Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on Google buzz

Author Topic: Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?  (Read 12262 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

trailerchick

  • *
  • Posts: 2970
  • Gender: Female
  • Location: B.C, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #150 on: Jun 16, 2006, 07:03 PM »
Ammonium Nitrate is what Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. I don't remember the exact weight, but it was enough to destroy the building and kill a few hundred people, women and children included.

This is a problem that is not going to go away. Anyone who believes that pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan will end this bloody mess is sadly mistaken. We can fight them and spill blood on their soil, or we can do it on our own shores. Which do you think is better?

Not to stir the pot,but I'm genuinely interested to know how killing innocent civilians helps stop Terrorism?

How many terrorists have we actually caught? I've googled it....there seems to be some discrepancy on the number.But it is well below the
reports that suggest that almost 40,000 civilians have been killed.

If you were a civilian Iraqi...would you be happy that your child,wife...loved ones were killed and then referred to as "collateral damage?' or would you seethe with anger and perhaps be led to things you never thought possible?

Put in this context. If 17 Canadians lost their minds and perpetrated an attack on th US in the same magnitude of 9/11....and the States decided the best coarse of action was an "invasion" based on the idea of "on their turf,not ours" and if say maybe they happened to take control of our oil reserves [just 'protecting them of course" :roll:} and in the course of the next 2 years,our infrastructure was destroyed,our resources pilfered, outside contracts to rebuild  were given to US multi-nationals...the Government was topled and a governing US approved coalition was put together with hand picked candidates for us to chose from and 30,000 innocent Canadians were killed....how would you react? I know how I would. I would fight with every fiber of my being to hold onto my way of life and protect my family. And I'd be willing to bet so would my neighbours. In fact I may even become a "freedom fighter". Obviously I'm using a pretty far fetched scenario to make my point but I have to try and put myself in the shoes of average Iraqi citizen who is faced with that very scenario on a daily basis.

My argument against this war and our presence in Afghanistan still stands against it based on the evidence that leads me to believe that Terrorism knows no boundaries,no particular race,culture or calls any one Country home. To bomb the ever loving shit out of a Country to me seems a fools folly with far deadlier consequences than what it initially was supposed to achieve.






Jonnyboy

  • *
  • Posts: 496
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: ON, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
    • Trailer Park Boys
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #151 on: Jun 16, 2006, 08:04 PM »
Ammonium Nitrate is what Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. I don't remember the exact weight, but it was enough to destroy the building and kill a few hundred people, women and children included.

This is a problem that is not going to go away. Anyone who believes that pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan will end this bloody mess is sadly mistaken. We can fight them and spill blood on their soil, or we can do it on our own shores. Which do you think is better?

Not to stir the pot,but I'm genuinely interested to know how killing innocent civilians helps stop Terrorism?

How many terrorists have we actually caught? I've googled it....there seems to be some discrepancy on the number.But it is well below the
reports that suggest that almost 40,000 civilians have been killed.

If you were a civilian Iraqi...would you be happy that your child,wife...loved ones were killed and then referred to as "collateral damage?' or would you seethe with anger and perhaps be led to things you never thought possible?

Put in this context. If 17 Canadians lost their minds and perpetrated an attack on th US in the same magnitude of 9/11....and the States decided the best coarse of action was an "invasion" based on the idea of "on their turf,not ours" and if say maybe they happened to take control of our oil reserves [just 'protecting them of course" :roll:} and in the course of the next 2 years,our infrastructure was destroyed,our resources pilfered, outside contracts to rebuild  were given to US multi-nationals...the Government was topled and a governing US approved coalition was put together with hand picked candidates for us to chose from and 30,000 innocent Canadians were killed....how would you react? I know how I would. I would fight with every fiber of my being to hold onto my way of life and protect my family. And I'd be willing to bet so would my neighbours. In fact I may even become a "freedom fighter". Obviously I'm using a pretty far fetched scenario to make my point but I have to try and put myself in the shoes of average Iraqi citizen who is faced with that very scenario on a daily basis.

My argument against this war and our presence in Afghanistan still stands against it based on the evidence that leads me to believe that Terrorism knows no boundaries,no particular race,culture or calls any one Country home. To bomb the ever loving shit out of a Country to me seems a fools folly with far deadlier consequences than what it initially was supposed to achieve.







