[4Canada]

Well they are going to be there for one very long time aren't they? Like I told Bill Graham when he announced over 2000 more would be joining the few hundred already in Afghanistan. "Why not just kill them yourself Bill?" How long do you think we can keep our military in such conditions without depleting them completely Dr. Caleb? The US army has already passed the number of dead that we are sending to the Middle East alive in just less than 3 years. And many of them coming home wounded would likely wish they were dead.<br /> <br /> And I still do not believe we would be in Afghanistan or that the US would have jumped to our aid or anyone else for that matter had it been Canada struck. Just because we belong to NATO does not oblige any country to do something about a terrorist attack and we all know terrorism is not a new phenomena. NATO countries have been struck before 9/11 without this response. Bogus, Bogus, Bogus Bullshit!!!<br /> <br /> I still think that if only over 40 year old white men were made to fight the wars for their own freakin portfolios there would only be boardroom scuffles.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= 4Canada] Well they are going to be there for one very long time aren't they?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Canadian troops have been in Cyprus and the West Bank for decades. So? We don't leave our post before the job is complete.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> Like I told Bill Graham when he announced over 2000 more would be joining the few hundred already in Afghanistan. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Those 2000 are replacements for the 3500 that just left Kabul. The few hundred were there to set up the new base.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> How long do you think we can keep our military in such conditions without depleting them completely Dr. Caleb?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> A very long time. It's something we're good at. The fact the the Taliban are resorting to car bombs and suicide bombers shows that our command, contol and recon operations are shutting them down. That's why the Canadian base is moving from Kabul to Kandahar. Now we have to do there what we did in the north.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> The US army has already passed the number of dead that we are sending to the Middle East alive in just less than 3 years. And many of them coming home wounded would likely wish they were dead.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> What does Iraq have to do with Afghanistan?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> And I still do not believe we would be in Afghanistan or that the US would have jumped to our aid or anyone else for that matter had it been Canada struck. Just because we belong to NATO does not oblige any country to do something about a terrorist attack and we all know terrorism is not a new phenomena. NATO countries have been struck before 9/11 without this response. Bogus, Bogus, Bogus Bullshit!!![/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I believe 100% that if Canada had been struck instead, thing in Afghanistan would be far more brutal. One thing the US is good about, is honouring mutual defense agreements. And name one NATO country hit by external terrorism before 9/11 . . . . oh yea, Air India. But that was an 'inside' job. The bombings of US embassies in Africa? Yea, the US should have called for Poland's help on that one... <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> I still think that if only over 40 year old white men were made to fight the wars for their own freakin portfolios there would only be boardroom scuffles.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I want to live in your world. Alas, the bad guys don't always wear suits and play by civilized rules.<br />

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= 4Canada] Well they are going to be there for one very long time aren't they?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Canadian troops have been in Cyprus and the West Bank for decades. So? We don't leave our post before the job is complete.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> Like I told Bill Graham when he announced over 2000 more would be joining the few hundred already in Afghanistan. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Those 2000 are replacements for the 3500 that just left Kabul. The few hundred were there to set up the new base.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> How long do you think we can keep our military in such conditions without depleting them completely Dr. Caleb?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> A very long time. It's something we're good at. The fact the the Taliban are resorting to car bombs and suicide bombers shows that our command, contol and recon operations are shutting them down. That's why the Canadian base is moving from Kabul to Kandahar. Now we have to do there what we did in the north.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> The US army has already passed the number of dead that we are sending to the Middle East alive in just less than 3 years. And many of them coming home wounded would likely wish they were dead.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> What does Iraq have to do with Afghanistan?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> And I still do not believe we would be in Afghanistan or that the US would have jumped to our aid or anyone else for that matter had it been Canada struck. Just because we belong to NATO does not oblige any country to do something about a terrorist attack and we all know terrorism is not a new phenomena. NATO countries have been struck before 9/11 without this response. Bogus, Bogus, Bogus Bullshit!!![/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I believe 100% that if Canada had been struck instead, thing in Afghanistan would be far more brutal. One thing the US is good about, is honouring mutual defense agreements. And name one NATO country hit by external terrorism before 9/11 . . . . oh yea, Air India. But that was an 'inside' job. The bombings of US embassies in Africa? Yea, the US should have called for Poland's help on that one... <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> I still think that if only over 40 year old white men were made to fight the wars for their own freakin portfolios there would only be boardroom scuffles.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I want to live in your world. Alas, the bad guys don't always wear suits and play by civilized rules.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I can accept that temporary Canadian participation in some foreign conflicts might be necessary....I just have more trouble with these extended deplyments with no obvious conclusion...with Afghanistan ever be stable, and is it our job to sacrifice to make it so?<br /> <br /> Also, Afghanistan was never a threat to us. All we have to do is close our borders to immigrants from whatever country and they can't attack us. This is easily doable when the country is inconsequential like Afghanistan.

