have had casualties but the numbers are not really that high and even our troop there in the action have said, this is a cause they find worthy of their efforts. So why the armchair quarterbacking. It is time to listen to what the guys in the real battle have to say, as they are the ones who know what it is really like. I have not seen much negative things from them so far.

As for the Hero label goes, yes thay are heroes, as in they can be looked up to by others for doing something great and risking their lives to do so. I get from your position you thing we should look down upon our soldiers?

[Leafless]

Even the attacks that have occurreed, the London and Spanish train attacks, were puny compared to September 11.

The 9/11 attack on America was indeed a black day in the U.S.

The odds of terrorist pulling off this co-ordinated attack IMO is equivalent of winning a lottery.

To escape the possibility of suspicion, detection including the possibility of at least the major portion of the attack being aborted by intervention of some sort is amazing to say the least.

This primitive attack directly out of the pages of some comic book is a terrorist fantasy come true.

Although I fully agree concerning the seriousness of this attack, I would be more inclined to write this off as a fluke and downplay terrorist actions rather than perpetuate their fluky success.

[Durgan]

One purpose of a military:

The body bags means absolutely nothing in the final analysis, this is the hazards of the trade. A few crocodile tears and condolences to the bereaved and move on. Work the compassionate bit amd milk the patriotic bullshit to insure the country has enough canon fodder to facilitate the implimentation of our foreign policy. That is primarily what the military is designed for. Use volunteers until the shit hits the fan then implement conscription is the method used. The enforcing arm of our diplomat's in reality.

Durgan.

[watching&waiting]

It is not that hard to make terrorist attacks that have large consequences, but yes it is just so much easier in the crowded cities like New York. Or god forbid Montreal or Toronto. The planned attack on Parliamnet that was averted would not have been hard to succeed. If a terrorist group of 50 people decided thay were going to go after Parliament when it was in full session, there are very few thngs to stop them, and if their intention is only to kill or be killed, then that would be a real problem the security on and around the hill.

So I disagree that it was just a fluke, and there are just so many things that can be done to cause large loss of life, that protecting them all is nearly impossible. The fact that in Toronto there are areas that at times are so dense with people on sidewlks and open places that just one gas tanker that you see deliverying fuel to service stations, were to blow up there would be huge loss of life and limb. I am no terrorist by any means, so do not get me wrong, but if I were to become one and were hell bent on destroying the lifestyles we have taken for granted, I do not believe that there would be a shortage of targets. I do not want anyone to think I am some crazy nut who plans attacks, as I am not. But if you really think about the things we see everyday on our roads or in the areas we go, that if they did explode, they would have large loss of life, then you will see just how vulnerable we really are. That is part of why I support our troop going to Afghanistan to fight Al Queda there, and hope we can be successful there. Because if the fight comes here to home, I do not like to think about just how it would play out. Some will say that being in Afghanistan will make it more likely that we will be attacked here in Canada, but I just do not buy that, as if they were going to attack us, they would. It would not matter that we are in Afganistan or not. They hate our way of life and our freedoms to do as we please. That is not something that changes because of where we are.

[Leafless]

Yes we have had casualties but the numbers are not really that high and even our troop there in the action have said, this is a cause they find worthy of their efforts. So why the armchair quarterbacking. It is time to listen to what the guys in the real battle have to say, as they are the ones who know what it is really like. I have not seen much negative things from them so far.

As for the Hero label goes, yes they are heroes, as in they can be looked up to by others for doing something great and risking their lives to do so. I get from your position you thing we should look down upon our soldiers?

Twenty-four Canadians died in the 9/11 attack.

So far we have lost I believe 33 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

The reason for our role in Afghanistan is controversial and am entitled to my opinion.

Afghanistan is a country surrounded by the largest third world countries in the world that control and regulate their huge populations by ways we consider against human rights. Workable democratic government in that part of the world is highly questionable.

Many European countries are not supporting this initiative in Afghanistan when it is basically happening in their own back yard. So why should we? In fact it should be European countries more involved than the U.S and Canada.

As far as the 'hero label' goes Mr. Harper could be speaking prematurely as no one knows what the outcome of this conflict will be.

Naturally I support our Canadian troops but simply believe they should not be involved until it is proven that European countries fully support and will fully participate in this initiative against terrorism and to also encourage and develop a freer more democratic government.

