Is a war on "terror" winnable?

[IntruderLS1]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

but the US supplied Osama clandestanly and they supported the taliban against the soviets,

That's what I was trying to say. :dunno

watch jewel of the nile

:lol I haven't seen that movie in forever. LOL I remember that. I prefer Rambo III for Taliban referances in Hollywood though.

even our army coulda tken them out,

Canada rocks!! :rock :rock

"I dont know what kind of weapons they'll be fighting with in WW3 but i know that in WW4 it'll be sticks and stones"

They didn't call him Einstein for nothing.

 

[nic_vb]

Well i'm glad this has turned out to be a mature conversation and no one has been accused of being a communist or a witch yet. This is a reply to IntruderLS1's post. I'm glad that you speak in a very honest and objective way i just have some factual things that i will "argue" with you. I'll quote some stuff you said and write a response. ok first.

"The British Empire planed military operations to gain actual control over large areas of land........The United States does not operate this way."

This is very true. We live in a democratic society who've population would not support the use of troops to hold power under a region unless the population is convinced it is absolutely nessecary. But we've learned from british hostory and trying to directly hold land is incredibly inefficiant and the empire is over extended.

We do a very similar thing in a much more efficient way. The various movements that came out of the 60's (the woman's movement, soliderity movement, peace movement) had forced the government to do any dirty work in a "underground" manner. You can't call in the 82nd airborn without popular support right. This led to the era of "state sponsored terrorism" which means that we fund guerrilla organization so they will fufill our goals. I'm going to use the example of Nicaragua because it is one that cannot be denied by mainstream media due to its scale and sloppiness on the side of our government. The population of Nicaragua was being led by a left wing government that was investing in things like social programs instead of liberalizing there economies so we could buy there health care sysem. Under Reagen a guerrilla organization known as the "Contras" you've probbaly heard of them, where being supported by us with arms, air support and tactical intelligence. They were instructed to attack so called "soft targets" which included things like farms and villages in order to distabilize the society and create a chaotic environment so the government would fall. Well with the arms, intellligence and air support we gave them they abosolutely devestated the country killing thousands of people and sending it into a economic spiral. In order to feed there familes the population of Nicaragua had to turn for our "help" in the form of exploitative labour and capital investment in there social infrastructure. This means that we now control most of the flow of capital from Nicaragua and unlike the british, do not have to waste manpower or risk diplomatic problems by interferring in other nations. The Unites States is a empire built on capital hence capitalism, meaning we do not need to control the people or the land, we just need to control what they invest in, which has to be us. Is this not in there best interests? maybe you'de think so if you haven't travelled to one of these places. The fact is that we create chaos in foreign countries so that they depend on our capital investment and ownership of there enterprises for there society to function.

"A free and democratic nation is in the best interests of the United States"

I would agree with you on that point depending on how you interpret that statement. If "free and democratic" mean that they operate in the best interests of there own populations then i would completly dissagree with you. But if you mean "free" as a liberalized economy you'de be perfectly right. We are not interrested in the development of autonomous states that can provide for themsleves because we have nothng to gain from that. Whenever such a state emerges it is labbeled as a "rogue" and sometimes they are hostile, but in many cases, such as Nicaragua, they are not and only made out to be when it is most convenient. Remember if the business community is in control of our view of the world, then a state that is not open to our capital investment naturally falls under the category of "bad".

"The stated enemy of the United States is Communism, and governments that control the free will of its citizens. It happens to also be the case that this is in the best interests of the U.S., as our markets are best served by buyers and sellers. I don't think you can fault a people for acting in their best interests. That is a human trait that goes right down to the individual."

Capitalism and Communism are opposites in the way that they function but they both result in the same social organization. They both centralize a society and put power in the hands of a small minority resulting in a narrow scope of opinion having any real say in how the society actualy functions. When you speak of free will you probbaly mean that you can work where you want and do most of the things you want and say anything without repremand. But to be a "winner" in a capitalist society you have to conform to what the narrow scope of dominant opinion wants you to be. Or be poor or be an artist and whine about it but have money. In America that means i have to be supportive of the business community and what they represent including promoting a aggressive nature towards the ownership of any public holdings by anyone. This also means that in order to be an "agenda setter" it is my responsibility to promote a business ideal which is inherently unethical and destructive.