[4Canada]

Dr. Caleb,<br /> <br /> "Canadian troops have been in Cyprus and the West Bank for decades. So? We don't leave our post before the job is complete."<br /> <br /> <b>What is our job in Cypress and the West Bank? Things have been the same there for years. We must be wasting a ton of money?</b><br /> <br /> "The fact the the Taliban are resorting to car bombs and suicide bombers shows that our command, contol and recon operations are shutting them down."<br /> <br /> <b>I would consider the fact (I have no proof this is fact), that they are "resorting" to car bombs is because they have never had the same military might as NATO and with less of the US military there they certainly will stand a better chance of killing Canadians because we more often fight on the ground, no?.</b><br /> <br /> "What does Iraq have to do with Afghanistan?"<br /> <br /> <b>They are both American led wars.</b><br /> <br /> "I believe 100% that if Canada had been struck instead, thing in Afghanistan would be far more brutal. One thing the US is good about, is honouring mutual defense agreements. And name one NATO country hit by external terrorism before 9/11 . . . . oh yea, Air India. But that was an 'inside' job. The bombings of US embassies in Africa? Yea, the US should have called for Poland's help on that one..."<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Why would the Afghan war be "far more brutal" had Canada been hit and then we retaliated? Yes of course the US will honour it's military commitments they seem to own most of the military builders and make the most money from war and reconstruction.<br /> According to some the people involved with the Air India bombing were acting for an extremist group in India. And all of the accused "terrorists" on 9/11 were living in the US and no one to date has proven it was not an inside job. And even if someone was going to be attacked over the official story surrounding 9/11 why was it not Saudi Arabia? The dollars would have had to be coming form somewhere?<br /> And yes other NATO countries (there have been some in Italy by the way), that have had terrorist attacks have been directed at the Americans living in those countries. I don't understand your roll your eyes comment, that went over my head which is easy to do when it comes to combat and military response.<br /> <br /> Would you say that there is a pavlovian response to military combat for all those that have been trained in the military? It sure seems that way to me. And for that reason there is no point in going on about it, from now on, "You win Dr.Caleb".<b>

