# The day that changed the world



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Will we ever hear the end of the 9/11 episode. Will the world or at least North America, ever return to "normal". I am sooooo sick of hearing about terrorists, Iraq, Iran and generally the entire middle east. Now this Zacarias Moussaoui thing... yeah, so they found him guilty, he is "eligible" for the death penalty. Who the f%^$ cares. This guy is about as whacked out as they come. Can you imagine the money that has been wasted on this trial.

This freak is nothing but a twisted little nabob, and we, or should I say the American press, make him out to be some kind of 9/11 mastermind. Let's debate his importance for the next 10 years.

I remember watching those attacks on the WTC live that morning on CNN... and I also remember thinking to myself at the time... this will last for years. I think even my estimates at the time will pale in reality. We are over 4 years into it and there is no end in site.

:sport-smiley-002:


----------



## walden (Feb 5, 2006)

brother... youre opening a whole can of worms here. theres really no end to what ones opinion on 9/11 could be. like it or not EVERYONE is affected by that somehow, theres so many religious, polictical, social and economic reprocusions you could teach university courses on all of them. 

charlie sheen went on CNN saying that its a coverup, or a conspiracy... is Bush behind it in some way? an exterior motive? prehaps.

the whole question of islamic extremism, the west is taking the Qu'ran out of proportion and theres hatred towards the muslim body in western culture now. not all muslims are behind this, only a small portion, but they could justify their actions. middle eastern culture is drastically different from here and we and our media need to understand that.

theres a whole question that scapgoating saddam and invading iraq/more western influence in the middle east is just a ploy to get oil, this is more than likely true. (have you seen the movie Syriana? good flick about this.)

there are too many little parts to this whole situation in the world now that you couldnt just list them all at once. its part of the changing world, we all need to accept that. on the other hand, we all need to take what the media says with a grain of salt, theres always bias and distortion and its not nessicarily all true.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Very good synopsis Walden. I agree with most of what you are saying.. however I have to stick to my comment that I am soooooo sick of hearing it everyday on the news. It most likely will last through my lifetime so may as well get used to it. Political ramifications? Tons.


----------



## walden (Feb 5, 2006)

i just disagree with that moussaui stuff. not what you said but the whole trial.. they charged someone with three thousand and some odd counts of murder yet he was in prison at the time. its just because he apparenlty lied to authorities which caused them to be illprepared to defend against it. conspiracy to commit maybe, but no murder... they shouldnt kill him, just put him in a loony-bin.


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

walden said:


> .. theres a whole question that scapgoating saddam and invading iraq/more western influence in the middle east is just a ploy to get oil, this is more than likely true. ...


I hear what you guys are saying. But I'll be the devil's advocate for the media for a sec and say that corruption and greed happens at many levels, worldwide and locally. And *media* is made up of people and these people have to remain objective. If *it* happens, they report *it*. But they are people too, working for a boss whose is part of political *webs* and so on the story goes.

But to *focus* on an element such as a "ploy to get oil" is accepting a tunel vision. There's a whole society that's been persecuted and who is happy that their tirant leader is finally gone. They too I'm sure are tired of what it's brought and most likely even more so.

We now do business on a global level, we also need to lend a hand for global human rights.

.02c


----------



## walden (Feb 5, 2006)

offender, you cant deny that there is an economic motivation to invade iraq. american oil supply is dwindling, china is buying up stakes in the mcmurry oil sands fast and theyre running out of resources and the US needs to keep up. youre right maybe the US had a noble intention too, and sure the people in iraq are free... but you gotta admit theyre blowing eachother up a hell of a lot more than when saddam was kickin around there. thats what i meant by different cultures that the majority of westerners cant understand. people forget that for the vast majority of american history theyve been isolationist, and yet now they put there noses in others business. the middle east is a contained system, it handles itself amungst itself. that is why they get pissed off when the west comes in, culturally and physically through force.

you have to ask yourself something thats very easy to answer. if there was no oil in the middle east, do you think the americans would have the slightest care for those people? no. would bush and the sauds be as friendly as they are? most definately not. is saudi arabia the most free and democratic nation around? of course not, but the US wont invade there, because they cooperate. 

sorry, but im just playing the other side there.


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

I don't believe that oil was a factor in the US taken part of the Vietnam war. Other political interest maybe. "You have to pick your battles". I'm not necessarilly disagreeing with you.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

So true... there are so many domestic issues that need addressing as well. I was in LA a few years back and I could have sworn I was in downtown Mexico City. Estimates of as much as 11 million illegals and about 3 million of them in California alone. 

The events of 9/11 were tragic, dispicable, inhuman etc etc..... no debating that. But the directions it has taken since are questionable at best. You are right on the middle east though, there would be no interest in those people or culture if not for the Black Gold, Texas Tea... :2guns:


----------



## walden (Feb 5, 2006)

oil wasnt a factor in vietnam, youre right. but we're not talking about fighting communists here, we're talking about fighting "terrorists." the vietnam war was because of the french, their colony is underattack from communists... dien bein phu right? and then according to the truman doctrine... korean war... the united states pleages support to nations fighting against agreesion from communists. its a totally different can of worms. the united states didnt invade vietnam either, the followed strict rules of engagement and acted as observers until 1962, i think, dont quote me on the year. but that was the gulf of tonkin incident... they were attacked and then responded.

but i dont really think you can compare foreign policies from 50 years ago with those today, totally different structure in politics. thats like saying, we went to war with the states back in 1812, they just might attack us tommorow. haha well not exactly, but you kinda get what im trying to say im sure.


----------



## walden (Feb 5, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> So true... there are so many domestic issues that need addressing as well. I was in LA a few years back and I could have sworn I was in downtown Mexico City. Estimates of as much as 11 million illegals and about 3 million of them in California alone.


so true, and look at mexico itself... theres right wing military groups in the south, and the north is all desert which is just horid... ive been there, to the small towns, and its not pretty. vincente fox isnt doing much to free his people, so why doesnt the united states step in there? its all part of a political web, like offender said... the us is free to trade under nafta so they have no reason to involve themselves in the well being and "freedom" of the mexicans. im taking one side of this whole issue just for arguements sake here, i dont really feel this strongly about all of this.

i think in the future you're also going to see more words being returned by bush towards latin america, fidel isnt dead yet. theres unfinished business there still, and thats a nation that is far from free right next to the states. hugo chavez is the prez of venizuala and hes not the most pro-american guy to say the least. venizuala is sitting on a lot of oil, and right now they still trade it with the states... theyre not about to stop that so long as theres not too much of a squable between the two. but then you have to look at it another way, theres democratically elected marxist governements in venizuala, bolivia and chile... in terms of bushs noble intentions for world freedom, where does that fit in? they limit their civil rights, but its done democratically?