[Wilber]

As far as the 'hero label' goes Mr. Harper could be speaking prematurely as no one knows what the outcome of this conflict will be.

What does this mean, they are only heroes if they win? Leonidas and the three hundred weren't heroes?

[M.Dancer]

As far as the 'hero label' goes Mr. Harper could be speaking prematurely as no one knows what the outcome of this conflict will be.

What does this mean, they are only heroes if they win? Leonidas and the three hundred weren't heroes?

Once they are mythlogized thay are heroes......

For a one Billion Billion points...<trick question> how many fought on the side of leonides</trick question>?

[Yaro]

The terrorists have already won, the deaths suffered due to terrorist attacks in and of themselves are relatively inconsequential. The economic and social impact however are widespread and devastating.

Want to save far more lives then these "anti-terrorism" methods would for far less money and with far less socially invasive law-making, spend the money on roads and the medical system. Increase education funding in these third world countries and let them fix things for themselves. Eventually reason will win out and religion will die but until then our current method of fighting this non-war is as sure a recipe for failure as the US's other wars you remember the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" don't you.

At the end of the day positive social change can't be initiated with a gun or fiery rhetoric, its initiated by reasoned debate, cooperation, and humility in the face of what is possible.

[Argus]

The terrorists have already won, the deaths suffered due to terrorist attacks in and of themselves are relatively inconsequential. The economic and social impact however are widespread and devastating.

Want to save far more lives then these "anti-terrorism" methods would for far less money and with far less socially invasive law-making, spend the money on roads and the medical system. Increase education funding in these third world countries and let them fix things for themselves. Eventually reason will win out and religion will die but until then our current method of fighting this non-war is as sure a recipe for failure as the US's other wars you remember the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" don't you.

Realistically speaking, the West is not prepared to pay the bills for other nations' corruption and incompetence. Because the truth is much of the third world, if run properly, would be just as well-off as wel are. The problem is incompetent, corrupt leaders who don't care about anyone's welfare but their own.

If their people were better educated would that make a difference? Quite possibly, though Eastern Europe was comparatively well-educated and still lived in poverty. But I'm not sure people see it as our job to pay for their kids to be educated. Especially as we're doing such a piss poor job on our own kids.

Besides, realistically, you still need to spend the money on security, on the military, on the police, unless you're prepared to let terrorists have a free ride for the next however many generations it takes for the third world to get "educated".

[Army Guy]

Leafless:

I always assumed any Canadian who joins Canada's military is fully aware of the risk associated of placing ones life on the line in the event of war and really deserves no other special credit outside of the one day reserved to honour our fallen soldiers.

I don't follow your logic here, Canada's military history is full of examples that would say you are wrong in saying they are not hero's. Full of every day Canadian volunteers that stood-up to preserve "all of our current freedoms" , ones that we all take for granted. And to preserve those freedoms they put thier lives on the line. be it Vimy ridge "the Birth of our Nation", WWII on the normandy beachs. Not to mention the countless other engagements we have been in. So yes we are aware of the risks, as are firefighters, policemen, SAR techs, all of which place thier lives on the line for everyday Canadians. They are all Hero's.

Rememberance day, the day that has been set aside for Canadians to honor those that have died in the service of thier country. Correct me if i'm wrong but it is not even a holiday, most bussiness are open, school is open, most Canadians go about thier daily bussiness like any other day. Last year i had the honor of parading with the Vets in Ottawa, at the National monument, a city of close to about a million souls you might have been extremily lucky to have more than 25,000 people out to honor the people that have given this nation so much and has asked little in return.

The whole idea behind rememberance day is to honor those that have served and to reflect on why they had to give thier lives for this nation, and perhaps drive home the piont that our current freedoms have had a price. A price paid by everyday Canadians. a Price that they believed was worth it. And every year that goes by this day goes a little bit unnoticed, Canadians are forgetting about those that we have promised "not to forget"

Yaro:

Want to save far more lives then these "anti-terrorism" methods would for far less money and with far less socially invasive law-making, spend the money on roads and the medical system. Increase education funding in these third world countries and let them fix things for themselves. Eventually reason will win out and religion will die but until then our current method of fighting this non-war is as sure a recipe for failure as the US's other wars you remember the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" don't you.