"We have stood by and born witness to mass killings. This is true. BUT, every time we try to intervene, we are called imperials."

Actually we usually cause the mass killings we've sat by and witnessed. During the Vietnam war we dropped more bombs per pound on the agricultural land of Cambodia then all of the bombs dropped during the second world war. The bombing of NEUTRAL cambodia directly resulted in the deaths of 400 000 cambodians and sent there country into choas as you could imagine (Cambodia only had a population of 6-8 million at the time). Due to the devestation of the society radical political groups became increasingly popular (just like the nazis rising out of starving Germany). The Khmer Rouge led by pol pot came into power because the population was starving due to the massive destruction we directly incurred them. So not only did we sit by and watch pol pot kill roughly 2-3 million people, we accually were economically responsible, just as you can argue that the greediness of the french after the first world war caused the poverty in germany to give rise to the nazis.

"I cannot think of an example where we supported a person we knew was going to institute mass killings (of civilians), and close of the country to freedom."

I can. In the 1970's the united states signed one of the biggest arms deals in history with the dictator who ran indonesia. In a farely famous video Jimmy Carter is seen at a "official" event with the Indonesian government signing the document and endorsing there legitimacy. The very next day the miltary forces of Indonesia invaded an island by the name of East Timor and over the next decade mounted up a body count that reviled pol pot's massacre in Cambodia, yes that means millions of people. With our arms and political support, not just complacency, but actual support for indonesia they incurred one of the top three massacres of the 20th century. Why would we sell them arms to do such a thing? because we are capitalists and we do business. Business inherently does not contain a code of ethics, people do but businesses, even if they have "nice" people in them, do not. That is why Americans don't understand the rest of the world and the rest of the world do not understand americans. When the rest of the world encounters "Americans", in the form of political relations, they are really just encountering our business community which are both our most powerful driving force, due to the fact we are capitalists, and happen to lack very much in the ways of ethics. And when we see how much the rest of the world dissaproves of our psychopathic behaviour we believe they should be grateful for all we have done for them, which we are told by the business community, is a lot of "good".

But it is very possible that you have never heard of East Timor and the same people who tell you what good we are doing for the world probably haven't either.

"When we do decide to fight though, we don't claim the territory we fought over. We didn't stay in France for example. We don't own South Korea, we gave Germany back to herself, we gave Japan back to herself, we didn't continue south into Central America and claim it as our own, and we have no intention of 'owning' Iraq."

Remember we own capital not land. We own south korea, if we pulled our all of our investment out of south korea there economy would serverily suffer, meaning we can impose our will on them in a more indirect way then holding a gun to someone's head. To a lesser extent the same goes for Germany and France but they have relatively strong economies without us. But Central America is a whole other story. As i mentioned before we are interrested in controlling latin america through capital investment that we've forced upon them out of nessesity for survival, we don't have to invade them to control there doctrines, all we have to do make sure that a small minority of the population is getting rich from our investment so that they will keep the other 98% of the population from being able to set up social programs. In real terms it means we set up our own dictatorships, with murder squads and all, that we call democracy's because they have a liberalized economy.

Why would we want to own any land in Iraq? it is a desert, we only want the oil reserves, well, our business community wants the oil reserves because they can make a lot of money from it and the do not possess a ethical backdrop to stop them from further destroying that nation.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

Well i'm glad this has turned out to be a mature conversation and no one has been accused of being a communist or a witch yet.

:lol

Me too. I have a decent response in my head, but I can hardly keep my eyes open at this point. I'll write back tomorrow, so I don't look like a total jack ass. :tard

 

[electricglidingwarrior]

I agree with nic_vb. IMO the USA is successfully buiding an "invisible" empire using economic dominance to control foreign policy. As nic_vb said, when this fails force is used, but even then it is rarely attributed to the US. Instead third-party forces are used such as the Contras or the Taliban. What usually follows is the installation of a "puppet" leader whom the US controls (often by making the puppet incredibly rich and providing arms). What happens when the "puppet" defies his master? The corporate owned mass media labels him as a terrorist, a dictator of a rogue state who must be removed, and the cycle begins again.