But the Canadians are not bombing the shit out of Afghanastan. In fact most of the killings are by the Taliban, I am not aware of many or any civillian casualities from Canadian troops. This is a just fight, not just with the terrorists, but also removing a terrible inhuman regiem that is the Taliban.

Look at it this way. You have a serial killer who kills men, woman and children. then you got a group of people that are hiding him allowing him to continue to kill more and more. Then they not only hide him, they feed him, and give him more money to buy those bullets he needs to kill more people. If the police raid thier house and they defend by force....

Should the Police also use nessecary force. Even if it means killing those that are harbouring the Serial killer, or leave and let them be?

Jonny

Saucy Bastard

  • *
  • Posts: 5674
  • Gender: Male
  • Joined:Jun 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #152 on: Jun 16, 2006, 08:43 PM »

But the Canadians are not bombing the shit out of Afghanastan. In fact most of the killings are by the Taliban, I am not aware of many or any civillian casualities from Canadian troops. This is a just fight, not just with the terrorists, but also removing a terrible inhuman regiem that is the Taliban.

Jonny

No , but I think that the point that was intended , was that the Americans DID  respond this way , killing 10's of thousands of innocent Afghanis. Just mothers and fathers and little children , trying to live in conditions that none of Us would wish for . And yes , the Talliban have killed people too , but not near as many. Suspicious , how the US military does not record or report civilian casualties ... Now that they have stirred the hornets nest , they've passed some of the buck to us , because they're busy elsewhere , "securing" Iraq . Also not officially recording the innocent casualties there , who are caught in the crossfire , while they are busy causing the deaths of more Iraqi's than Saddam did!!

And yeah , there are lots of young angry men , more each day , so fucking pissed off that they join in the resistance. Resistance to a foreign force messing with their country for no honest good reason. Wouldn't you be pissed off? Especially if one of your relatives had been killed since the Invasion. I'm sure that there isn't a single Iraqi who's life has not been negatively impacted , even released prisoners will have had friends and family killed or maimed , so it's no surprise that there will be people fighting back until there is no one left to fight , or the US pulls out. And then how did they benefit from having their country  pounded for years , and their infrastructure crippled ? And how many GENERATIONS! of Iraqis will harbour a deep distrust and hatred for the US and their allies? IMHO , the World is a much more dangerous place now  because of those 2 invasions , Not a safer place . And the US and Canada are now LESS free  , thanks to  post 911 Legislation , forced on a scared public. But you can bet that GWB's  family and buddies have made a mint off of the weapons purchased by the US military and the rise in Oil prices and post invasion contracts to rebuild....

Fuck you VERY much GWB , for your Over OVER reaction... :fuckyoured:
"Why not go out on a limb? That's where the fruit is." --Will Rogers
"Get off that limb , that's where all the nuts are!" --Mrs. Saucy

-Why use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice?

trailerchick

  • *
  • Posts: 2970
  • Gender: Female
  • Location: B.C, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #153 on: Jun 16, 2006, 08:51 PM »
I understand what your saying Jonny.

But in your scenario you forgot to include any innocent bystanders.
That's what I'm getting at in regards to Iraq. I'm trying to look past the terrorists and their abettors. I'm trying to put a human face on the war.I'm trying to see how would I feel in that position. I'm trying to figure out if this breeds more of what we're supposedly fighting.
We are so far removed from what war really is. It is a completely different thing to watch it on TV as opposed to living it daily in all it's horrible consequences.


I didn't say we were bombing Afghanistan I was replying to ET's post that brought forth a justification of sorts in regards to the US presence in Iraq.

In regards to Afghanistan I have strong opinions of our presence there and the effects it will have here. Our engagement in Afghanistan is to me tied with a much broader picture and agenda as visioned by Stephen Harper and his Neo Cons. It is a vision that I have researched and done extensive reading on and quite frankly it scares me. It is not my vision of this Country and what it can be at all.

As to date:

-tax breaks for corporations
-media censoring
-tax increase for the lowest wage bracket
-a failing grade by the Sierra Club on Environmental policies.
-biometric screening being implemented
-the scrapping of a plan to help Canadians offset the cost of staying home with aging or infirm parents.
-a national daycare policy that doesn't actually include everybody and was wrongly tied to the separate issue of "stay at home parents" and any compensation due them.
-the attempt at censoring our returning dead.

