cbacon

Actually, that's probably the best reason to tell another country to get to steppin'. I wouldn't side with one Nazi if he said he could protect me from another. On what legal grounds? If the US were to impliment massive economic sanctions against Canada there would be a shitstorm of protest from even within the United States itself. Yes, Canada needs the United States right now more than the United States needs Canada. What happens in 50 years when the US needs raw natural resources? If it's one thing the US doesn't do, it's staple corporate production and consumption. There will be no sanctions. Canada's a natural resource gold mine, and are working to be one of the top 5 oil producers in the world. The US is Canada's number one consumer.

I know I said I was done but I forgot this: According to a Senate report from 1994, between 1985 and 1990 the American government willingly allowed American corporations to sell the following to Saddam Hussein: - bacillus anthracis (ie. anthrax) - clostridium botulinum - histoplasma capsulatum - brucella melitensis - clostridium perfringens - eschericia coli Feel free to look those up if you want some idea of what the U.S. was selling to Saddam. That list doesn't include various genetic materials shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Comission or all the various technologies that the government knew were going to be used in the production of WMD's.

Ok, i'm not too familiar with audibles. So I should pick a blitz play then call the audible as you mentioned, and my players will fall back in a throwing play defense formation?

Being there live when Benoit won the World Title was the most surreal moment of my wrestling fandom. Nothing could ever top that. Being apart of the atmosphere for Hogan/Rock at WrestleMania X8 is a close second, while Hogan/Warrior ranks up there as well, being my earliest memory of wrestling.

That's rather broad, the subject is WHY terrorist attacks occur. Herein lies the fallacy in your agruments. Never said it validated terrorism. I was implying they're hatred is valid. This is really getting quite redundant and now your putting words in my mouth.

My Statement: To say that terrorist attacks are a result of "Muslims hating freedom and democracy" is to say that you clearly have an unrealistic grasp of the world. If that were the case you'd be seeing attacks on places like Amsterdam and Sweden. <-----Thesis Seriously, all it takes is a bit of research and rational thought. Western culture isn't they're cup of tea, but the most obvious issues include the immense slaughter of Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War, the devestation of Iraq's population via US sanctions throught the past decade, the US's role in supporting Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, it's support for brutal dicatorships throughtout the Middle East that repesss local populations and so on and on. ( ALL points about why they hate the West) Now, i'm not saying that all of their reasons are justified, some are , some aren't, ( Notice if you will, that i'm not saying that they are justified in attacking the West, but they're justified in being pissed off ) but to totally ignore these issues and pass off terrorist attacks as a result of 'a hatred of Western culture and democracy' is just plain ignorant and a product of typical media rhetoric. (re-iterating my previous statement) I'm arguing his point in regards to the reasons why they hate the West. IF he said, they have no right in attacking us, then I suppose an argument that I'm an apologist for terrorist attacks could be made after posting that. But he didn't. I stated there were more reasons for terrorist attacks. I stated they were justified in having some of these reasons. I nowhere said they were justified in carrying out the actual attacks. CONTEXT PEOPLE! You fail at reading. Not backstepping, trying to explain what I was saying , because evidently i'm talking to a group of pre-schoolers here. I stand by my statements 100% and if you choose to read them in an entirely different light, go ahead. Thanks, Nostradaums! But I don't think i'll be posting such a message. Seriously, at least chastize me for poor wording which led to the confusing. Even though that's not the case and you should be able to read within context, it's much more reasonable then claiming I supposedly claim the 9/11 attacks are justified. Do however, enlighten me on this history you speak of , oh wise one.

Que?