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> Also, Afghanistan was never a threat to us. All we have to do is close our borders to immigrants from whatever country and they can't attack us. This is easily doable when the country is inconsequential like Afghanistan. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> So, 9/11 didn't show you that they were a threat? Training people to kill civillians is just wrong, and it is the militarys duty to protect our civillians from all threats.<br /> <br /> Closing the border to Afghanis would be pointless. They would simply go to Pakistan or India or Iran. Reducing immigration isn't going to solve any problems, let alone this one.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> <b>What is our job in Cypress and the West Bank? Things have been the same there for years. We must be wasting a ton of money?</b>[/quote]<br /> <br /> The job in Cypress "Operation Snowgoose" was to keep Greek and Turk forces obeying a cease fire brokered in the 60's. Troops levels went from 25,000 in the 60's to 1 today.<br /> <br /> In the West Bank, it's to keep Isrelies and Palestinians from killing each other in Jerusalem. Total forces: 2. <br /> <br /> <a href='http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Operations/current_ops_e.asp'>Current Deployments Link</a><br /> <br /> I don't think keeping peace is a waste of money.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> I would consider the fact (I have no proof this is fact), that they are "resorting" to car bombs is because they have never had the same military might as NATO and with less of the US military there they certainly will stand a better chance of killing Canadians because we more often fight on the ground, no?.[/quote]<br /> <br /> You aren't far off. What they used to do was quickly set up a rocket or mortar position, bomb the camp, and run away. But our guys are so good at survilliance, they tend to intercept these people before they even set up or hurt anyone. So now, the Taliban have to use terror techniques to gain any sort of advantage. But with our new armour (G-Wagons and Coyotes) they'll have a tough time hurting our troops.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> They are both American led wars.[/quote]<br /> <br /> Granted, but for entirley different reasons. Which is why Canadian troops are not in Iraq.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]Why would the Afghan war be "far more brutal" had Canada been hit and then we retaliated?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> For the reasons I cited, an unprovoked attack on a country that minds it's own business. With the US attacks, people were outraged, but many in the world had the opinion that they brought it on themselves for their interference. What would the world have done had it been Canada that had been attacked?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> According to some the people involved with the Air India bombing were acting for an extremist group in India. And all of the accused "terrorists" on 9/11 were living in the US and no one to date has proven it was not an inside job. And even if someone was going to be attacked over the official story surrounding 9/11 why was it not Saudi Arabia? The dollars would have had to be coming form somewhere?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Conspiracy theories aside, Air India was thought to have been comitted from Canadian citizens operating inside and outside Canada. That makes it an internal matter, just like the Oklahoma City bombings.<br /> <br /> But I agree, Saudi Arabia was a more likely target than Iraq.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> And yes other NATO countries (there have been some in Italy by the way), that have had terrorist attacks have been directed at the Americans living in those countries. I don't understand your roll your eyes comment, that went over my head which is easy to do when it comes to combat and military response.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Sorry, I though tmy 'rolling eyes' comment was straightforeward. You said: "NATO countries have been struck before 9/11 without this response. Bogus, Bogus, Bogus Bullshit!!!". I rolled my eyes because NATo countries do not call on each other everytime they have an internal crisis. The US doesn't call it's NATO partners unless it's really, really desperate.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> Would you say that there is a pavlovian response to military combat for all those that have been trained in the military? It sure seems that way to me. And for that reason there is no point in going on about it, from now on, "You win Dr.Caleb".<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> No, it's not a Pavlovian response (Gee, now that name rings a bell . . .) it's an understanding of the 'behind the scenes' stuff. If anything, it's a response of 'let's sit down and discuss this like adults. . .' Most of the NATO countries who had civillains killed on 9/11 are the ones signed into Afghanistan. A few other non NATO countries that had people killed were also involved. It is the duty of the military to protect civillians from harm, so if Afghanistan was training people specifically to go out and harm civillians outside their country - it becomes a worldwide issue.<br /> <br /> No point in going on?? But we always have such good discussions!!

[badsector]

Dr. Caleb, unfortunately you don't understand history! Just like Jack Nicolson said: "You can't handle the truth!"<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]so a unprovoked attack would have been seen much more like a Pearl Harbour 'sneak attack', or Germany's <br /> invasion of Poland. [/QUOTE]<br /> Khmmm... If you don't mind my correction, the two examples above weren't exactly unprovoked or unexpected. Both Japan and the US wanted to dominate the Pacific, so war was only a question of time. The US made the first move by imposing an oil embargo on Japan (which crippled its economy) and moving most of its fleet to the Pacific. Japan took the next step by bombing them to shreds. Regarding Poland and Germany... Germany lost territory to Poland in WWI (done by the allies). The Poles treated the ethnic Germans in the gained territory rather badly, there were countless atrocities committed against them. When Germany re-armed, the tensions between the 2 countries grew. In the late 1930s the Germans installed a radio station on the border and started broadcasting anti-Polish propaganda. Days before the war broke out, men wearing Polish army uniforms crossed the border from Poland, attacked and occupied the German radio station, then started broadcasting anti-German propaganda which contained the phrase "Death to all Germans!" The Germans said they were Polish army. The Poles said they were German provokators. Of course, history is the propaganda of the victors, so the latter is accepted as the official version today. Regardless, days after the attack on the radio station a German warship started pounding the Polish fortifications in Danzig and the German army crossed the border. The allies promised help but didn't lift a finger to help Poland, who were overrun in 3 weeks.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]So, how do you explain WW2? Was it not about stopping a brutal fascist from dominating Europe, and possibly beyond??[/QUOTE]No it wasn't. Like all wars, it was about power and subsequently money. The US wasn't in a hurry to enter the war and did it only when it was obvious who would win. They entered the war to carve out their own share of the booty. Prior to that, US corporations did all kinds of rich deals with fascist Germany. Bush's grandfather dealt with Hitler's Germany until 1945. He was powerful enough not to be bothered for it, just like US corporations today trade with the arch-enemy of the US, communist China. The US is practically financing its greatest enemy and destroying its own economy, courtesy of high treason by US corporations.<br /> <br /> Like I said... forget the smokescreen. Fighting against tiranny is the type of bullshit our leaders shove our way because they can't tell us the truth.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]Was his goal (if not his excuse) not the complete subservience of all non-aryan peoples?[/QUOTE]<br /> That was another example of crowd manipulation. Give the people something to believe in and they follow you anywhere. It works too, unfortunately.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= badsector] Dr. Caleb, unfortunately you don't understand history! Just like Jack Nicolson said: "You can't handle the truth!"<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> No, I understand history well enough. What I try not to do is second guess intentions and motivations of the participants when I have a 60 year advantage looking back on events. Especially when I only use those events as examples of current motivations.<br />