Intruder: "The occupants of those lands were required to swear allegiance to the King, pay taxes to the King, fight for the King, and provide for the King."
Is there any real difference in the way "allied" states are expected to act. Almost every country that has been on the recieving end of US or US sponsored aggression is now pouring money into the US economy - open markets, debt etc. I'd like to see a comparison between what the British Empire took in taxes and what the US takes off other countries in more legitimate means. How much of Iraq will be corporately owned when you have finished rebuilding what you destroyed?

"I don't think you can fault a people for acting in their best interests."

Well I'm afraid I'll have to disagree once again. You can fault them if this completely contradicts somebody elses interests. If everybody looked after their own best interests we would be living in a barbaric society. I'd like to think that being part of a "democratic free" society means we look out for other people aswell. So we can make one economy stronger by making somebody elses weaker? Yes I find fault with that. In fact the US consistently adopts policies which adversely affect the rest of the world (not just military), needing only to state that it is in the best interests of the US to pacify any protest.
"The USA drew worldwide criticism for failing to adopt the greatest international agreement for the reduction of some greenhouse gases, The Kyoto Protocol, which has been accepted by nearly every other country. This is despite the fact that the USA is by a massive margin the world's biggest polluter and very disproportionately so. President bush has repeatedly stated that he will not adopt such protocols if they harm American economy. Commercialism and greed overcome all common sense and thought for the welfare of future generations." Vexen Crabtree
I know this is a little off topic, but I think it highlights the contemptuous way the US treats the rest of the world. If a government policy benefits me at your expence (sometimes resulting in poverty, starvation, death) how would you view me and the government that represents me?

"Americans traditionally hate to fight."
Jeez, I don't want to seem like I'm America bashing or anything but that is not how the rest of the world views you. You only have to look at statistics of internal aggression. Highest murder rate in the West, highest rape rate in the world. Guns!!!!!! You love your guns. (I'm British BTW so I really don't get your fascination with'em) Maybe I'm digressing, but what I'm getting at is US foreign policy doesn't suprise many people. After all you are the only nation to use nuclear weapons on other human beings. And much of the evidence suggests WWII would have ended within months had the US listened to Japans offers of surrender. The bombs were dropped as a warning to the rest of the world, particularly communist nations.

Phreaked: "i do believe that the US and select countries should hold the nukes......Activly hostile countries with nuclear weapons are not a good thing"
Do I really need to reply to this???

 

[osama]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

Welcome Osama. Your English is very good. Thank you for joining us!!

I was sorry to hear of the troubles in your country. From what we see in America, it looks like you guys are doing really good things though. Keep up the good work.

I've never been to Egypt, but I want to go very much. I've traveled much of the Middle East, and Afghanistan, but Egypt is definitely my next stop.

Just so you know, I don't know anybody in my country that hates Muslims. We like you very much. And as you do, we want to live in peace.

Israel is a difficult subject, for another day. Good strides have been made in the past year with the Palestinians though. Hopefully it continues.


I found some pictures you can use for yourself if you like. You don't have to if you don't want to.

thanks man
i hope seeing you in egypt soon

 

[IntruderLS1]

Responding to nic_vb

It seems to me that you are coming from more of an anti-capitalist point of view more than anything else. That's fine by me, because it takes more than one idea to create a better world.

I wish I knew more about Nicaragua, so we could discuss the finer points, but must admit to only knowing the basics. I'll start looking into it though, if only for my own education.

I can discuss Pol Pot and Timor though.

The Cambodian government before Pol Pot was actively anti-American, and was assisting the North Vietnamese in their struggle against us. They were allowing the NVA and VC to use their territory as these sort of 'safe zones' to launch attacks in the south, move supplies and equipment, and take refuge when pushed back. It is generally accepted that the U.S. chose to engage the NVA and VC on Cambodian territory, but I don't see how that is such a crime. The U.S. fights with so many rules that others don't have to follow, but how could you defeat an enemy when they have safe zones to go back to regroup, re-supply, and re-engage from? The U.S. did not engage Cambodian national forces on their territory, and the State and War departments made every effort to minimalize Cambodian damage, and went so far as to pay the Cambodian government for damages (despite their aid to Communist North Vietnam).