...to name but a few. Afghanistan to me is just a part of a longer list of things that I see happening in this Country and I'm not diggin it.


but this is only my opinion...obviously it's not the same for others.

Appreciate your comments Jonny

Cheers!
« Last Edit: Jun 16, 2006, 08:53 PM by trailerchick »

Jonnyboy

  • *
  • Posts: 496
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: ON, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
    • Trailer Park Boys
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #154 on: Jun 16, 2006, 09:10 PM »
Firstly, we should separate the two. The Afganistan war is a legal & The Iraq is not so.

The UN not just the US supported the war in Afghanistan. Even today, the UN is asking for commitments past 2009 when Canada's role should diminish.

Julians_Wife

Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #155 on: Jun 16, 2006, 09:18 PM »
Personally I don't think any of the wars are "legal" they are all about the same thing, GREED and George doublya's LUST for power and control end of story. Nothing in this world justifies the slaughter of innocent human beings, two wrongs don't make a right, (isn't that what we teach our children?) and that is what he has done time and time again, using his "snow job" tactics. He is a VERY sick man and in my opinion if anybody should be tried for crimes against humanity it should be him.

Right now would be a damn good time for Trudeau to be alive, in government and I wish to hell he was.

trailerchick

  • *
  • Posts: 2970
  • Gender: Female
  • Location: B.C, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #156 on: Jun 16, 2006, 09:26 PM »
Fair enough...within the parameters of "war"...we will say Afghanistan is legal...Iraq is not.

I am talking about the parameters beyond that.
I'm talking about violence,death destruction. About contempt,fear, suspicion....all the human emotions that exist when one is engaged in Military action in someone else's Country.

I believe that the World is not safer now and that our presense in Afghanistan as an extension of a disengenous US war on Terror will not make it better in the long run.

Jonnyboy

  • *
  • Posts: 496
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: ON, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
    • Trailer Park Boys
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #157 on: Jun 16, 2006, 09:46 PM »
There are many things that you say are true about the Harper guv. I will be the first to say I do not like him or his agenda. The Afghanistan mission was a Liberal move not the Tories, they just extended on what the liberals started.

I appologise for implying you were refering to Canada, when you were talking about the US in the bombing quote. I was just trying to make a point. Everyone seems to put the two together (Iraq & Afghan) And I was trying to separate the two, as they are 2 different wars/missions.

Perhaps if the US did not invade Iraq, then the perception on the Afghanistan mission would be different. The reasons for that mission were justified by the entire United Nations, not just the US.

If we (UN) did not go into Afghanistan, then things would be far worse there under the Taliban regiem. Not to mention the rest of the world being held hostage by the Terrorist hiding out there. Striking us from a distance. How many people would have been killed in that scenario, I fear far more. Now I can never justify innocent lives lost, and with any war even WWI & WWII there are too many lives lost to war already.

To stand by and let people die in terrorist attacks and under a governing warlord is just as bad as war could ever be.

Jonny

trailerchick

  • *
  • Posts: 2970
  • Gender: Female
  • Location: B.C, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #158 on: Jun 16, 2006, 10:11 PM »
Fair enough...but if we are there to truly liberate the Afghani people from the Taliban...then question I have to ask is why them? There are a myriad of other dictators and warlord -esque leaders on the planet causing just as much pain and suffering as the Taliban. What make the Afghani issue more paramount?

Dictators come and go...some flourish on their own ...most are/have been backed by the US and her allies at some point in time{until they start messing with our "interests" of course} We have turned a blind eye so many other times...what's different now?
This portion of a US policy planning study sums it up to me:

Quote
U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:
" Our real task... is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military- economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization... we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning. U.S. State Department. 1948

And if it's really about stopping Terrorism then why are we not in Saudi Arabia? There is all the evidence in the World to suggest they have been and continue to fund and funnel resources and money to known Terrorist groups. Why don't we hold them to task?

It's these questions that undermine my support for our presence in Afghanistan.