DO you really think that by sending these countries boat loads of cash that they will spend it on roads ,medical systems, and education...that once educated that they're religion will fade into the history books...explain to me Iraq's problem then, with billions in oil revenue what did Sadam spend his money on. Iran are they educating the people, libya, and how do we explain Saudia very rich, lots of education, lots of roads, and medical facilities, but thier religion is still thier primary focus...

At the end of the day positive social change can't be initiated with a gun or fiery rhetoric, its initiated by reasoned debate, cooperation, and humility in the face of what is possible.

Did you get that at the NDP convention, would you say that the Nazi's responded well to debate, cooperation,or did they respond to change made by the end of a barrel of a gun. Do you honestly believe that debate is going to solve the palistinian mess,the Hezbollah mess, The bosina mess, because so far your debate has been going on for "lets just say longer than any war todate in the area...

I will agree with you on a small part of your argument that war in it's self is not going to bring about peace, but it does force those involved to sit down and start to debate again.

[Wilber]

Correct me if i'm wrong but it is not even a holiday,

This one got me going because I've always assumed it was a statutory holiday. It is, sort of. Turns out it is a Federal holiday (I guess that means for Federal Employees) and is only recognized as a Statutory Holiday in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and all the Territories. Wow, every year we Westerners watch all the politicians in front of the War Memorial in Ottawa and it isn't even a stat holiday in that Province. What's the matter with you Eastern SOB's, that's pathetic.

[Yaro]

Realistically speaking, the West is not prepared to pay the bills for other nations' corruption and incompetence. Because the truth is much of the third world, if run properly, would be just as well-off as wel are. The problem is incompetent, corrupt leaders who don't care about anyone's welfare but their own.

Not even true in the remotest dreams of those educated on these issues. Most of these countries are kept this way in a large part do to the nature of western hemogeny. We want them poor, we want them uneducated because they are far less a threat to us in this way. Try reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman, it may enlighten you as to the nature of why the third world remains much the same. After that do some research on the relationship between Ethiopia and the world bank, if you do that with some vigor you will understand to a large extent relationship between us and them.

If their people were better educated would that make a difference? Quite possibly, though Eastern Europe was comparatively well-educated and still lived in poverty. But I'm not sure people see it as our job to pay for their kids to be educated. Especially as we're doing such a piss poor job on our own kids.

Eastern Europe was far better educated then the west, however they were caught in the cold war, a war which drained the vast majority of there productivity towards the USSR's war machine. That's ignoring the fact that resource allotment under the USSR in the 70's and 80's was horrific.

Besides, realistically, you still need to spend the money on security, on the military, on the police, unless you're prepared to let terrorists have a free ride for the next however many generations it takes for the third world to get "educated".

Hardly, the military is the wrong tool to use on terrorists, the military is a large blunt instrument used to attack other large blunt instruments. It should never be used on non-military targets like terrorists, its impractical, inefficient, ineffective, and has a tendency to encourage further terrorism through collateral fall out.

DO you really think that by sending these countries boat loads of cash that they will spend it on roads ,medical systems, and education...that once educated that they're religion will fade into the history books...explain to me Iraq's problem then, with billions in oil revenue what did Sadam spend his money on. Iran are they educating the people, Libya, and how do we explain Saudia very rich, lots of education, lots of roads, and medical facilities, but thier religion is still thier primary focus...

Who said anything about sending them boatloads of money? Who said they would be operating the schools, choose the most moderate part of the nation build a couple of schools. In a generation it will pick up its own steam. As for Iraq, I suggest you actually do some research on what Iraq was in reality before 1990, I will give you a hint it was the best run country in the middle east with the most religiously moderate population with the best education and best medical care. It was also the best place in the middle east for women. Saddam ran a very effective and efficient country that was, next to its neighbors not significantly tyrannical. As for Iran, remember that the CIA itself was responsible for the collapse of there move to democracy, a move that is once again underway in a very strong way but will probably be killed again by arrogant hotheads from the west. Saudi Arabia needs no explanation, they are a terrorist state, maybe the only true terrorist state in the world. Of course the Royal Family who are guilty of more crimes against humanity then any group in the world are more then happy to sacrifice there oil to insure US protection. As for Saudi education, they are not educated, I have been to Saudi Arabia and they may very well be the worst educated country outside of Africa.