My God. Look: It could have said the United States was neo-nazi regieme hell bent on enslaving all of mankind and that STILL wouldn't have been impying the attacks on the WTC were justified. It's saying that reasons behind the attacks were justified from an ideological perspective, not the acts themselves. There's a huge difference. Example: Someone runs you over in their car and you break your arm in the process. Now, your justified in wanting them to get run over or something equally bad. But if you go ahead and carry that action out, and end up killing them in the process, then that wouldn't be justified. First, link plz. Second, i'm sure it dosent comdemn the attack and it shouldn't have to. It's not talking about the evils of radical fundmentalists, it's talking about the evils of US forien policy, they're two different things and if they wanted to make a point about radical fundamentalists then they'd make a peice that comdemns the actions of 9/11. Just because they don't mention it, dosen't mean they're justifying the attacks at all. It does not fit within the context. But i'm not surprised that your confused by 'light wording and placement' if it helps to further your inane cause. And getting back on track since this thread was de-railed: US foreign policy and the need for a missle defense system should be distanced from Canada since we are not the ones pissing off the Arab world, and thus not susceptible to any attacks, unless we go along and pander to the Bush Administrations reckless ideals for 'world peace' .

jus·ti·fy v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies v. tr. 1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances. It was a response. It was a reason. It does not mean it was right. (aka justfying it) You guys are really quite amazing at this whole spin doctoring business. It's amusing, yet terribly frightening at the same time.

Well, its not really that far of a stretch, although it's cute to use such colorful wording to describe it. 9/11 was a response/excuse to continue US hegemony by starting a war with a country that was no way affiliated with the attacks. And how exactly am I backtracking here?

If you bothered reading up on your own sources, you would have seen that the money the GAO suggests Saddam got came from two sources: 1. Illegal oil sales that the sanctions banned (nothing there I would define as "looting"). 2. Surcharges to companies who were involved in the program ("looting" may be an accurate way to describe how he dealt with those companies, but that's money he's taking from corporations who are well aware that he's getting that money, it's not money he's stealing from Iraqi citizens). The GAO is, by the way, an arm of the U.S. government, and so to take what it says at face value regarding an issue that the U.S. government has been shown repeatedly to be misinformed about (Iraq) would be unwise. The GAO's report on the oil-for-food program contains some information that would at best be described as "questionable usage of figures" and would probably more accurately be described as a deliberate attempt to misinform. Anyway, I'm done discussing this issue with you. You guys refer to sources that don't even back up what you say and resort to petty (and inaccurate) insults in lieu of having a factually supported position. Continue believing whatever you want, I'm done with this argument.

I blame America when they act as terrorists, which they undoubtly have. I have never, nor will I ever justify such terrorism by anyone. I've merely given a reason as to why terrorist attacks occur.

I mentioned the attacks with the reasons being the focus of my comment. If you honestly believe I condone terrosist attacks against innocent civlians while at the same time spending most of my time on these forums condeming such actions, then go right ahead.

No, I was talking about the reasons, which incidently lead to attacks. If you notice in the second paragraph you conveniently quoted I specificall mention those reasons claiming that (read carefully now) some of their reasons for hating the west are justifiable. Comprendè?

SOME OF THEIR REASONS FOR HATING THE WEST ARE JUSTIFIED. THIS DOES NOT = "SOME OF THEIR REASONS FOR ATTACKING THE WEST ARE JUSTIFIED" Jesus Christ your dense. Bill O'Reily would be proud at your selective interpretations though.

Also as a general comment to Mike and Justice (but mostly Justice since he's been more involved with the thread: You claimed the oil-for-food program failed because Saddam was "fucking looting it". I replied that there's been zero evidence of that being the case. You then responded by posting links to something that I already agreed with, that the program was not well handled by the U.N. Dear god could your reading comprehension be any worse? It's nearing 4.0 on the Mike scale and I know your not THAT bad.....

- Me Ok, care to point where I said the attacks were justified? This was of course into reply to Verne Gagne's comment which was basically saying "They attack us because they hate our freedom!"

And the billions in profits he stood to gain from the Americans, yes. If you can point out the funding from one country is being used to by weaponry, the same can be pointed out of another country. Can you out-and out-deny America [in one way or another] filtered money to Saddam, and knew perfectly well what he had planned for it? Um, yeah, the Sadnista's were democratically elected. I agree with you point. Do you even know what your posting anymore, old man?