Trailer_On_The_Lake

  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined:May 2006
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #159 on: Jun 16, 2006, 11:40 PM »
I wrote a HUGE reply to this thread and hit a wrong-key and it disappeared...  oh well. The main points were that there is a huge pipeline being built through afghistan by a comapny called unical  and that dick cheney ,bush and the saudi royals are heavily invested in its creation...

  check this link    http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm


   cheers Alan

walterx2

  • *
  • Posts: 1752
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Shitsburgh PA
  • Joined:Mar 2005
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #160 on: Jun 16, 2006, 11:45 PM »
In regards to Afghanistan I have strong opinions of our presence there and the effects it will have here. Our engagement in Afghanistan is to me tied with a much broader picture and agenda as visioned by Stephen Harper and his Neo Cons. It is a vision that I have researched and done extensive reading on and quite frankly it scares me. It is not my vision of this Country and what it can be at all.

As to date:

-tax breaks for corporations
-media censoring
-tax increase for the lowest wage bracket
-a failing grade by the Sierra Club on Environmental policies.
-biometric screening being implemented
-the scrapping of a plan to help Canadians offset the cost of staying home with aging or infirm parents.
-a national daycare policy that doesn't actually include everybody and was wrongly tied to the separate issue of "stay at home parents" and any compensation due them.
-the attempt at censoring our returning dead.

...to name but a few. Afghanistan to me is just a part of a longer list of things that I see happening in this Country and I'm not diggin it.


but this is only my opinion...obviously it's not the same for others.

Appreciate your comments Jonny

Cheers!



Hey TC,

That is the republican playbook, the only thing missing is the gradual erosion of personal or civil liberties, all in the name of keeping you safe. We have been living with this since they stole the 2000 election.

Walt
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." 

William J. Casey - Head of Reagan's CIA after his first staff meeting.

walterx2

  • *
  • Posts: 1752
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Shitsburgh PA
  • Joined:Mar 2005
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #161 on: Jun 16, 2006, 11:51 PM »
I wrote a HUGE reply to this thread and hit a wrong-key and it disappeared...  oh well. The main points were that there is a huge pipeline being built through afghistan by a comapny called unical  and that dick cheney ,bush and the saudi royals are heavily invested in its creation...

  check this link    http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm


   cheers Alan



I have a good book written by Ted Rall about this, it's called

Gas War: The Truth Behind the American Occupation of Afghanistan

Book Description
At first glance, the United States invasion of Afghanistan seemed like an obvious response to the horrifying attacks of September 11th, 2001. Now, as America remains threatened by Al Qaeda and Afghanistan has disintegrated into the bloodshed of renewed civil war, the occupation looks like a disaster. But fighting terrorism wasn’t the real goal of the Afghan war. Picking up where his groundbreaking travelogue To Afghanistan and Back left off, Ted Rall’s extensive research reveals the truth behind the spin and the new dangers we face as a result.

From the Author
Soon after I returned from covering the war in Afghanistan in late 2001, it became obvious that the Bush Administration had made next to no effort to capture Osama bin Laden. It had made next to no effort to bring democracy to Afghanistan. And it had made next to no effort to rebuild that war-torn country.

That left only one reason for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan: the country's position between the Indian Ocean and the landlocked Caspian Sea nation of Kazakhstan, which lucked into the biggest oil strike in world history in 1999.

The story of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline has been reported in countless fragmentary reports, but no one had ever brought together all the loose threads into a coherent piece. Given the complexities of Central Asian politics and the energy business, it wasn't surprising that the average American was not aware of the scandalous origins of the U.S. invasion and occupation.

I decided to try to change that. GAS WAR tells the whole story of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline from its start in the mid 1990s to the recent agreement signed by Hamid Karzai authorizing its construction. It aptly demonstrates that there is no "war on terrorism," but rather a wholesale attempt to colonize oil-producing states. This is, of course, precisely the kind of resentment-causing policy that will lead to future acts of terrorism against innocent Americans. If you care about America, you need to know about the crimes that your President is committing in your name.

Saucy Bastard

  • *
  • Posts: 5674
  • Gender: Male
  • Joined:Jun 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #162 on: Jun 16, 2006, 11:55 PM »
walterX2 !  :clap:

Great to hear your sane view of this insanity!