Did you get that at the NDP convention, would you say that the Nazi's responded well to debate, cooperation,or did they respond to change made by the end of a barrel of a gun. Do you honestly believe that debate is going to solve the palistinian mess,the Hezbollah mess, The bosina mess, because so far your debate has been going on for "lets just say longer than any war todate in the area...

Huh? The Nazi's? OK after sitting here for a minute I think I get your point. However the Nazi's were aggressors, kind of a different situation don't you think? If the Nazi's had sat alone within the bowels of Germany then yes educated discourse is the most logical path, if however someone is actively attacking you? then yes obviously you need to defend yourself.

As for Palestinians, Hezbollah, and Bosnia, what of them? Military aggression was or is the norm in all those situations and each time it occurs the clock is set back on finding a lasting solution. But if you want to have a military answer to the issue that's simple enough, nuke them. Historically speaking the only way to end such a circumstance is to be brutal to an extent not possible today, and this solution isn't suggested by even the most aggressive people in our society.

As I said, outside of obvious defensive necessity, the military has rarely if ever contributed to a long lasting solution.

I will agree with you on a small part of your argument that war in it's self is not going to bring about peace, but it does force those involved to sit down and start to debate again.

What starts people debating and suing for peace is necessity, for example Israel and Palestine will not start negotiating for true and lasting peace until it is in the best interest of both sides. Now what would make that the situation is an entirely different debate.

[Army Guy]

Yaro:

Who said anything about sending them boatloads of money? Who said they would be operating the schools, choose the most moderate part of the nation build a couple of schools. In a generation it will pick up its own steam.

So that is the answer, build a few schools and wait. I guess our job is done here then, you should send this to the Prime minister, of both countries. But i guess your reply truely reflects your first hand knowledge of the area. What do we do when the Taliban decide to cut the heads of the teachers we have supplied, what do we do when the cut the hands off the students that want an education. what do we do when they don't want schools or roads because educated people are harder to control...I don't think you understand just what the taliban want and why they are fighting so hard to keep us from winning the hearts and minds of the everyday people of Afgan.

As for Iraq, I suggest you actually do some research on what Iraq was in reality before 1990, I will give you a hint it was the best run country in the middle east with the most religiously moderate population with the best education and best medical care. It was also the best place in the middle east for women. Saddam ran a very effective and efficient country that was, next to its neighbors not significantly tyrannical.

Ok a quick check on goggle and here is what i found. now if you have sources that conflict please put up the source, i'd love to read them.

Education in Iraq is free. Six years of primary education are compulsory, but many children do not attend school as they must work to help support their families. Instruction is in Arabic, although in much of the Kurdish-inhabited northern region, which has been autonomous since 1991, Kurdish is used in all levels of education alongside Arabic. Only 41 percent of Iraqis aged 15 or older are literate. In the 1998–1999 academic year 3.1 million pupils attended elementary schools, and 619,114 students were enrolled in secondary schools. More students attended vocational or teacher-training institutions. Iraq has a number of large universities, including the University of Baghdād (founded in 1957), the University of Al Başrah (1964), and the University of Mosul (1967). The country also has about 20 technical institutes.

My Webpage

Iran:

Literacy:

definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 79.4%

male: 85.6%

female: 73.0% (2003 est.)

My Webpage

Today, Saudi Arabia's nationwide public educational system comprises eight universities, more than 24,000 schools, and a large number of colleges and other educational and training institutions. Open to every citizen, the system provides students with free education, books and health services. Over 25 percent of the annual State budget is for education including vocational training.

I think it's safe to say that Iraq is not the most educated middle east country, and you'll be hard press to compare numbers of any of the Middle east countries to the Saudi's.

Saddam ran a very effective and efficient country that was, next to its neighbors not significantly tyrannical.

I guess that would depend on who you talked to like the Kurds, or the Iranians, or perhaps political opponets or anyone that had something to say about sadam and his policies. so how many do you need to kill before you get to be Tyrannical anyways ? By no means i'm i standing behind any of the middle east countries and they're policies but lets not kid ourselfs and state that Iraq was the jem of the middle east.