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

oh yeah. different political agendas for different times. But although US *invaded* Irak, they also thought that they would withdraw sooner than they'll have to now.

What happens if they do withdraw? These poor folks will be back to square one. And what if things went *according to (some sort of) plan*? US withdraws, there's democracy in place and that country eventually takes its place back in the world's business with its people living with human rights.


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

walden said:


> so true, and look at mexico itself... theres right wing military groups in the south, and the north is all desert which is just horid... ive been there, to the small towns, and its not pretty. vincente fox isnt doing much to free his people, so why doesnt the united states step in there? its all part of a political web, like offender said... the us is free to trade under nafta so they have no reason to involve themselves in the well being and "freedom" of the mexicans. im taking one side of this whole issue just for arguements sake here, i dont really feel this strongly about all of this.
> 
> i think in the future you're also going to see more words being returned by bush towards latin america, fidel isnt dead yet. theres unfinished business there still, and thats a nation that is far from free right next to the states. hugo chavez is the prez of venizuala and hes not the most pro-american guy to say the least. venizuala is sitting on a lot of oil, and right now they still trade it with the states... theyre not about to stop that so long as theres not too much of a squable between the two. but then you have to look at it another way, theres democratically elected marxist governements in venizuala, bolivia and chile... in terms of bushs noble intentions for world freedom, where does that fit in? they limit their civil rights, but its done democratically?


South american nations, although agreeably very corrupted, do not go on with etnic *cleansing* and mass murdering. "You have to pick your battles".


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I love the Iraq war and the medias take on it. They say Iraq is a dangerous place and Americans get killed. What they dont mention is way more Americans are getting killed in the good ole USA by their fellow Americans. They say Bush is a complete fool, and then claim he is responsible for some conspiracy that only a complete mastermind could create. Bush is a great man, but he is a figure head, and does what he is told. Bush created fair taxation on dividend income. Thats about all he has done as president, of his own accord. Saddam and Iraq were creations long before he became president. The invasion of Iraq was already being planned when Wild Bill was President. What the US needs to do, is take care of its home turf first and foremost. Stop the crime, which is at an unbelievable rate for a civilized country. Educate the people, and for gods sake, get those people on a diet. Canada needs to do the same...............


----------



## walden (Feb 5, 2006)

offender, im not saying that the united states will invade latin american countries. i dont think they will personally at all, theres no chance. im just saying its interesting to see the difference stances of bushs foreign policy. im not necissarily against bush, nor for him. im just saying this to be as you put it, the devils advocate.


----------



## Xanadu (Feb 3, 2006)

do you all remember a couple of weeks ago when those canadians and americans got killed in Iraq. Well now they think it was friendly fire. 



GODDAM AMERICANS!! 

why can't they shoot the enemy?

They may have a lot of money and the best weaons and planes and tanks and stuff, but their soldiers are completely stupid. They should just give Canada and Britain their stuff, we'd finish the war in a matter of weeks and there would be many less friendly casualties.:2guns: 
:2guns:


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I was in the Bahamas this past January and the whole Canadian Fleet was in there. All three ships. They were laying around soaking up the sun and handing out brochures of some kind. Made me almost want to join up.


----------



## MaxWedge (Feb 24, 2006)

Cheap mid-east oil is what keeps the US involved there. The oil is here and we should be exploiting it as much as we can. Saskatchewan has the finest urainium reserves on the planet. Yet we do not use it to produce the electricity that could be utilized in bringing tarsand refining costs down. Saskatchewan has a convoluted way of seeing the way it exploits it's urainium. We'll mine it, and we'll sell it. But not use it, thinking we're on some sort of moral high ground. I feel there is huge potential for Saskatchewan's economic benefit if the province would recognize that the end product is more valuable than raw goods going 'who knows where'.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

We are addicted to the black gold... can't live without it. What will be the alternative though, and how far out in the future is it. Until that happens we have to sleep with the devil


----------



## MaxWedge (Feb 24, 2006)

What I find disturbing is Canada's willingness to follow U.S. direction. We're in Afganistan fighting the Taliban. And we have fine young Canadians dying there. And only couple of short decades ago the Taliban were the good guys receiving covert U.S. aid from the CIA. Now the United States has 'employed' there Canadian friends to deal with a group the U.S. once supported. The U.S. has a twisted way of dealing with foreign interests. And don't kid yourselves there have been more than one U.S. invaision in the Americas. Sooner or later mothers who have lost their kids to oil will be heard and the nonsense will stop and the price for expensive Canadian oil won't seem so high when we look back and realize just how much we paid for 'cheap mid-
east oil'.

And yes I know urainium is spelled uranium, low caffeine day.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

MaxWedge said:


> What I find disturbing is Canada's willingness to follow U.S. direction. We're in Afganistan fighting the Taliban. And we have fine young Canadians dying there. And only couple of short decades ago the Taliban were the good guys receiving covert U.S. aid from the CIA. Now the United States has 'employed' there Canadian friends to deal with a group the U.S. once supported. The U.S. has a twisted way of dealing with foreign interests. And don't kid yourselves there have been more than one U.S. invaision in the Americas. Sooner or later mothers who have lost their kids to oil will be heard and the nonsense will stop and the price for expensive Canadian oil won't seem so high when we look back and realize just how much we paid for 'cheap mid-
> east oil'.
> 
> And yes I know urainium is spelled uranium, low caffeine day.


We are in Afganistan because of 911. Trying to help hunt down the worlds infamous terrorist, whom the Taliban want to protect. I have no problem with this.

Now if we had gone to Iraq, that would have been another story. Saddam needed to be removed, but black gold definately was the US's ultimate reason.