Julians_Wife

Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #163 on: Jun 17, 2006, 12:03 AM »
Amen to that Walt and although I didn't read that book myself, I know a few ppl that did but I  watched a few documentaries on the subject and that has been my take on it EVER since. This is not about caring or wanting to help, it's about OIL (gas) end of story.

walterx2

  • *
  • Posts: 1752
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Shitsburgh PA
  • Joined:Mar 2005
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #164 on: Jun 17, 2006, 12:09 AM »
Thanks SB,

The sheeple are beginning to slowly come around down here. The prolem is that you have to dig a little to get to the facts. Which I believe that most people are too busy or lazy to do.

Meanwhile the Corporate Media and right wing talk show host spin the lies and deceptions 24\7.

Come on, NBC is owned by General Electric, who is making billions from their Defense Contracting subsideries. Do you think they want the status quo to change. I think not!

trailerchick

  • *
  • Posts: 2970
  • Gender: Female
  • Location: B.C, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
  • Offline

Trailer_On_The_Lake

  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined:May 2006
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #166 on: Jun 17, 2006, 01:02 AM »
The coperate media is owned by one company,   Clear-Channel Communications....

EvilTwin

Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #167 on: Jun 17, 2006, 02:42 AM »
I cannot believe what I'm reading. You people still don't get it. OK, fine, the war is all about oil and nothing else :roll:

By engaging the terrorists on their own soil we are forcing them to expend their resources there, INSTEAD of in North America or the UK or any other peaceful nation. This was not an unprovoked attack, it was a military response to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the USA. The majority of innocents killed does not come at the hand of US troops, they die from suicide bombers(their own people).

Believe me, I feel sorry for the innocent people being killed in this mess. But to ignore the threat would be a slap in the face of every person, and their surviving family, that died on 9/11. There have been many attacks on Americans worldwide. Military barracks and US warships come to mind. The leaders of these countries have said publicly that they wish to see the USA wiped off the map. Do you think that the bombs will stop at the Canadian border? Live and let live doesn't work if the other party won't live and let live.  :-k
For fucks sake, get off your high horse, wake up and smell the napalm.

trailerchick

  • *
  • Posts: 2970
  • Gender: Female
  • Location: B.C, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #168 on: Jun 17, 2006, 03:52 AM »
ET your missing my point. You say we are engaging Terrorists on their own soil. I say we are not. Sadamm Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are not the same person no matter how much the Whitehouse tries to morph the two. The Iraqi people nor their once US supported dictator had anything to do with 9/11.

15 of the 17 highjackers came from Saudi Arabia. Why not invade them?
Up until 4 months before the Afghanistan invasion the US had been funding and backing the Taliban. It was only after intense pressure from Oil interests bleating  that the only way to secure a pipeline was to install a US freindly government, that the tone started to change. 9/11 was the nail in the Afghani coffin.

Quote
But to ignore the threat would be a slap in the face of every person, and their surviving family, that died on 9/11.

No a slap in the face is Bush crowing about getting his "Trifecta" after 9/11.

Quote
The leaders of these countries have said publicly that they wish to see the USA wiped off the map.

Conversely if I lived in Iraq right now and I took a look at the destruction of my Country,the death of 10's of thousands of my innocent fellow countrymen I might feel as if the US wanted my Country wiped off the map.

Quote
For fucks sake, get off your high horse, wake up and smell the napalm.

yes...Vietnam.We all know how that turned out.


EvilTwin

Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #169 on: Jun 17, 2006, 04:13 AM »
World peace is a pipe dream and anybody that thinks different is delusional. As long as there are radicals in control of governments the threat will always be there.
I'm not supporting Bush or his cronies. But I will support the troops and their families.

The majority of innocents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are not killed by the UN forces. They are killed by suicide bombers, their own countrymen. What about the entire village that Saddam attacked with nerve gas? Should this man be left in control of a country? Iraq was invaded to bring a killer to justice, Saddam Hussein. It has nothing to do with oil, as so many of you believe.

Afghanistan was invaded because they refused to cooperate with the UN in the search for Osama Bin Laden. They were invaded after 9/11 and before Iraq was invaded.

Yes, the hijackers were Saudi, by birth, but they left Saudi Arabia and joined a terrorist organization(Al-Queda) so they could become terrorists.

Saucy Bastard

  • *
  • Posts: 5674
  • Gender: Male
  • Joined:Jun 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #170 on: Jun 17, 2006, 11:43 AM »
But I will support the troops and their families.