Huh? The Nazi's? OK after sitting here for a minute I think I get your point. However the Nazi's were aggressors, kind of a different situation don't you think? If the Nazi's had sat alone within the bowels of Germany then yes educated discourse is the most logical path, if however someone is actively attacking you? then yes obviously you need to defend yourself.

That would depend on what your opinion is on 9/11, personal i think it was an attack, provoked or not by US policy. Then there is that fact of the NATO agreement an attack on one is an attack on us all.

How many terrorist plots have there been in the last 5 yrs, how many attacks, Canada alone has spent over 10 bil in updating it's homeland defenses, our government is also saying that figure is a drop in the bucket and we have along way to go. How have these attacks effected ech and every Canadian, been to the airport lately, or tried to cross the border into the US. not to mention i'm sure every Canadian could find something to spend 10 bil dollars on.

As I said, outside of obvious defensive necessity, the military has rarely if ever contributed to a long lasting solution.

With the exception of the war of 1812, Canada's military has never been used to defend our nation that was directly threaten. But rather we have always come to the aid of those allies that have. Our direct involvement in military operations has contributed to many lasting solutions, In fact almost all of the operations we have been involved with have been long lasting solutions. examples being Europe, korea, Bosina , cyprus, cold war,etc.

[Yaro]

So that is the answer, build a few schools and wait. I guess our job is done here then, you should send this to the Prime minister, of both countries. But i guess your reply truely reflects your first hand knowledge of the area. What do we do when the Taliban decide to cut the heads of the teachers we have supplied, what do we do when the cut the hands off the students that want an education. what do we do when they don't want schools or roads because educated people are harder to control...I don't think you understand just what the taliban want and why they are fighting so hard to keep us from winning the hearts and minds of the everyday people of Afgan.

First off, I do have first hand knowledge of the area. I have been in the area several times. Second your reply reflects your ignorance of the circumstances. The fact is there is nothing we can do, we have no options but to wait, set the seed water occasionally and wait. The Taliban was NEVER in control of all of Afghanistan, anymore then we are in control their now, it would have been easy to pick a warlord who's dominion would have been right for this. I know exactly what the Taliban is, was, and will be again as soon as we leave. The only thing we have done is push back the eventual recovery time. People are so impatient, they want everything now sometimes in life the best you can do is something small and wait for the right time to take the next step.

Education in Iraq is free. Six years of primary education are compulsory, but many children do not attend school as they must work to help support their families. Instruction is in Arabic, although in much of the Kurdish-inhabited northern region, which has been autonomous since 1991, Kurdish is used in all levels of education alongside Arabic. Only 41 percent of Iraqis aged 15 or older are literate. In the 1998–1999 academic year 3.1 million pupils attended elementary schools, and 619,114 students were enrolled in secondary schools. More students attended vocational or teacher-training institutions. Iraq has a number of large universities, including the University of Baghdād (founded in 1957), the University of Al Başrah (1964), and the University of Mosul (1967). The country also has about 20 technical institutes.

Statistics for pre 1991 are as follows,

Primary school

Males 94%

Females 81%

Secondary School

Males 44%

Females 31%

I think its safe to say that Iraq pre 1991 (which is what I said) was EASILY the most educated population in the middle east. You quote literacy numbers, I am quoting people graduating from actual school. Try to twist it any way you want to, Iraq had more students in school (male and female) at EVERY level per capita then Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is despite the fact that the Kurdish population in the north that should not even be fairly included with Iraq as a whole is largely illiterate and completely uneducated, the same for several groups in the south. Once again Saddam had a great many faults but on education and medical care he brought Iraq to the top of the region.

I guess that would depend on who you talked to like the Kurds, or the Iranians, or perhaps political opponets or anyone that had something to say about sadam and his policies. so how many do you need to kill before you get to be Tyrannical anyways ? By no means i'm i standing behind any of the middle east countries and they're policies but lets not kid ourselfs and state that Iraq was the jem of the middle east.

Once again you like to ignore my qualifiers, I said that Saddam was not significantly tyrannical next to his neighbors. Every ruler in the region is brutal, indeed an argument could be made that it is the nature of modern leadership that brutality be ever present. As for the Kurds, I suggest you look up the way they are treated in every other country in the middle east, Iraq is fairly typical in this respect. That hardly means that we should simply gloss over the actions in any way but singling out Iraq on the issue is unreasonable. As for how many do you have to kill before you become Tyrannical, why don't you tell me? you seem to have a handle on these things.