Pol Pot came into power after this exchange, but he was decidedly NOT in the best interests of the United States. If memory serves, he envisioned a form of Communism, but it was more of a pure form. His goal was to isolate the country, and be self sufficient. He killed anybody smart enough to understand what he was doing, and was generally a bad guy. Your point is that America is to be blamed for Pol Pot, but I think you should look at the surrounding situation. We fought the Vietnamese on their territory, not Cambodians. Also, the Ho Chi Mihn zone was on the extreme eastern boarder of the country. I don't know where you got the number of 400,000 Cambodians killed by the U.S., but I suspect your source as having an agenda. We didn't put Pol Pot into power, we didn't support him in any way, and we were glad to see him go. I honestly think it's an enormous stretch to blame that on us.

Timor, like China after the Japanese were defeated in '45, found itself choosing between Communism, and a democratic society. Communism is a very attractive ideal on paper. Even more so when you're in a situation like most of SE Asia was in 1945. One of the primary reasons Communism is a stated enemy of the U.S., is because at its very core, it requires the domination of the entire world. The dialectic simply demands it. So eventually, that means they will attempt to spread to take over free people around the world. We decided a long time ago to be responsible to not let that happen.

Americans have a history of not understanding Eastern thinking very well. We're getting better at it now, but back then, we were just too different to comprehend.

Indonesia had no right to do what she did. But from our understanding at the time, we had a democratic and friendly Indonesia facing a Communist uprising and break away state. We (the U.N. led by Australia) did back Indonesia, but it was to defend herself and reclaim territory from a breakaway, hostile communist government. We didn't tell them how to do it, and it horrified the West on how they did go about it. We get blamed because we told them to 'make it quick,' but we were talking about rounding up ringleaders, not killing (I don't remember the numbers) something like 15-20% of a population. How could we stop it though? We can't just go in there and say "NO" and overthrow the Indonesian government. It's a sticky situation, and one that I'm sure we wished we didn't have to get tangled up in, but there it was. No way out.

You've said repeatedly that we 'own' other countries, because of our financial power. I disagree. If you looked at the United States as one entity, with the government having control of business and our media, I could understand a little more. But the U.S. media is anything but pro-government, and businesses are run by individuals, not the government. It is mutually profitable for countries to do business with the U.S., but if we ran things the way you imply we do, how do you explain our relationship with China? The U.S. is absolutely bleeding money in the free market world. Have you taken a look at the trade deficit lately? And yet we continue to keep tariffs at almost nothing, and we continue to let other nations buy and sell only what they choose. The United States government cannot force a government to do our bidding by using our economic power. We are influential, but only because others want something from us. Business has to be mutually beneficial, but we are attacked when we want something in return for our investments. Why? If you take that train of thought to conclusion, you have a United States that supplies the entire world with goods, services, and money, and gets / asks for nothing in return. We become a nation of servants who ask for nothing.

Historically speaking, I feel fairly safe in saying, people would still blame us for problems, because we didn't give enough, or we gave more to this group than that group, maybe it becomes our fault that laziness has spread in these other countries.... etc....

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

IMO the USA is successfully buiding an "invisible" empire using economic dominance to control foreign policy.

:lol :lol I don't mean to laugh, but you have to admit, that sounds pretty funny

but even then it is rarely attributed to the US. Instead third-party forces ....

There's a reason for that you know.

What usually follows is the installation of a "puppet" leader whom the US controls

We've been over this. You can't tell me the U.S. controls Berlin. The examples are numerous. Sovereign countries are free to do what they like, as long as they don't trample somebody else. If they don't want to sell us BMW's, more power to them. But it's not our fault their economy would take a dump because they stopped selling to us

The corporate owned mass media labels him as a terrorist

American media is like any other business. They are individual entities. They do not do the bidding of the U.S. government. Corporations are so diverse, that they will find advertisers, no matter which direction they decide to slant their coverage

Almost every country that has been on the recieving end of US or US sponsored aggression is now pouring money into the US economy

I'd like to see a comparison between what the British Empire took in taxes and what the US takes off other countries in more legitimate means. How much of Iraq will be corporately owned when you have finished rebuilding what you destroyed?