Me too , but I want them to be at home where they belong. 

The majority of innocents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are not killed by the UN forces. They are killed by suicide bombers, their own countrymen.

That may be so , but it wasn't happening before the US invaded

What about the entire village that Saddam attacked with nerve gas?

Oh right , the nerve gas. Would that be the nerve gas sold to Saddam by The United States of America?! :roll:

And how many Iraqis have died as a direct result of the invasion?

Do 2 wrongs make a right?


trailerchick

  • *
  • Posts: 2970
  • Gender: Female
  • Location: B.C, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #171 on: Jun 17, 2006, 01:40 PM »
World peace is a pipe dream and anybody that thinks different is delusional. As long as there are radicals in control of governments the threat will always be there.
I'm not supporting Bush or his cronies. But I will support the troops and their families.

The majority of innocents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are not killed by the UN forces. They are killed by suicide bombers, their own countrymen. What about the entire village that Saddam attacked with nerve gas? Should this man be left in control of a country? Iraq was invaded to bring a killer to justice, Saddam Hussein. It has nothing to do with oil, as so many of you believe.

Afghanistan was invaded because they refused to cooperate with the UN in the search for Osama Bin Laden. They were invaded after 9/11 and before Iraq was invaded.

Yes, the hijackers were Saudi, by birth, but they left Saudi Arabia and joined a terrorist organization(Al-Queda) so they could become terrorists.

With all due respect ET....you are regurgitating Fox News.

Quote
World peace is a pipe dream and anybody that thinks different is delusional. As long as there are radicals in control of governments the threat will always be there.
I'm not supporting Bush or his cronies. But I will support the troops and their families.

And yes perhaps "world peace" is a pipe dream....but it's a nice one. Unlike the war mongering bullshit that this species has been engaged in for the last .......oh I don't know ...forever. In fact I would also argue that Bush and his Conies skate a thin line when it comes to pronouncing other governments Radical. Pot meet kettle.

Quote
The majority of innocents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are not killed by the UN forces. They are killed by suicide bombers, their own countrymen. What about the entire village that Saddam attacked with nerve gas? Should this man be left in control of a country? Iraq was invaded to bring a killer to justice, Saddam Hussein. It has nothing to do with oil, as so many of you believe.

The fact that many civilians have died at the hands of suicide bombers does not in any way excuse or diminish the fact that US and allied forces are culpable as well in these deaths. hello...Haditha anyone? And in fact I would argue that our presence there has not made the region more secure or safe that it has only further inflamed an already volatile situation.
As for the removal of Saddam.....I'm sure no one would argue that he wasn't a ruthless dictator,but AGAIN there are lots of these bozos running Country's. I question why particular ones are left alone but others not. Look at Nigeria. What a disaster that is. But will we go in there to relieve the people of their misery? Probably not as there is OIL interests to be considered. A brutal dictator and government is being left to commit all sort of atrocities as long as the current regime allows SHELL to continue it's OIL investments. And let's not even get started on the Fact that the US government has in the past and continues to this day to support all sort of nasty regimes.
And yes I do believe it has far more to do with securing OUIL interests than bringing supposed "freedom" to the region, or catching Terrorists. All the evidence points that way.

Quote
Afghanistan was invaded because they refused to cooperate with the UN in the search for Osama Bin Laden. They were invaded after 9/11 and before Iraq was invaded.


Yes but again a collective national Amnesia seems to be at work here. The Taliban was pressured to turn over Bin Laden that is true...they did not cooperate...that fact is up for debate. From the reading I've done there have been reports that the Taliban was willing to negotiate his turn over but the US refused, as the path to War was already laid out as per information that the only way to secure a pipeline in the region was to remove the leadership and install a US friendly regime. Do some reading. Wolfowitz,Rummy,Cheney and Pearl to name but a few wrote the plans for the Middle East a long time ago.Long before 9/11...long before the 1st Iraq war. It is my understanding that Bush Senior was pressured to adopt their plan but saw it for the fools folly it was. Guess they manged to install a Bush that would be willing to adopt their ideology in the end.

Quote
es, the hijackers were Saudi, by birth, but they left Saudi Arabia and joined a terrorist organization(Al-Queda) so they could become terrorists.