.02


----------



## MaxWedge (Feb 24, 2006)

Binladen was and is a direct threat to the U.S. and since 9/11 the world. Saddam on the other hand was a localized threat and after the myth (lie)of 'weopons of mass distruction' was dispelled. Even less of a threat. It seems to me that Bush would rather chase fairy tales than what I would perceive as a true threat. Canadians in Afganistan are fighting terroism, Bush in Iraq is warring for 'cheap oil'. As long as Canada assumes the Afgan responsibility the U.S. can concentrate it's resources in Iraq. We're being played folks, and it's going to amount to people dying for BS U.S. foreign policy.


----------



## Seaners (Jan 1, 2006)

I say forget about Bin Laden... let him die with the goats. I would support anything that would get Cindy Sheehans ugly face of the tube. :sport-smiley-002:


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

So another anniversary passes. More nonsense at the checkpoints and another day closer to the next "attack".

I am currently reading the 911 commision report. Pretty thick book but it is very interesting. There was total confusion that morning. More than you would even expect with such a thing. The one that got me so far was the last plane (United 93) which ended up going down in PA after the passenger revolt, flew for 45 minutes or so after being identified as a hijacked flight. They had military aircraft airborne in two separate areas but none were ever ordered to move on it or even try to contact it. Several commercial and private aircraft reported it and had visual on it. A lack of command and communication caused all of that. If not for the people on that plane doing what they did, which IMO they had to do, that plane would have flown to whatever it's final destination was going to be totally uninhibited. This is after 3 planes had already crashed and this one was postively ID'd as a fourth.

All these command and communication channels have since been fixed and I would assume that should another incident occur like that, they would be blown out of the sky pretty quick. 

In a related note. It appears that less than 7% of all cargo loaded on a plane is ever screened. So while you are waiting in huge lines at the airport, having your nuts and nail clippers x-rayed... they could very well be loading a bomb on board through the cargo area unchecked.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> We are in Afganistan because of 911. Trying to help hunt down the worlds infamous terrorist, whom the Taliban want to protect. I have no problem with this.


...newsflash: he's not there.

but canadian soldiers are, and they're getting killed. for what?

-dh


----------



## keefsdad (Feb 7, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...newsflash: he's not there.
> 
> but canadian soldiers are, and they're getting killed. for what?
> 
> -dh


So Harper can get invited to Dubyas ranch and kiss his butt at close range.


----------



## madog99 (Aug 22, 2006)

There was an excellent program on CBC sunday night ? Really showed all the failures leading up 9/11 by the administration, how did that boob (GW)get re-elected?



GuitarsCanada said:


> So another anniversary passes. More nonsense at the checkpoints and another day closer to the next "attack".
> 
> I am currently reading the 911 commision report. Pretty thick book but it is very interesting. There was total confusion that morning. More than you would even expect with such a thing. The one that got me so far was the last plane (United 93) which ended up going down in PA after the passenger revolt, flew for 45 minutes or so after being identified as a hijacked flight. They had military aircraft airborne in two separate areas but none were ever ordered to move on it or even try to contact it. Several commercial and private aircraft reported it and had visual on it. A lack of command and communication caused all of that. If not for the people on that plane doing what they did, which IMO they had to do, that plane would have flown to whatever it's final destination was going to be totally uninhibited. This is after 3 planes had already crashed and this one was postively ID'd as a fourth.
> 
> ...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

madog99 said:


> There was an excellent program on CBC sunday night ? Really showed all the failures leading up 9/11 by the administration, how did that boob (GW)get re-elected?



How did he get re-elected?


Two words:


Fear

Corruption


This may be one of the greatest shames of the past 50 years.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...newsflash: he's not there.
> 
> but canadian soldiers are, and they're getting killed. for what?
> 
> -dh


Are you serious?

Let's walk away, that will reduce future attacks.  

I hate seeing or service people dieing, but really don't see another solution. We can't allow Afganistan to become a safe haven again.

.02

PS) I hate political/world issue threads they just turn into a bunch of bullshit bickering. Reminds me of Harmony Central.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Let's walk away, that will reduce future attacks.
> 
> ...



I would be happy to see our troops leave Afghanistan without delay.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Let's walk away, that will reduce future attacks.
> 
> ...



I would be happy to see our troops leave Afghanistan without delay. 

Everytime we see the repatriation ceremony or hear the bagpipes playing, it might be helpful to remember that Afghani parents are also burying their children (soldiers) because of our activities there and if reports are accurate many more Afghanis are dying than Canadians.

Our soldiers are following orders and for that they are justified, but they are killing Afghanis in their country.

I do not support this.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I would be happy to see our troops leave Afghanistan without delay.
> 
> Everytime we see the repatriation ceremony or hear the bagpipes playing, it might be helpful to remember that Afghani parents are also burying their children (soldiers) because of our activities there and if reports are accurate many more Afghanis are dying than Canadians.
> 
> ...


Your right, it's extremely sad. Very unfortunate consequences started by a much smaller group of Extremists.

The problem is: There isn't a simple line drawn in the sand that we can just back across and the problem goes away.

They have no problem coming to our soil and killing innocent North Americans. By backing down it becomes that much easier for them. The more they are on the run the safer our family and friends are.


With that said, enough of this thread for me. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Your right, it's extremely sad. Very unfortunate consequences started by a much smaller group of Extremists.
> 
> The problem is: There isn't a simple line drawn in the sand that we can just back across and the problem goes away.
> 
> ...



The problem is, we're not just killing a "smaller group of extremists". We're killing anyone who stands up to us in their own country.


In spite of the tendency of some folks to want to lump us in with the USA, the attacks on 9/11 were NOT attacks against Canadians. Yes there were Canadians there, but the terrorists attacked symbols of America. We just got caught in the cross fire.


Now, however, as active participants in the revenge war of Bush and his pals, we are a very appealing target.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> The problem is, we're not just killing a "smaller group of extremists". We're killing anyone who stands up to us in their own country.
> In spite of the tendency of some folks to want to lump us in with the USA, the attacks on 9/11 were NOT attacks against Canadians. Yes there were Canadians there, but the terrorists attacked symbols of America. We just got caught in the cross fire.
> Now, however, as active participants in the revenge war of Bush and his pals, we are a very appealing target.