See bold above. The U.S. economy puts far more money into the countries you're talking about than we take in. Do a 2 second Google search on the U.S. trade deficit.

Iraq will be owned by Iraq's people. They'll open businesses, hire their neighbors, and pay taxes to pave their own roads. They can trade with whom they like, and be friendly with whom they like. How is this an evil idea?

You can fault them if this completely contradicts somebody elses interests.
I'd like to think that being part of a "democratic free" society means we look out for other people as well.

Let's trade examples. You give me a list of countries we've screwed for our own interests, and I'll give you a list of times we've looked after other people. We'll compare which list is longer.

The Kyoto Protocol,

Complex subject. I think we could do more to help the environment too. Things are starting to turn around in this country for just that though, so hopefully in the next 5-10 years, we'll see big changes.

"Americans traditionally hate to fight."
You only have to look at statistics of internal aggression. Highest murder rate in the West, highest rape rate in the world.

Could you please point me to those statistics? I would be interested. Thanks

After all you are the only nation to use nuclear weapons on other human beings. And much of the evidence suggests WWII would have ended within months had the US listened to Japans offers of surrender.

You're right; we're the only country to have used a nuke against other people.
Is it your honest opinion that the allies (not just the U.S.) should have accepted Japans 'surrender terms?'

The bombs were dropped as a warning to the rest of the world

What on earth makes you say something like that?


I'm not trying to be rude to you, but you seem like a person who would prefer short concise answers. If you would like me to not respond with quotes like I did up there, just say something, and we'll talk like gown ups.

BTW, I'll be in London over Christmas and new years. I can't wait to come see Great Britton!! It may interest you to know that the reason we chose Britton over other places in the world, was specifically because we wanted to spend money in your country to thank you for standing with us. I know it's a small gesture, but it is our way of saying 'Thank you.' Believe it or not, I (we) really appreciate England.

 

[nic_vb]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

To impose your view of the world on another person is to rob them of the autonomy that supersede's the need for what you percieve as a healthy society. There is no such thing as a healthy society that was not grown internally because populations in there views and social arrangements differ around the globe, making a template or mold a dangerous imposition.

The main thing a dislike about capatilism is the same thing you stated was at fault with Communism "it requires the domination of the entire world". Thus dissallowing an internally driven social doctrine to emerge whithin nations. When internally driven social doctrines do emerge whithin nations and take power they become "rogue states".

The second thing i find disturbing about your argument is that you seem to feel it is a justifyable action to kill millions of people where you feel it neccesary to promote capitalist ideals. Members inside the USSR undoubtatly used that exact same argument to justify themselves in an expansion plan and did kill millions as well, but we view those millions as unjustifiable.
This is were i see little difference in both systems, they are both self fufilled proficies that result in constant expansion of grasp and centralization of resources found in that grasp, both resulting in rigid and anti-hummanitarian campaigns of self promotion.

That is what a fail to understand in your justification of the bombing of south east asia during the vietnam war. We were on there territory telling them what system they should adopt and trying to kill them into submission. Imagine the horror if a more powerful communist nation came here and did that.

It's not that capitalism can't be good, it can be good like Christianity or any religion can be good. Only when adopted from the inside as tool for the development of an autonomous group with certain needs and beliefs that are maintained by the system.

But the U.S. media is anything but pro-government, and businesses are run by individuals, not the government.

The media are not pro-government, but they are huge corporations that are directly rooted in the economic foundations of the capitalist ideal because they are one of the main benefiters from that ideal. There view on there own government is almost trivial when it is compaired to their need to maintain a stable capitalist environment in which they can continue to exist as immensely powerful entities and the are run by individuals who also benefit from this power.

And finally, it is not that the rest of the world wants us to fix there problems, it is that the indigenous populations want the ability to legitimately and in a autonomous manner control there futures outside the narrow scope of the American imposed capitalist doctrine, unless otherwise specified, which has proven to be almost never. They want us as a friend not as a father.