It should also be noted that Saddam has been charged with killing (in total) up to 180 000, note the up to portion because the noted total of proven deaths is less then 2000. Isn't hyperbole great.

That would depend on what your opinion is on 9/11, personal i think it was an attack, provoked or not by US policy. Then there is that fact of the NATO agreement an attack on one is an attack on us all.

How many terrorist plots have there been in the last 5 yrs, how many attacks, Canada alone has spent over 10 bil in updating it's homeland defenses, our government is also saying that figure is a drop in the bucket and we have along way to go. How have these attacks effected ech and every Canadian, been to the airport lately, or tried to cross the border into the US. not to mention i'm sure every Canadian could find something to spend 10 bil dollars on.

My opinion on 9/11 is that it was none of our business, there is no enemy of the kind that would trigger any strategic alliance, I haven't even seen anyone make that claim. What the US did to provoke 9/11 is not relevant here. As to how many terrorist plots our government has thwarted, well I will have to go with the big zero. I have yet to hear of a single "thwarted attempt", instead they give us the this group was talking about this, well no they never actually took any action, well know its highly unlikely they would have done anything, BUT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT IT! This is about the time I start yelling at the scientists about the meteor they promised me would wipe out life on earth.

And pointing out that we have spent 10 billion and will spend more significantly weakens your argument, it doesn't strengthen it. There is no reasonable person who could come to the conclusion that 10 billion dollars wouldn't have saved more lives being spent elsewhere then on security and that is not counting the massive economic costs to private businesses to institute there own security features nor the individual costs that now burden people (my insurer contacted me that I needed to get terrorism insurance for my building, are they kidding me?).

With the exception of the war of 1812, Canada's military has never been used to defend our nation that was directly threaten. But rather we have always come to the aid of those allies that have. Our direct involvement in military operations has contributed to many lasting solutions, In fact almost all of the operations we have been involved with have been long lasting solutions. examples being Europe, korea, Bosina , cyprus, cold war,etc.

First off, our role in several of those campaigns was hardly pure combat. Only in WWI and WWII could our role have been called pure combat, and of those two only WWII had any ethical reason for us being involved, and even in WWII we didn't go for any ethical reason. As for long lasting solutions well lets just say that Korea has definitely not experienced a long lasting solution, either has Bosnia. The Cold War it appears may just be starting up again (weee). So I am not quite sure what your trying to get at as what you stated once again supports my notion that a pure military solution is almost never the proper solution outside of defence. The military has a role, but it is increasingly rare in the modern world, and should be kept as small a role as possible but obviously they do have a role.

[Army Guy]

Yaro:

First off, I do have first hand knowledge of the area. I have been in the area several times. Second your reply reflects your ignorance of the circumstances. The fact is there is nothing we can do, we have no options but to wait, set the seed water occasionally and wait. The Taliban was NEVER in control of all of Afghanistan, anymore then we are in control their now, it would have been easy to pick a warlord who's dominion would have been right for this. I know exactly what the Taliban is, was, and will be again as soon as we leave. The only thing we have done is push back the eventual recovery time. People are so impatient, they want everything now sometimes in life the best you can do is something small and wait for the right time to take the next step.

With comments as the one below you make the comment you have first hand knowledge of the area hard to believe. You'd already know that the Taliban is not going to let anyone build a school, let alone attend it. much like they are doing today. even in the moderate section of Afgan. Unless it is done by the taliban for the taliban.

Who said anything about sending them boatloads of money? Who said they would be operating the schools, choose the most moderate part of the nation build a couple of schools. In a generation it will pick up its own steam.

As for your comment on thier is nothing we can do, i say BS, we are already doing it, were taking the fight to the taliban, plus we are building schools and other infra structure, OK not as fast as it is required, or as fast as we want but we are doing something, not just burying our heads in the sand waiting for the next generation to "hopefully be smart enough" to want peace... And the taliban controled atlot more than you give them credit for, although it is true they never controlled the entire country. And if the west was to withdrawal it would not take long for the taliban to be back in control back to square one, supporting any terrorist group that they could.