...i'm afraid your words are going to turn out to be all too prophetic. we're doing everything but sending the terrorist groups, specifically the taliban/al queda, a hand-written invitation.

but don't even suggest diplomacy or, god forbid, talking to the enemy, as jack layton had the gall to do. you will immediately become the object of ridicule and labelled a "friend of the taliban" and a traitor. although i checked my dictionary, and could find no mention of "surrender" in the definition of the word "talk", many insist that is what it means. or, they will tell you that, since diplomacy didn't work with hitler, that proves that it will never again work with anyone.

evidently, it is far more _manly_ to say to our enemies: "we are sending our sons to kill your sons."

but here's a question that has been bothering me: if afghanistan is such a slam-dunk, a clear black and white issue of right vs wrong, good vs evil, etc etc etc, why is canada in there all alone?

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"It ain't necessarily so..."*



david henman said:


> ...i'm afraid your words are going to turn out to be all too prophetic. we're doing everything but sending the terrorist groups, specifically the taliban/al queda, a hand-written invitation.
> -dh


To many such extremists, our existence is invitation enough.


david henman said:


> but don't even suggest diplomacy or, god forbid, talking to the enemy, as jack layton had the gall to do. you will immediately become the object of ridicule and labelled a "friend of the taliban" and a traitor. although i checked my dictionary, and could find no mention of "surrender" in the definition of the word "talk", many insist that is what it means. or, they will tell you that, since diplomacy didn't work with hitler, that proves that it will never again work with anyone.
> -dh


The Taliban is not and never has been the government of Afghanistan. Who are we going to talk to? The real government or a rogue element that had enough guns to ignore their legitimate rulers?

I'd be surprised if any Canadian soldier voted NDP for some years to come. You get more flies with honey...

Perhaps you think Jack should talk to some Afghani women who were stoned to death for wanting to learn to read...



david henman said:


> evidently, it is far more _manly_ to say to our enemies: "we are sending our sons to kill your sons."
> -dh


Ah yes, put words in your opponent's mouth and then castigate him for them!

You imply we sent soldiers for simple machismo. did it ever occur to you that our government (and a large segment of your fellow citizenry) believed that the Taliban are morally wrong and their power should be nullified? Does disagreeing with your argument mean one can only be a Rambo?



david henman said:


> but here's a question that has been bothering me: if afghanistan is such a slam-dunk, a clear black and white issue of right vs wrong, good vs evil, etc etc etc, why is canada in there all alone?
> 
> -dh


We are not in there all alone. You are correct that there's not been a lot of support from other European countries. Why would you expect such? Historically most of these countries sit back and expect Uncle Sam to pay for all the bullets and blood. Then afterwards they can climb on their high moral horse and spit at him.

Cheap hypocrites, the lot of them!

As P T Barnum said years ago: "Makers, takers or fakers. There are no other kinds."


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> To many such extremists, our existence is invitation enough.
> 
> 
> The Taliban is not and never has been the government of Afghanistan. Who are we going to talk to? The real government or a rogue element that had enough guns to ignore their legitimate rulers?
> ...



P T Barnum also said "there's a sucker born every minute".


I prefer "all we are saying, is give peace a chance", or even "Imagine all the people, living life in peace".

Not as edgy, but better somehow.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"If wishes were horses..."*



Milkman said:


> P T Barnum also said "there's a sucker born every minute".
> 
> 
> I prefer "all we are saying, is give peace a chance", or even "Imagine all the people, living life in peace".
> ...


Nothing wrong about having wishes. It's just that in the real world wishes can make good motivation but by themselves are not good tactics.

Everybody's got wishes! Often, people on both sides of an argument have the same wishes. 

So what? It takes specific practical actions THAT CAN WORK to make a desired outcome happen!

Most folks that cannot support the "left" do so not because they do not share the same goals but rather because they think the methods the "left" wants to use will at best not work and in general prove simply...loopy.

Worse yet, some of these methods could be downright hurtful or dangerous.

The defense of many "lefties", for want of a better term is that if someone disagrees with their methods for achieving a goal then they must simply be "mean-spirited".

Somehow the debate can never stay focused on how their ideas could actually WORK!

Or to put it more simply:

Do you feel all warm and fuzzy? That's nice!

Now, do you have any ideas that will WORK?


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

How can there be a military solution to something that really isn't a war at all? Where is the front line? What ground is to be gained? What government is going to be forced to surrender? Should we invade England because they are producing terrorists? 

The "enemy" in this case are individual citizens of the world who band into small groups and answer to no one but themselves. Draw a circle around yourself and _that_ is the front line. Having troops in Afghanistan or anywhere, will not protect you from your whacky next door neighbor.

Using the military to stop terrorism is an act of desperation because no one has a clue what else to do, but we feel we have to do something. I understand the frustration but I also understand the futility.

This isn't a winnable war because it isn't a war at all. It's using stupidity as a weapon against insanity.

Now, I have a tendency to be somewhat of an idealist, but I think the military strategists have me out-idealized on this one.

And the press keeps asking "What does a victory look like?".......


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Nothing wrong about having wishes. It's just that in the real world wishes can make good motivation but by themselves are not good tactics.
> 
> Everybody's got wishes! Often, people on both sides of an argument have the same wishes.
> 
> ...



LOL,

Yeah man. I was of very similar opinions as you as recently as seven or eight years ago. I guess I just decided to consider the possibility that the other guys might be right, and by the other guys I really mean more than just the Middle East, but for the purposes of this discussion it fits.


I don't believe the concept of peace is achieved at the point of a gun, nor do I believe that such concepts are "loopy". I'll spare us all the back and forth where we call each other names.

You're entitled to your opinion.


Don't for a second think that just becuase I or someone else disagrees with your leanings that we're somehow naive or delusional. Remember, from the perspective of someone like me, your views on this subject seem almost insane. I can tell you're no dummy.

You might want to go ahead and assume the same about me.:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"Who sex I don't?"*



Milkman said:


> LOL,
> 
> Yeah man. I was of very similar opinions as you as recently as seven or eight years ago. I guess I just decided to consider the possibility that the other guys might be right, and by the other guys I really mean more than just the Middle East, but for the purposes of this discussion it fits.
> 
> ...


I don't recall labelling you specifically. My original response was to David, who had implied that we went to Afghanistan for mere machismo.