Hear some numbers and such, the website link and biblio are at the bottom.

The U.S. did not engage Cambodian national forces on their territory, and the State and War departments made every effort to minimalize Cambodian damage.

One of the primary reasons Communism is a stated enemy of the U.S., is because at its very core, it requires the domination of the entire world. So eventually, that means they will attempt to spread to take over free people around the world.

"The U.S. and its allies killed as many as 5 million Southeast Asian citizens during the active war years. The numbers of dead in Laos and Cambodia remain uncounted, but as of 1971, a congressional Research Service report prepared for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicated that over one million Laotians had been killed, wounded, or turned into refugees, with the figure for Cambodia estimated two million. More than a half million "secret" US bombing missions over Laos, begun in late 1964, devastated populations of ancient cultures there. Estimates indicate that around 230,000 tons of bombs were dropped over northern Laos in 1968 and 1969 alone."

"The "secret" bombing of Cambodia began in March 1969, and an outright land invasion of Cambodia was conducted from late April 1970 through the end of June, causing thousand of casualties. These raging U.S. covert wars did not cease until August 14, 1973, by which time countless additional casualties were inflicted. When the bombing in Cambodia finally ceased, the U.S. Air Force had officially recorded the use of nearly 260,000 tons of bombs there."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOE201A.html
the bibliography is at the bottom.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

The second thing i find disturbing about your argument is that you seem to feel it is a justifyable action to kill millions of people where you feel it neccesary to promote capitalist ideals.

I'm sorry if I put that idea across. That was not my intention. In choosing sides on internal conflicts, I can see where you would think that, but I see it as choosing sides. We opt to choose the side that will allow their people to live with the freedom to travel, work, and worship as they chose. We're not interested in cookie cutter democracies all over the world. People are different, and our allies around the world have wildly different forms of government. We respect differances, as long as they don't trample the weak.

That is what a fail to understand in your justification of the bombing of south east asia during the vietnam war. We were on there territory telling them what system they should adopt and trying to kill them into submission.

I think this is another example of where we dis-agree. The South Vietnamese wanted to live a life of freedom. We originally got involved in the region while trying to support their military. Not by laying claim to the area and trying to change it.

The justification for bombing inside of Cambodia is clear in my mind. We may have different takes on the subject, but to me the Cambodian government activly chose sides, and allied themselves with the oposing side. (this eliminated their non-combatant status) Even though they did this, we still tried to keep our targets as strickly NVA and VC as we could. I assure you, the U.S. Air Force wasn't out bombing farmers just to bomb farmers. We had no interest, or anything to gain from doing that. What we did have an interest in doing, was taking away a safe haven from Communist northern forces on the other side of an invisible line.

Hear some numbers and such, the website link and biblio are at the bottom.

Thanks for the resource. I'll give it a look tonight!!

 

[Phreaked]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

but the US supplied Osama clandestanly and they supported the taliban against the soviets,

That's what I was trying to say. :dunno

watch jewel of the nile

:lol I haven't seen that movie in forever. LOL I remember that. I prefer Rambo III for Taliban referances in Hollywood though.

even our army coulda tken them out,

Canada rocks!! :rock :rock

"I dont know what kind of weapons they'll be fighting with in WW3 but i know that in WW4 it'll be sticks and stones"

They didn't call him Einstein for nothing.

Yes i think (have to say think i dont remember this area of history too well and i cant find a source so if im wrong plz show me) it was your fault the taliban/taleban (what the hell is with the different spellings anyways even the news is depending on the channel) took over the country, they were not the leaders of the country a communist was in control then i think the taleban (the extremists even then with all the religous crap and bad treatment to women) declared a jihad on russia/the communists. The US funded the overthrow of a governement by the taliban with funds to buy arms first then once it all started sent in covert CIA agents to train and help the taliban fight, osama among them, then once communism started to fall apart they pulled out even though the war wasnt over and left the taliban alone and some in the midst of missions and such, again osama among them. The US did not fight in that war offically. Osama then used his US military trainning to set terrorist camps. Again if someone could find me a reference that would be great