[Brent Swain]

The US has many times the number of Canadians in Afghanistan ,fighting a useless war in Iraq , while leaving Canadians and other allies undermanned in Aghanistan. If they would concentrate their efforts in Afghanistan they wouldn't need any other allies there, and the rest of us could simply go home. It's hard to justify supporting a country so determined to shoot itself in the foot for no good reason, at the expense of their allies.<br /> Brent

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE]Closing the border to Afghanis would be pointless. They would simply go to Pakistan or India or Iran. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I meant close CANADA's borders to Afghani immigrants if that is the country our government deems a terrorist threat. If that is what you thought I meant then if they go to Pakistan, India or Iran then those government can deal with them or the Americans can work wiht those government to round the terrorists up.<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]Reducing immigration isn't going to solve any problems, let alone this one.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> How can you say this? That is insanity!!! First of all, if we hadn't allowed Muslim immigration in the first place--they wouldn't be in our countries. Also, if our government simply DEPORTED the 50 terrorist and crime organizations CSIS and the RCMP admit are in Canada then we would have no terrorist problem. <br /> <br /> Our government lied to us. They said we were fighting to prevent terrorism IN CANADA, yet it is their immigration policies that allowed terrorists to immigrate here, so we can't believe a word they say. They assume that no one will notice their bullshit, but many do. Canada had few terrorist problems in the past....and as for the FLQ, that was a very small thing relative to 9-11.<br /> <br /> Our government has betrayed us to the globalist elites who are fighting pointless wars for profit and foreign lobbies, while trying to divide and conquer us with immigrants, many of whom they claim to be going to war to defend us against.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE]So, how do you explain WW2? Was it not about stopping a brutal fascist from dominating Europe, and possibly beyond??[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Partially perhaps...but Hitler was so overextended that dominating beyond was a stretch. I think WW II probably happened for literally dozens of reasons at least, many of which we probably have no information about.

[4Canada]