As for disagreeing, how else can we learn? If you can't defend your beliefs then you don't really have any. You have faith, which is something else altogether. Debate forces you to make your opinions informed.

As for name calling, I don't recall doing any of that. Name calling usually is a desperation tactic. If I have used name calling in the past I'd appreciate someone quoting it back to me. I'm not too old to reform some bad habits.

I'll cheerfully call a philosophy a name (like "loopy"!) but not a specific person. He may well indeed be loopy by my lights but believe it or not, some folks think I'm a little odd! 

I mean, I like some Nick Lowe songs! I have no use for MesaBoogers. I listen to George Thorogood on 11, on vinyl. I had a nightmare about waking up married to Sheila Copps (I knew some guys who dated her in high school. That's why it was a nightmare!)

I also prefer sweet pickles on a turkey submarine sandwich.

I refuse to sing my folk song covers through my nose and call it country.

Everyone IS entitled to their opinion!

Just not their own set of facts...


----------



## elindso (Aug 29, 2006)

An open discussion. With no nastness. What a breath of fresh air.

It must be adults talikng to adults, or is it just a Canadian thing.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

A highly debatable subject and one that is sometimes filled with emotion. Still, it can be debated with open minds and restraint. So far it's looking good. :smile:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

At the end of the day, in spite of our tribal nature, we are all human beings. We have the right, the ability and the obligation to assess what we do as individuals.


Pulling the trigger with a man in your crosshairs is an individual act. You're killing a man you have never met because your government directed you to. 


I maintain that it's time to stop blindly following the old men who generation after generation, send our young men and women to fight wars based on fear, greed, hatred and narrow minded prejudice.


Idealistic? Maybe, but unless we want our grandchildren's grandchildren to be doing the same dumb a$$ed sh1t, we need to start thinking more progressively. Doing things the way they've always been done is a sure way to get stuck in the mud.


I accept that there are different points of view on this, but I get a bit weary of the condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn't want us involved in this "war".

We're not naive. We're not flakes. 

We just don't think war is the way.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"How can that WORK?"*



Milkman said:


> At the end of the day, in spite of our tribal nature, we are all human beings. We have the right, the ability and the obligation to assess what we do as individuals.
> 
> 
> Pulling the trigger with a man in your crosshairs is an individual act. You're killing a man you have never met because your government directed you to.
> ...


I've heard this so many times before. It always leaves the same problem: 

How do you get the OTHER guy to stop making war?

I repeat myself I know but it's so appropriate: In the old Billy Jack movies the hippies lived in marvelous peace but when the "bubbas" from the local town attacked them if Billy Jack hadn't defended them they would have been decimated.

And before you try to tell me that the Taliban is a legitimate culture and merely misunderstood I wish to tell you some things.

I've spoken with a woman who's husband and two sons were murdered with gas by Saddam. At my youngest daughter's school she has several girlfriends whose family escaped from the Taliban. If they had stayed they would have been beaten and likely killed if they had tried to get some schooling. 

So I'll need some more specific approaches from you before I could begin to agree with you. Talking cannot work if your opponent views such talk as a sign of weakness and something he can use as a tool against you. First you have to be in a position of strength or you will likely die before any talk has progressed.

Once again, I admit I share your goal but your tactic still sounds like more of a wish than a workable plan to me.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

"I've heard this so many times before. It always leaves the same problem: 

How do you get the OTHER guy to stop making war?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LOL, well one way to start is by not attacking him in his own country.


Look out your door. See any foriegn soldiers out there? Any tanks or APVs?


Going to war because terrorists attacked our neighbor is a bit like bombing an apartment building because one of the apartments is occupied by a drug dealer.


The "other guy" isn't over here pi$$ing in our cornflakes. We're doing it in his.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I will chime in one more time on this one. I like what you have to say Milkman. Any sane person would have to agree with what you have said. But in my opinion it is looking at the world the way we want or wish it to be. Un fortunately it is not that way, at least not yet.

I too want a world where my kids can freely travel to any country and see and enjoy the different cultures and people. To travel without fear of being blown up or being kidnapped and having their heads cut off for something they do not understand nor have any part of. Growing up in the west has it's advantages. We are a free and open society. We have a our share of bad guys and criminals but for the most part you will not be condemened for something you believe in alone, nor for what god you worship.

We speak of negotiation with extremists. How can you negotiate with a people that see you as the devil by your very existence? They have been programmed from birth to see people from the west as the enemy of god. This cannot be negotiated away. Their way is the only way. Your very way of life, your freedoms and thoughts are totally against their teachings and that will not change. Maybe in the eyes of god we are all bad, I don't know. Maybe we should all be Muslims, I don't know. What I do know is that I was raised to "live and let live" and not to tell others how they should live their lives and what they should or should not believe. 

So this opens up the question "should the west go to places with totally different views?" Maybe not. It is foolish to beleive that the west can force it's way of life on nations like Iraq and most of the middle east. Their ways are not our ways. Who's way is better? Who cares.... I say if you live in Iraq and see our way as better, come on over bro, we will take you. If you live here in the west and like their way... go there. But you cannot force the customs on each other. It wont work.

I personally choose to live here and stay here. I don't agree with the customs and ways of many of the countries in the middle east. I also don't care what they are doing over there, it's their custom and their laws. But I will not be preached to by Osama and have him tell me that his way is the only way and I am the devil in God's view becuase I live the way I do. There will always come a time when you have to fight for "your" way. History has many examples of this. 

The US has the opinion that if they go to Iraq and "free" them that there will suddenly be a McDonalds on every street corner. It is not their way. They have their own customs and beliefs and I say let them be. You can't force them to think the way we do. Should we even try? Again, who is to say that our way is the right way?

China is also a huge issue. We are up to our eyeballs in trade with them yet this is a communist country. I have a friend that lives in Hong Kong. It's still a very dangerous place once you leave the confines of that area. He had a friend that went over to mainland China last week shopping. He was beaten to a pulp, robbed and then could not get back because all his travel docs were stolen. He is still stuck over there.

I have another friend that flies commercial aircraft in Africa. He has been hijacked twice in 5 years and the stories he tells are shocking.