That's the spirit. Now, go ahead and read my reply. Given your history on these boards, I realize reading comprehension is far beyond grasp. However, i'm sure if you stare at the screen long enough, something will click and you'll begin to understand that nowhere in this thread did I say that terrost attacks were justified. But it's gonna take a little self restraint Mike, I know it's hard for you to deliberately choose to take things out of context. It's ok, I believe in you.

I never said the attacks were justified. I was implying that their reasons for hating the west are. I thought that much was pretty clear, given the context of what I was replying to. The rest of this conservative clap trap i cover in the Iraq debate thread. I forgot Zarqawi was the official spokesman of the Arab world, sorry Awww, I made poor Mikey upset.

One can be supplied with raw materials [or money so the materials can be purchased elsewhere] to create weapons. If you're expecting them to find rifles and missles with the American flag stamped on them, you've got another thing coming. That's not how it works. ----- And concerning being supplied with money to purchase said weapons: Although I don't consider the WP a non-bias source, let's do the math they give us. Let's assume they're being bought at $0.35 a barrel: * French: 11 million barrels. Total Cost: $3,850,000 respectively. * Russian Total: 218 million barrels. Total Cost: $76,300,000 respectively. The numbers are all under even half a billion. So then what of America's support? In regards to the Sandinista issue, i've since noticed your first two links are the exact same, and provide no real numbers or evidence to support the orignal deathtoll (15 000). I shall quote everything this site had to say about the human rights abuses. I fail to see anything within that site to support the deathtoll of 1000, let alone 15,000. The mass murder seems to be dreamed up or "fabicated and blown WAY out of proportion". Like I said, I won't make excuses for the FLSN on part of the killings that DID happen, or the forced relocation and prison conditions. But this all is minimal compared to what the Contras committed and what the Somoza family had committed, both with American backing. Not to mention that the whole relocation was under-taken BECAUSE of Contra fighting in the area, how can you (America) support the Contras prior to the Atlantic problems because of FLSN attrocities, when the attrocities took place AFTER you provided support and resulted BECAUSE of such support? Also, I think another part of that article deserves to be quoted: Care to explain the reason for continued aid? Do you have a better idea? Like, I dunno, supporting a Klepotratic Dictatorship that has committed far worse attrocities than the FSLN? Or perhaps supporting rebel groups that have also committed far worse attrocities than the FSLN and are hated by the majority of the populace? Given the choice, I personally would go with the government that has granted equality for women, free unionisation for all workers and improved working conditions.

To say that terrorist attacks are a result of "Muslims hating freedom and democracy" is to say that you clearly have an unrealistic grasp of the world. If that were the case you'd be seeing attacks on places like Amsterdam and Sweden. Seriously, all it takes is a bit of research and rational thought. Western culture isn't they're cup of tea, but the most obvious issues include the immense slaughter of Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War, the devestation of Iraq's population via US sanctions throught the past decade, the US's role in supporting Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, it's support for brutal dicatorships throughtout the Middle East that repesss local populations and so on and on. Now, i'm not saying that all of their reasons are justified, some are , some aren't, but to totally ignore these issues and pass off terrorist attacks as a result of 'a hatred of Western culture and democracy' is just plain ignorant and a product of typical media rhetoric. In short, Canada's safety is better served if we cut off military ties with the States. The reckless policies of the Bush administration may put us in a precarious position. Distancing ourselves from US policies would serve our best interests from any supposed backlash.