Perturbed,<br /> <br /> And Dr. Caleb I believe you were asking how WW2 was economically driven? I would recommend the "Global Banking Trilogy" post Milton submitted to Vive a couple of days ago. Especially the link titled: "The Bank for International Settlements". It seems that WW2 was born out of WW1.<br /> <br /> And Perturbed your unreasonable fear of immigrants being terrorists just does not hold water. Criminals are people and people become criminals. Any one of us can become a criminal put in the situation that would drive us there however misguided that may be. I have friends that are immigrants and in most cases they make better Canadians than some of the Canadian born people I know.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> I meant close CANADA's borders to Afghani immigrants if that is the country our government deems a terrorist threat. If that is what you thought I meant then if they go to Pakistan, India or Iran then those government can deal with them or the Americans can work wiht those government to round the terrorists up.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I know that's what you meant. But that isn't an option. That part of the world is so fluid, there is no telling who is Afghani, Pakistani, Kashmiri, Indian . . . All you have to do is cross the border, live with family and friends for a while and *poof* you have a new identity and can apply for a passport. Or come here on Vacation and apply as a refugee. With a severe lack of birth records, there is nothing to challenge that you are not who you claim to be. <br /> <br /> So, your answer is to stop all immigration. Even from England, Germany, Austraillia . . .? What did they ever do to us? <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> How can you say this? That is insanity!!! First of all, if we hadn't allowed Muslim immigration in the first place--they wouldn't be in our countries. <br /> [/quote]<br /> <br /> The problem has never been Muslims. In general, they are good, hard working people. The problem is with the Radical Islamists, and the small percentage of them don't 'stand out' in any way from the rest.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> Also, if our government simply DEPORTED the 50 terrorist and crime organizations CSIS and the RCMP admit are in Canada then we would have no terrorist problem. <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I know that's your shotgun approach to things, but Canadian Citizens can't be 'deported' to anywhere. And how do you 'deport' an organization? Since when have we had a terrorist problem?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> Our government lied to us. They said we were fighting to prevent terrorism IN CANADA, yet it is their immigration policies that allowed terrorists to immigrate here, so we can't believe a word they say. [/quote]<br /> <br /> Logical error: Non Sequitr. Our government lies to us all the time. But there is no link that immigration policies have allowed terrorists to enter Canada. No matter how much people want to believe that there are terrorists in Canada, until an immigrant performs an act of terror in Canada or is extradited for terror acts outside of Canada; there is nothing to link immigration and terroism. Except fear, and that fear will override our belief in Adversarial Justice, if we let it.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> They assume that no one will notice their bullshit, but many do. Canada had few terrorist problems in the past....and as for the FLQ, that was a very small thing relative to 9-11.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> And where would we deport FLQ terrorists to?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> Our government has betrayed us to the globalist elites who are fighting pointless wars for profit and foreign lobbies, while trying to divide and conquer us with immigrants, many of whom they claim to be going to war to defend us against.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Logical errors: Non Sequitr(X 3), Inconsistency, Excluded Middle.<br /> <br /> There is no proof of a 'globasist elite' nor that our government has betrayed us to them, nor that the war is pointless, nor that the war is for profit. Just the opposite, above I showed that both Afghanistan's (and the same for Iraq's) natural resources are not worth the cost of these wars. Citing 'global conspiracies' and 'hidden agendas' to back that up are also logical fallicies.<br /> <br /> 'Excluded Middle' fallicy from the fact that no one is going to war with immigrants. I know you tend to paint all Muslims with one brush. You might try getting to know a few of them. They are good people, and good Canadians.<br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= 4Canada]It seems that WW2 was born out of WW1.<br /> [/quote]<br /> <br /> Absolutely. The crushing debt and restrictions on Germans after WWI created a huge resentment there. The crushing debt for war reparations after WWII are still being felt, and many Germans still resent the French and English for this debt. But the Germans learned their lesson, and bear it anyway.<br /> <br /> The lack of monitoring and enforcement of the disarmament treaties after WWI were what let Hitler get away with re-arming for WWII. Which is why I was surprised with the Invasion of Iraq, because the US and Britan held a very tight military curtain around Iraq to prevent any re-arming. I doubted anyone could have snuck a crate of guns into Iraq, let alone a huge mobile chemical weapons factory.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= 4Canada]<br /> I have friends that are immigrants and in most cases they make better Canadians than some of the Canadian born people I know. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Well said.

[Dr Caleb]

Just another bit of evidence - if the War in Afghanistan is about profit, why would the US, Germany and Russia write off their debts owed by Afghanistan?<br /> <br /> <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E339B257-B0AC-48DC-A547-D7ED0063831F.htm'>link</a>

[badsector]

[QUOTE]Just another bit of evidence - if the War in Afghanistan is about profit, why would the US, Germany and Russia write off their debts owed by Afghanistan?[/QUOTE]<br /> They do that to all conquered countries, to get their economies moving and start making money.<br /> I hope you don't mean to suggest that countries such as the US go to war for humanitarian reasons. That would fly in the face of facts that the US supports bloody dictatorships whenever its financial interest requires it. See Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Guatemala...