We live in a very special place my friends. There are many places on earth that are not so nice. I choose our way, and I would fight to keep it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I will chime in one more time on this one. I like what you have to say Milkman. Any sane person would have to agree with what you have said. But in my opinion it is looking at the world the way we want or wish it to be. Un fortunately it is not that way, at least not yet.
> 
> I too want a world where my kids can freely travel to any country and see and enjoy the different cultures and people. To travel without fear of being blown up or being kidnapped and having their heads cut off for something they do not understand nor have any part of. Growing up in the west has it's advantages. We are a free and open society. We have a our share of bad guys and criminals but for the most part you will not be condemened for something you believe in alone, nor for what god you worship.
> 
> ...



Well, here's how I see it. If an army invaded Canada I would fight tooth and nail in any way I could. I would effectively become what the west likes to call insurgents. Stand up and fight fair? What's fair about fighting against an overwhelmingly larger and better equipped force?

Nope, I'd fight dirty just like they are in Iraq.


The thing is, I don't feel that Canada is threatened. Yes, we should fight terrorism, but occupying a country and actively seeking out and attacking their citizens is not a police action. It's a war. I don't recall anyone declaring war on canada.



Yes, I continue to look at the world the way I would like it to be. I decline to accept the notion that war is inevitible and a part of man's nature.


If you live by those rules you might also want to prepare for extinction.


I'd rather evolve and try to make the world the way it could be.

As an addendum, I agree that you can't negotiate with terrorists, but I maintain that attacking a nation is a mindless scattergun (or puntgun for the old guys) approach. You might just get some of them but you're damn sure going to create a whole new generation of people that hate us.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

You have hit the crux of the bisquit Milkman. Nobody has done a thing to Canada (as of yet). So this now brings up the biggest question that we as Canadians face. What level of involvement do we wish to have in the "War Against Terrorism?).

The Jeanie is out of the bottle friends, it's too late to put him back. Sept 11th 2001 answered that question. For right or for wrong the war has begun. So we must decide what role we are to play in ending it. I personally see the whole thing as an attack on the West. The US has some laws/customs and such that I don't totally agree with, but for the most part they are no different than we are. Our basic beliefs, wants and needs are all the same. We just go about attaining them in different ways. So I say we are in this thing and need to be in it. 

I personally believe that these extremists will not back down and cannot be negotiated with. It is only a mater of time before the next attack is launched. Not if, but when.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> You have hit the crux of the bisquit Milkman. Nobody has done a thing to Canada (as of yet). So this now brings up the biggest question that we as Canadians face. What level of involvement do we wish to have in the "War Against Terrorism?).
> 
> The Jeanie is out of the bottle friends, it's too late to put him back. Sept 11th 2001 answered that question. For right or for wrong the war has begun. So we must decide what role we are to play in ending it. I personally see the whole thing as an attack on the West. The US has some laws/customs and such that I don't totally agree with, but for the most part they are no different than we are. Our basic beliefs, wants and needs are all the same. We just go about attaining them in different ways. So I say we are in this thing and need to be in it.
> 
> I personally believe that these extremists will not back down and cannot be negotiated with. It is only a mater of time before the next attack is launched. Not if, but when.



Well on this we have to agree to disagree. I believe that in spite of some people's (including W's cheerleader, Mr. Harper) wishes to the contrary, we are different than the USA in some fundamental ways and should become even MORE different.

The US has been in a retrogressive tailspin into an almost theocratic based government (hmm, isn't that what we always say about the Middle East?) for some time now. Instead of becoming more progressive, they're returning to a paranoid and agressive nature.


Saying the war on terrorism has begun, like it or not would seem to be a self fulfilling prophesy. Yes, if we keep acting more and more like Americans and wage war against countries who have never declared war or actually attacked Canada, it IS only a matter of time.


I can just hear the "I told you so's" now. We kill a few thousand of the "bad guys". They get pi$$ed and blow up a building or subway train in Toronto and the conservatives will of course have all the justification they need to escalate the violence.


Yes, the Taliban like many other groups is a backward and repressive one. I don't see how this is any of our business. Why are we obliged to free Afghanis from their tyranny?

If freedom is so important to them, the Taliban would be out on their ears without our help.


Or is this just our small minded attempt to make the world conform to our ideology and morality?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Your my kind of thinker Milkman. I agree with everything you just said. But here are a few questions and thoughts I must add.

There is a line that must be drawn and a decision to be made as a nation, what level of help and or assistance do we want to give to oppressed and abused people of the world? Do we want to stand back and watch what is happening in some of these places (Afganistan) for one and say "hey, it's their problem" or do we want to help them? To be honest I am not sure myself. To get involved means a huge commitment, it may even cost Canadian lives.. it has cost us already.

But that decision has to be made. There are many places on earth that can fit into that category. As a nation we have helped many times. But in some of these instances it has been necessary to apply force. We can say, we will help with money and aide but we will leave all the dirty work to the US and Britain? I don't know.

But if we as a people are truly concerned that other human beings are still being treated like dogs and animals in other parts of the world, than I see no half way about it. We are either in or out. Like I have said before in some other posts. Any living being that can grab a kid and saw off his head with a dull machete is a force to be reckoned with. An enemy not to be taken lightly and not to be ignored. The resolve of the North Vietnamese proved that point loud and clear. That was a prime example of what you are talking about. The US went in to "free" these people and open up the "way of the west" to them. They said no thanks.

Clearly the attacks of Sept 11th were a message saying "stay out of our business".. maybe we should have.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

My dad was in Afghanistan for a year, and the pictures and stories tell a different story that what peace lovers will lead you to believe. Being over there isnt the problem, it what we are doing over there that is the problem. Canada has done all the wrong things. They dont go directly to the people at all, they simply work with the warlords and the government officials, so they are seen as the enemy no matter what they do.

If the west pulls out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then they have 3 choices: 
1. Nuke the entire area. Not exactly a good idea for anyone. 
2. Let them have their civil war and let nature take its course. Not so good for the civilians. 
3. Divide the country in 2 like Korea, Germany, Vietnam, and let each side have power in their region. Yeah like that has ever solved anything.

Lots of people want us to pull out and say we have no business anywhere, and we should look out for #1. I wonder what these people would have thought had they lived during WWII and they were faced with whether or not we should fight against the Nazi regime. Which ever door you take, there is no right answer. If there was a perfect solution, it would have been utilized many moons ago................