Really? Rambo? Was never a big fan myself but i did see the movies i dont rememebr them though. Can you give me some examples?

thanks for the Canada Rocks!! comment....i know we have very well trained army and quite a few members of my familyare/were part of it but theres a joke up here about our army being armed with plastic knifes and forks...lol....As for your comment on getting critised in a sort of damned if you do damned if you dont kinda way thiers a reason, its not that you go in or not but when you go in sometimes methods are not appreciated, there always seems to be a bunch of civies killed/bad shit happen when you do go in, but not with the UN going in, not saying it hasnt happened just seems more rare, not sure why this is though, and dont say liberal media its world media now right and left wing and it woulda come out. And Canada knows about being critized for not going in, our leaders have created a shitstorm not being darfur earlier, but if you read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict its not completly our fault or anyones really, the whole of the Arabs society, theres even distinctions based on shade of skin color in this area, is in upheaval but since members of the UN security council wont let it happen they cant go in, so Canada has somewhat, we're helping the exisiting government in quelling this fighting/genocide right now by giving them vehicels, i wish we could go in and just stop it and i cant figure out quite why, we have a sizable army, not quite the size of yours (come on we have 1/10 your population its not quite possible) and i dont think they're doing much outside of afganistan. But this is the kinda thing that should be stamped down on hard and quick, and has been going on now for almost 3 years.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I can't tell if we are in agreement over the Taliban or not. It is true that we helped them gain power by assisting them against the Soviet Union, but it's not true that it's our 'fault' they turned out to be such bad guys after. Afghanistan was invaded by a super power, and we helped the local resistance maintain controll of their own contry. When the Soviets left, everybody had a big party, we patted eachother on the back and said congratulations, and then America left. We had no responsibility to dictate to them how to build their contry over the next 20 years. Not only responsibility, we didn't have the right. How can we be held responsible for the decisions they made?

Don't look now, but your post makes it look like you believe Canada should travel around the world impose her will on another country. I doubt you would ever say something like that without context, but it's very similar to what America is held accountable for in most of these places. You see a need, and you try to fill it. Just be careful, because doing what you think is right can get you a lot of bad press.

The comments you made about the Canadian military make me laugh. It is small, that's true, but you guys are really well equiped and trained. Did you know that the Strategic Air defense of all North America is run equal shares between the U.S. and Canada?

 

[Hurt911gen]

i hope this thread dies. just say "yes" or "no" to the question of this thread, you only have a 50% chance of answering it wrong, like duh.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

i hope this thread dies. just say "yes" or "no" to the question of this thread, you only have a 50% chance of answering it wrong, like duh.

:lol :lol

You do realize of course you don't have to read it if you don't like? Just pull a godfather, and let it be dead to you.



Oh, and "Yes." :banana :banana

 

[Hurt911gen]

Good job V!

first person to actually answer the freaking question! :banana

 

[IntruderLS1]

Who are you talking to?? LOL

 

[Hurt911gen]

uhm not you buddy :tard

 

[horseshoeing]

To much to read, So I didn't. Here is my 2 cents.

The only way to win is to kill them all. Bush has us on a good start and we will win if the people here will stick to bush's plan and kick ass when we have too. Iraq was good to draw the dumb ass to a place they could run to and die. The arab world is now starting to see how those losers are killing anyone and seeing how the world is starting to really hate the arabs. We are winning the war now.

 

[aleksiptotistis]

How do you call a nation who attacs into 2 countries and kills thousands of people? KILLERS!!!

How do you call a nation who believes that weapons of mass destruction
exist in Iraq, a place where poverty and abjection rules? IDIOTS!!!

want more?

How do you call a nation who has this dump for president?

How do you call a nation who ruins our personal life by let the whole world know that we are under surveillance by his big eye (see echelon)???

the whole civilazed world hates americans!
i am broud not to be an american!

 

[UncleBacon]

and I'm proud to help blow up countries as a american bomb tech in the worlds greatest navy....make sure you get your facts straight

 

[lemon]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

and I'm proud to help blow up countries as a american bomb tech in the worlds greatest navy....make sure you get your facts straight

:rock :cool