The information I'm about to post was widely reported in mainstream news sources earlier this year, so either the problem is that you live in a box or you're deliberately lying. The problems found with the oil-for-food program were problems with the people in the United Nations who were running the program and with the multi-national corporations who were involved. There has been zero evidence found of any impropriety on Saddam's part. According to the CBC: I'm not going to bother responding to anything else you say unless you can start backing up your claims with some sort of reputable source (a solid grounding in reality would be a good place to start, too). As well, here's a good read for those of you who like stories with citings. So really, i've never heard any of these 'facts' from any extremist right wing source, let alone level-headed people. Seems suspect to me. "Over 75% of the "shit" "we" found in the first Gulf War wasn't anything "we" had ever given him, "you idiot," is a claim worth backing up. I'd like to see it. Look, I didn't deny that the Sandisntas were without fault, but the point i'm making is that they're crimes are undetectable in comparison with the crimes that the US has supported. Surely the Sadnistas HAD to go, despite the fact that while leader of the FSLN, Daniel Ortega, was a die-hard Marxist right after the war, the FSLN included a broad scale of ideologies (from Wikipedia): -Nationalisation of property owned by the Somozas and their collaborators. Land reform. -Improved rural and urban working conditions. -Free unionisation for all workers, both urban and rural. -Control of living costs, especially basic necessities (food, clothing, and medicine). -Improved public services, housing conditions, education (mandatory, free through high school; schools available to the whole national population; national literacy campaign). -Nationalisation and protection of natural resources, including mines. -Abolition of torture, political assassination and the death penalty. -Protection of democratic liberties (freedom of expression, political organisation and association, and religion; return of political exiles). -Equality for women. -Free, non-aligned foreign policy and relations. -Formation of a new, democratic, and popular army under the leadership of the FSLN. -Pesticide controls -Rain forest conservation -Wildlife conservation -Alternative energy programs Now, peace in Nicaragua was short-lasted. When Reagan assumed office he ordered the CIA to rearm and begin financing the remains of the National Guard to fight against the FSLN. These groups became known as Contras. A complete economic embargo was inplaced on Nicaragua and the CIA planted underwater mines to destroy ships coming into harbours, an act that was declared illegal by the UN. Despite all this, the FSLN held an election in 1984 that was deemed "fair and free" by international observers and resulted in a FSLN victory. In response to your articles on human rights abuses, i've seen contradictions regarding some of these numbers, hence i stated they're 'tyranical rule' was blown way out of propotion. I'll get back to this when I have more time. These claims are also a contradiciton to the fact that the FSLN outlawed the death penality, and for the most part political prisoners weren't even taken unless they were hostile and had connections to the Contras. But like I said, i'll get back to that. The treatment of the Miskitos, while inexcusable, isn't even close to be anything near the worst in Latin America. The United States' record is worse than that, just for example. Mexico's is too. More people died at the hands of the government of El Salvador at the time.

Agreed 100%. Whoa. Double whoa.

I've never heard of European countries selling chemical/biological weapons to Saddam, but let's pretend for a second that it's true, since it very well might be - so what? Just because the Europeans were being dumb-asses doesn't mean the U.S. should be too. I enjoyed your reference to their nuclear program. The one that never produced a weapon and hadn't even been pursued since the U.S. stopped supporting Saddam. Even if the people couldn't have staged an uprising in a Sanction-free Iraq (although it's pretty much a fact that they would have had a MUCH better chance), the sanctions themselves caused suffering and death on the same level as Saddam's reign and the invasion. Sources from the UN claim that the number of people who died due to the embargo is in the millions. Knowingly supporting a murderous dictator throughout his worst years because it was an economically sound decision and then turning on him once he'd more or less mellowed out and is no longer a useful ally isn't hypocritical? Criticizing him for having a weapons program you largely constituted isn't hypocritical? One tyranny justifies another? In regards to the Miskito relocation, yes it was most likely a bad idea and the FSLN should respect their land rights or atleast warn them in advance, but the deaths you talk about are non-existant and were fabicated and blown WAY out of proportion by the Sandistia oppontents. Human Rights groups that investigated the relocation for no evidense of such mass killings. The fact of the matter is that the Sandinstia had majority support in Nicaragua as proven by the elections in 1984, and even the elections in 1988 they barely lost. Not to mention that the whole towline of the opposing party was "Hey, the contras don't hate us, we might be able to achieve peace", and the people natural wanted the contra bombings to end. The Contras didn't even come close to have majority support, the FSLN did. To this day the FSLN is the offical oppsition part of Nicaragua.