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Lots of people want us to pull out and say we have no business anywhere, and we should look out for #1. I wonder what these people would have thought had they lived during WWII and they were faced with whether or not we should fight against the Nazi regime......


...comparisons between nazi germany and afghanistan don't hold a lot of water.

many suggest that, since diplomacy didn't work with hitler, it will never work with anyone ever again. that doesn't hold much water, either.

we have, however, entered an "manly" era where suggestions of peace and diplomacy are the object of ridicule and much, much worse.

not a lot of good, if any, will come from that.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Talking cannot work if your opponent views such talk as a sign of weakness and something he can use as a tool against you.


...the problem, i suspect, is that it is we in the west that believe that talk is a sign of weakness.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> But I will not be preached to by Osama and have him tell me that his way is the only way and I am the devil in God's view becuase I live the way I do.


...how is this any different from the views espoused and promoted by north american christian evangelists and fundementalists?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I personally believe that these extremists...cannot be negotiated with.


...everyone believes that. and yet, so far, no one has actually tried.

of course, whenever i suggest talking to our so-called enemies, once the laughter has died down, someone will inevitably ask, "what would you talk about?"

first of all, the fact that two enemies are actually talking is monumental in and of itself. however, if a topic of conversation really is necessary, i would have to suggest the cessation of human slaughter as a pretty good starting point.

-dh


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...how is this any different from the views espoused and promoted by north american christian evangelists and fundementalists?
> 
> -dh


I guess the only difference I can point out is that these other groups won't kill you if you disagree with them.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Perhaps you think Jack should talk to some Afghani women who were stoned to death for wanting to learn to read...


...please. if we're going to have an intelligent discourse on this subject, shouldn't we at least make some attempt, no matter how feeble, to make sense?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> As P T Barnum said years ago: "Makers, takers or fakers. There are no other kinds."


...prove to me that life really is all that simple and uncomplicated, and i will make a concerted effort to dumb down.

and, yes, you can quote me.

-dh


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...comparisons between nazi germany and afghanistan don't hold a lot of water.
> 
> -dh


You have 2 countries. You have 2 groups of people who seize power from the government by killing off the ones with power. They seize power. They push down their beliefs on the population. Anyone who doesnt believe in their way is either shipped to jail, or shot. People with money and influence loose all their wealth and the group takes it all. They begin to influence other neighboring countries, and annex a large land mass directly next to the border. Within the group partitions are formed and there are numerous factions formed. They do a surpise attack, and start a war. The rest of world decides should they go there and fight these guys. Sounds like they are very comparable............ 

Maybe you should take a trip there and hand out flowers. You will last about 6 minutes before some 6 year old puts a gun on you and pulls the trigger until it goes click. It has nothing to do with "manly" or whatever you are preaching. You are trying to apply a simple solution to a complex problem........


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Nothing wrong about having wishes. It's just that in the real world wishes can make good motivation but by themselves are not good tactics.
> Everybody's got wishes! Often, people on both sides of an argument have the same wishes.
> So what? It takes specific practical actions THAT CAN WORK to make a desired outcome happen!
> Most folks that cannot support the "left" do so not because they do not share the same goals but rather because they think the methods the "left" wants to use will at best not work and in general prove simply...loopy.
> ...


...warm and fuzzy? whatever, dude.

meanwhile, back in the real world...as a naive lefty lib artfag/girlyman, i believe in peace, diplomacy, non-violence and not a few other (warm and fuzzy) "values". at least, i like to think of them as values. this makes me the brunt of a lot of ridicule from the right. kind of begs the question, don't it.

i do see how violence works. it definitely solves the problem by, effectively, eliminating it.

concepts like peace, diplomacy and talking are somewhat more complex, and not as easily grasped. not surprisingly, it is pretty difficult to prove that these things will work unless you actually try them.

-dh


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...concepts like peace, diplomacy and talking are somewhat more complex, and not as easily grasped. not surprisingly, it is pretty difficult to prove that these things will work unless you actually try them.
> 
> -dh


Youre trying to make it sound like the West went over there guns blazing and never tried. The US doesnt want to be there. They never did. No country wants to go to war, they do it because all other avenues failed. The US tried to use diplomacy with the Taliban during the Clinton administration. It failed. When Bush was elected they tried again. It failed. The US offered a shitload of incentives to them, and they didnt want them. Even Michael Moore made fun of them for this. Of course when he made his last movie, he seemed to omitted this, and had a case of Alzheimers on the whole subject................


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> "
> 
> first of all, the fact that two enemies are actually talking is monumental in and of itself. however, if a topic of conversation really is necessary, i would have to suggest the cessation of human slaughter as a pretty good starting point.
> 
> -dh


This may work and I would support such a thing in a lot of instances. However, this particular enemy sees the killing of us (Americans, Westerner's) as the absolute duty of each and every one of them. You see, to them there is nothing wrong with killing, God has said it's OK, he has actually ordered them to do it to "save the world" from the godless Americans and British and us Canucks too. If they get killed in the process, that's even better cuz now they are going on up as a martyr.. a saint if you were. You have to look at it from inside their head, not ours... they don't think the same way we do. They do not hold the same values.

I would love to hear that negotiation.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Maybe you should take a trip there and hand out flowers. You will last about 6 minutes before some 6 year old puts a gun on you and pulls the trigger until it goes click. It has nothing to do with "manly" or whatever you are preaching. You are trying to apply a simple solution to a complex problem........


...violence is the simple solution. and guess what? it works! it works for us and, not surprisingly, it works for them, too. whoever slaughters the most live humans wins. what could be simpler?

whatever i am preaching?

never mind.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> This may work and I would support such a thing in a lot of instances. However, this particular enemy sees the killing of us (Americans, Westerner's) as the absolute duty of each and every one of them. You see, to them there is nothing wrong with killing, God has said it's OK, he has actually ordered them to do it to "save the world" from the godless Americans and British and us Canucks too. If they get killed in the process, that's even better cuz now they are going on up as a martyr.. a saint if you were. You have to look at it from inside their head, not ours... they don't think the same way we do. They do not hold the same values.
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...this is the accepted wisdom (sic), as it were. not a whole lot different than what was accepted regarding communism during the cold war.
> ...