To suggest that all we have done is pushed back the recovery time is nonsense. Afgan under taliban control is not recovery. but then again it is not our problem, it does not interfer with our hockey, our pogy check, our new Canadian way of things.

I think its safe to say that Iraq pre 1991 (which is what I said) was EASILY the most educated population in the middle east. You quote literacy numbers, I am quoting people graduating from actual school. Try to twist it any way you want to, Iraq had more students in school (male and female) at EVERY level per capita then Iran or Saudi Arabia.

How am i twisting it , perhaps you can explain to me how you can graduate and still not know how to read and write. or how can you argue that Saudi arabia has more schools even pre 1991, perhaps your confusing the migrant workforce in Saudi in your comments.

As for the Kurds, I suggest you look up the way they are treated in every other country in the middle east, Iraq is fairly typical in this respect.

So turkey and other neibouring nations have used chemical warfare on thier kurds as well, and that is typical treatment.

As for how many do you have to kill before you become Tyrannical, why don't you tell me? you seem to have a handle on these things.

What is your piont here you don't think Sadam got what was coming to him, you don't think him and his merry band of thugs should have been taken down by force.

It should also be noted that Saddam has been charged with killing (in total) up to 180 000, note the up to portion because the noted total of proven deaths is less then 2000. Isn't hyperbole great.

Again what is your piont ? that he was careful to bury the evidance, your not suggesting that we made a mistake in takinmg down this scumbag are you.

[Argus]

Realistically speaking, the West is not prepared to pay the bills for other nations' corruption and incompetence. Because the truth is much of the third world, if run properly, would be just as well-off as wel are. The problem is incompetent, corrupt leaders who don't care about anyone's welfare but their own.

Not even true in the remotest dreams of those educated on these issues. Most of these countries are kept this way in a large part do to the nature of western hemogeny. We want them poor, we want them uneducated because they are far less a threat to us in this way. Try reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman, it may enlighten you as to the nature of why the third world remains much the same.

Your argument boils down to this "It's not their fault. They're just poor dumb darkies, and those sharp white guys keep taking advantage of their natural ignorance, stupidity and inferior intelligence."

Nobody in the third world has a calculator? They can't figure out they're being lied to? Do you honestly think there weren't lots of sharp European types over here and in the US a couple of centuries ago trying to put things over on the dumb colonials? Do you think the South Koreans and Japanese never had greasy corporate types trying to screw them before they climbed into the modern age?

Listen. If what you're saying is that third world types are ignorant children who can't take care of themselves then they shouldn't be independant countries. A colonial administration should oversee them.

If their people were better educated would that make a difference? Quite possibly, though Eastern Europe was comparatively well-educated and still lived in poverty. But I'm not sure people see it as our job to pay for their kids to be educated. Especially as we're doing such a piss poor job on our own kids.

Eastern Europe was far better educated then the west, however they were caught in the cold war, a war which drained the vast majority of there productivity towards the USSR's war machine.

And this didn't happen in the West, of course. We only had flowers to wave.

That's ignoring the fact that resource allotment under the USSR in the 70's and 80's was horrific.

Or that all the Communist governments were corrupt and incompetent.

Besides, realistically, you still need to spend the money on security, on the military, on the police, unless you're prepared to let terrorists have a free ride for the next however many generations it takes for the third world to get "educated".

Hardly, the military is the wrong tool to use on terrorists, the military is a large blunt instrument used to attack other large blunt instruments. It should never be used on non-military targets like terrorists, its impractical, inefficient, ineffective, and has a tendency to encourage further terrorism through collateral fall out.

Most of our costs have little to do with the military. I'm talking about the costs for security, for more mounties and CSIS agents and border controls and better air screening and security within Canada at everything from power plants to food processing centres.

[Yaro]

With comments as the one below you make the comment you have first hand knowledge of the area hard to believe. You'd already know that the Taliban is not going to let anyone build a school, let alone attend it. much like they are doing today. even in the moderate section of Afgan. Unless it is done by the taliban for the taliban.

And in Taliban controlled areas your absolutely right. I haven't been in the region in 4 years now but I suspect given the current circumstances I know what the Taliban was alot better then you do. There were several warlords that would have had no problem protecting a school built in there area. like I said sometimes you can only do a minimal amount, so that's what you do. You seem to be under the impression that I don't want to help these people, I do. I also want to help slaves in north Africa, non-persons in Kuwait, homeless in India and a thousand other people around the world. Unfortunately we have limited resources and they are MUCH better directed elsewhere.