Again not quite true. The Israeli's found evidence in the early part of 2000-01{I may be a    little off on the date} that clearly shows that not only were terrorist organizations left to flourish in Saudi Arabia they were also funneled vast quantities of cash to support training exercises. The papertrail leads back to them. Did the hijackers then train in a different Country perhaps...but the point is they were funded by the Saud's. You know...Bush's good buddies....

Unfortunately I find the pro war side to be quite limited when it comes to looking at the Grey areas. Everything is not so black and white. And the Bush regime has quietly with little resistance pilfered your Social security,illegally wiretapped it's citizens and basically run roughshod over the Constitution.All in the name of "democasizing"[sp?] the region. The irony is rich.

« Last Edit: Jun 17, 2006, 03:06 PM by trailerchick »

Jonnyboy

  • *
  • Posts: 496
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: ON, Canada
  • Joined:Aug 2004
    • Trailer Park Boys
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #172 on: Jun 17, 2006, 11:06 PM »
Ok, here's an article on the North Korea situation, that seems to be going from bad to worse.

Should we just stand by and see where they go with this? Or should we do somthing?

Here is the article.

******************************

U.S., Japan urge N. Korea not to test-fire missile
CTV.ca News

Both Japan and the United States are warning North Korea against testing a new long-range missile capable of reaching North America.

"There is no good that can come from launching a North Korean missile. It will only isolate the North Koreans further from the rest of the international community," Thomas Schieffer, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, said Saturday.

Eight years ago, the rogue communist regime stunned the world when it fired a long-range missile over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean.

North Korea has observed a self-imposed moratorium on such tests since 1999, and its regional neighbors want that to continue.

The North Korean government has denied a test of the Taepodong-2 missile is imminent, but a South Korean newspaper reported Saturday that about 10 fuel tanks have been moved to the launch site. However, a South Korean foreign ministry spokesman couldn't confirm the report.

The Kyodo News agency of Japan reported Saturday that the North Koreans plan to describe the missile test as a satellite launch.

The North Koreans described the 1998 missile test as a satellite launch.

Political backdrop

North Korea is one of the world's two nuclear proliferation hotspots. The other is Iran.

There have been talks involving six nations -- North and South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the United States -- but those have stalled by a North Korean boycott.

"We hope the North Koreans will not take this provocative action, we hope they will return to the six-party talks, those talks can still be productive," Schieffer said.

Most international attention in recent months have been on Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes -- although the international community fears Iran intends to make nuclear weapons.

Some analysts say North Korea's actions may simply be posturing as international attention shifts to Iran.

For one thing, the U.S. has backed a proposal for Iran that would include light-water nuclear power -- something denied North Korea.

If North Korea goes ahead with the test, Schieffer would only say, "all options are on the table."

Taro Aso, Japan's foreign minister, described the situation as serious.

"How they respond is up to them," he said of the North Koreans.

With a report from CTV's Denelle Balfour and files from The Associated Press

Jonny
« Last Edit: Jun 17, 2006, 11:10 PM by Jonnyboy »

EvilTwin

Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #173 on: Jun 18, 2006, 12:49 AM »
Ok, here's an article on the North Korea situation, that seems to be going from bad to worse.

Should we just stand by and see where they go with this? Or should we do somthing?


Am I the only one that see's the irony in this statement?

"Should we just stand by and see where they go with this? Or should we do something?"

By "we" you of course mean the US military? Or is Canada actually going to get involved voluntarily? Without complaint?

You are so quick to criticize the US over Iraq and Afghanistan, yet you are just as quick to jump on the bandwagon with the N. Korea nuclear threat. I wonder how you would feel if the war in Iraq had been easy and over in a few months? Would you be sitting around saying "Well, we sure showed those towel heads" When in reality you've contributed nothing but negative energy to the effort.

« Last Edit: Jun 18, 2006, 01:12 AM by EvilTwin »

Saucy Bastard

  • *
  • Posts: 5674
  • Gender: Male
  • Joined:Jun 2004
  • Offline
Canadians don't want to steal oil, so they must be safe... right?
« Reply #174 on: Jun 18, 2006, 02:10 AM »
Personally , I'm a lot more worried about nukes then I am about terrorist bombings....