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Winning the Nobel Peace Prize would be something anybody on the planet would want. You would think that with the millions and millions of people who oppose these wars, someone, anyone would actually go there and show us that peace is easy, possible and diplomacy is great and all that hippie stuff. The fact that I dont see it happening makes me think the following:
1. They dont actually believe their own BS.
2. They are far too lazy.
3. They would rather preach and have a do as I say not as I do approach.
4. They are already there, and their beheadings are available for download on the internet.

Which could it be? I know! I know! Its all 4 right?..........................


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*"Them's as can't...teach!"*



Accept2 said:


> Winning the Nobel Peace Prize would be something anybody on the planet would want. You would think that with the millions and millions of people who oppose these wars, someone, anyone would actually go there and show us that peace is easy, possible and diplomacy is great and all that hippie stuff. The fact that I dont see it happening makes me think the following:
> 1. They dont actually believe their own BS.
> 2. They are far too lazy.
> 3. They would rather preach and have a do as I say not as I do approach.
> ...


I can agree with the last two but as to no's 1 & 2 it ain't necessarily so!

I think that many folks absolutely believe in "their own BS". They run on faith and not reason. They think they are being logical 'cuz they can't appreciate the difference.

Ever listen to an evangelical preacher on the tv or radio? They think they are quite logical! Yet their arguments are often circular. "The Bible is literally true!" - "How do you know this?" - "Because the Bible tells us so!"

It can be awkward for some to admit that they believe no matter what the argument or evidence. They constantly seize on anything new that comes along and twist it into a "logical" point in their defense. Someone discovers some old boards halfway up Mount Ararat and presto! "Incontrovertible proof of Noah's Ark!"

Boards found at the bottom of the Mount or at similar elevations elsewhere in the world are ignored.

Another example would be the drawing of false comparisons. Such as "They have soldiers killing our people. We have soldiers killing them back. Therefore we are morally equivalent."

This just isn't logical. It is the REASONS why we kill that define our morality! One side believing that slaughtering unbelievers is a holy act and the other believing that they must stop them are not morally equivalent posititions.

Killing and murder are not at all the same. 

To most reasonable human beings killing is a repugnant act, to be taken only when there is no other recourse. It is a difficult thing to face such a problem and be able to "shoot your own dog". When you run on faith it is amazing how it can blind some to the necessity of firm response and yet with others take away all reluctance to kill non-believers or those not of the correct "race" or "tribe".

Many if not most Klansmen were quite religious.

Perhaps there's some ego thing happening as well. Being against something can be taken as making you yourself more of a "good" person. The more intensely you believe then the better a person it makes you.

Mis-placed faith can also satisfy the natural need for self-worth, like that wingnut in Montreal the other day.

Notice how so many voices are using this incident to justify leaving our national gun registry alone? The evil bastard had at least 3 legal weapons registered under that registry, a registry that has soaked up nearly 2 BILLION dollars, has a less accurate database than a horoscope and is routinely ignored by any criminal. It merely made a vague list of the law-abiding gun owners.

Why? Because to the "faith" personality the new gun registry appeared to be an act towards stopping gun murders. Simply making the effort was taken as actually doing something effective. Many politicians got a lot of votes but it didn't stop one gun from entering the country illegally or being used in a crime. 

For that matter, it didn't add ONE DAY to the typical sentence received for using a gun in the commission of a crime!

Hence the joke going around for years during the past Liberal governments: "It doesn't have to work! It's enough to say we got one!"

As for point number 2, such folks are usually far from lazy. They will work their butts off for a cause! They just don't always pick the right cause or combine that cause with others that make it difficult to take their side.

Take the Kyoto Accord, for example. Who wouldn't want to stop pollution damage to our planet? The problem is, if you actually READ the Accord you see that there are "extras" you have to swallow with the main point that might not taste so good. Kyoto exempted Russia, China and India from actually cleaning up their act, when they are arguably the worst polluting offenders. It offered offending countries the ability to do nothing to reduce emissions by simply buying "energy credits" from third world countries instead. In effect, it was a way to dramatically increase foreign aid and not really the effective tool to reduce emissions that it should have been.

In order to get the apple you were being forced to eat the worm. Then you were labelled as being against saving the planet, because you didn't accept Kyoto. To someone who runs on faith, there was no difference.

It's been called "Symbolism over Substance" and it's the reason why Man is so poor at actually FIXING his problems!

We call ourselves moral people that will not kill and turn our backs from the ugly site of millions being slaughtered in Rwanda or this very minute in Darfur. We tell ourselves that we should not interfere with another culture!

I see NO virtue in such philosophy! If I found myself supporting such views I would hang myself in shame. If those who champion such views ever became the government I would be terrified for the future of my children.

If that makes me a "bad person", then so be it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> We are in Afganistan because of 911. Trying to help hunt down the worlds infamous terrorist, whom the Taliban want to protect. I have no problem with this.
> 
> Now if we had gone to Iraq, that would have been another story. Saddam needed to be removed, but black gold definately was the US's ultimate reason.
> 
> .02



LOL, yeah we're trying to find Osama.


(he's probably in Pakistan, but what the hey, we're a bit rusty and need the practice).


Oh Canada, the newest US State
True patriot love, for all the world to hate


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Another example would be the drawing of false comparisons. Such as "They have soldiers killing our people. We have soldiers killing them back. Therefore we are morally equivalent."
> 
> This just isn't logical. It is the REASONS why we kill that define our morality! One side believing that slaughtering unbelievers is a holy act and the other believing that they must stop them are not morally equivalent posititions.


Once you go-a-huntin', you're no longer in a defensive position and you lose the moral high ground of self defense. It becomes the law of the jungle, kill or be killed, where morality disappears and lower brain function takes over. To defeat an enemy you have to be equally brutal and no one gives a shit if you're equally moral.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Another example would be the drawing of false comparisons. Such as "They have soldiers killing our people. We have soldiers killing them back. Therefore we are morally equivalent."
> This just isn't logical. It is the REASONS why we kill that define our morality! One side believing that slaughtering unbelievers is a holy act and the other believing that they must stop them are not morally equivalent posititions.


...morally equivalent or not, both sides believe they are "the good guys" and their killing morally justified.

-dh


----------