As for your comment on thier is nothing we can do, i say BS, we are already doing it, were taking the fight to the taliban, plus we are building schools and other infra structure, OK not as fast as it is required, or as fast as we want but we are doing something, not just burying our heads in the sand waiting for the next generation to "hopefully be smart enough" to want peace... And the taliban controled atlot more than you give them credit for, although it is true they never controlled the entire country. And if the west was to withdrawal it would not take long for the taliban to be back in control back to square one, supporting any terrorist group that they could.

To suggest that all we have done is pushed back the recovery time is nonsense. Afgan under taliban control is not recovery. but then again it is not our problem, it does not interfer with our hockey, our pogy check, our new Canadian way of things.

We haven't done anything to the Taliban, we have continued a cycle of strife in the area that will continue unabated until the circumstances change. All we can do is create the circumstances for change. Like I said before, we will see who is right and who is wrong but so far what has happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan are EXACTLY what I said would happen.

So turkey and other neibouring nations have used chemical warfare on thier kurds as well, and that is typical treatment.

I don't know, though it wouldn't surprise me. However they have done far worse to the Kurds as has most of the nations in the region at one time or another. The Kurds are the third most hated ethnicity in the region behind only the Jews and the gypsies.

What is your piont here you don't think Sadam got what was coming to him, you don't think him and his merry band of thugs should have been taken down by force.

Saddam was a hyper-violent sociopath. Guess what? so is 90% of the worlds leadership. You don't get to the top quibbling about morality, that is as true in the west as it is in the east. Go read Machiavelli or Sun Tzu and understand that MANY leaders base a great deal of there social philosophy on this type of material.

Or that all the Communist governments were corrupt and incompetent.

Incompetent is kind of what I just said, but the governments in the USSR were no more corrupt then our own.

Again what is your piont ? that he was careful to bury the evidance, your not suggesting that we made a mistake in takinmg down this scumbag are you.

Of course we made a mistake, a huge mistake. Life WILL be worse after we are out of the region, Iraq is going to be another Iran at BEST, and more likely another Afghanistan. Should we have done something? Sure there is a great deal we could have done but going in the way we did was moronic and the way we have handled it since even worse. The US has lost in Iraq, its done its over, the US is losing ground every day. The Backdoor draft is making the situation even worse as soldiers who should be home with there family are forced to stay. That is all ignoring the economic impact at home which was headed downhill fast before adding the cost of the war.

How am i twisting it , perhaps you can explain to me how you can graduate and still not know how to read and write. or how can you argue that Saudi arabia has more schools even pre 1991, perhaps your confusing the migrant workforce in Saudi in your comments.

Your statistics are from post 91, around 2000 to be exact. Do you know what the average lifespan of an Iraqi is? Do you know what Iraq became after 91? how much it changed? As for Saudi Arabia I problem wouldn't mention them considering that Saudi Arabian schools are pretty much Quran study sessions.

Your argument boils down to this "It's not their fault. They're just poor dumb darkies, and those sharp white guys keep taking advantage of their natural ignorance, stupidity and inferior intelligence."

WTF are you talking about? Maybe your not getting what happens to people who don't play ball. They get "taken out" see the entire history of South America.

Nobody in the third world has a calculator? They can't figure out they're being lied to? Do you honestly think there weren't lots of sharp European types over here and in the US a couple of centuries ago trying to put things over on the dumb colonials? Do you think the South Koreans and Japanese never had greasy corporate types trying to screw them before they climbed into the modern age?

Yes I am sure its exactly the same thing because god knows that white people have a long history of treating other white people the same as they treat the "darkies". You can tell by all the help we give to Africa. As for the Koreans and the Japanese try finding an example of a people that weren't of immense strategic importance to the US that have benefited from trade with the US, I won't hold my breath.

Listen. If what you're saying is that third world types are ignorant children who can't take care of themselves then they shouldn't be independant countries. A colonial administration should oversee them.

I know your saying this to be an ass but in MANY of these circumstances a colonial government would be a huge upgrade over the way they are treated now. No they are not dumb, they are weak, and as has been the case for all of time the strong take advantage of the weak.