doesnt it seem every couple of months the US gov't issuses a terrorist threat but it never happens! today they announced a summer terrorist threat. they are not too sure when in the summer or whereabouts, but they have tonnes of info on it. who agrees with me that they do this so that if there is another 9/11 the gov't can't be blamed for no warning? this warning just proves michael moore's point in Bowling for Columbine that americans are living in fear.
terrorist threats
- Thread starter 6nanaimo9
- Start date
As long as American voters continue to be -- literally -- scared witless of a terrorist threat, they'll be too stunned to realize that voting for Bush is only supporting the war profiteers who are pulling Bush's strings.
Let's hope enough Yanks get to watch Farenheit 9/11 so they'll wake up and throw the lying bastards out of Washington.
Let's hope enough Yanks get to watch Farenheit 9/11 so they'll wake up and throw the lying bastards out of Washington.
I must say liberal’s point of view never changes. America is bad....America is evil... America is wrong... I don't mind so much when citizens of other countries have that point of view...we have come to expect that from the rest of the world....What really ticks me off is the Blame America First mentality that exists within the US. The Dixie Chicks come to mind as the poster child of US haters.
Canada has every right to take a pacifist approach to the global terrorist threat and obviously both of you support the Canadian position.
The country I really admire is Britain. In the 2nd world war they were in front of everyone in the fight against the Nazi’s. Canada joined them late and the US join Britain even later. History has proven Britain was right. Pacifying a tyrant will not result in a country being safe.
Sooner or later the world will need to address the problem that Britain and the US have elected to taken on by themselves.
Canada has every right to take a pacifist approach to the global terrorist threat and obviously both of you support the Canadian position.
The country I really admire is Britain. In the 2nd world war they were in front of everyone in the fight against the Nazi’s. Canada joined them late and the US join Britain even later. History has proven Britain was right. Pacifying a tyrant will not result in a country being safe.
Sooner or later the world will need to address the problem that Britain and the US have elected to taken on by themselves.
6nanaimo9 said:
If the Bush administration don't issue these warnings and there was an attack, Americans cry "why didn't you warn us?" If they issue warnings and never is no attack Americans say " why are you wasting out time?" Damed if you do, damed if you don't. So ya the Bush administration is out to save their ass, if there ever was an attack. We can't blame them.
I have a large American family and i can assure you they don't live in fear. You have 1000 (whatever the figure is) gun toten law abiding Americans that feel its important to have the right to protect there own freedom without help from the different agencies, local and state Police, FBI, ATF and so on. (My American family is with this lot.) Then you have 250,000,000 million law abiding Americans that are more than willing to let the police and different agencies do their job. Of the two groups who creates the most controvercy. No point in reporting about the 250,000,000 million Americans, because they are boring, but those 1000 gun toten Americans that like to play with their guns. There has to be something wrong with that. This is the kind of propaganda that Michael Moore flourishes with. --- Kev
Typical American ignorance. Actually Canada was there right at the beginning and the US would have been except for their isolationist policy. A lot of American built equipment was shipped through Canada. Planes were actually flown to the Can/US border, wheeled across and then flown to Britain. It took Churchill not warning the US about Pearl Harbor to bring them into the war.luckydog71 said:
rickoshadows
We did join late, if you consider a day late?AsianBrother said:
As a showing of our independance from Britain, the house of commons waited a day before sending troops into WW2. The US really didn't get involved until Pearl Harbour, at least they made it clear who their main interest was.
As for the terror alerts.
Fear = Consumption = Higher Standard of Living = Votes
RickShaddows - "typical American ignorance"?
It is always nice to have someone capable of making intelligent contributions to a discussion. Rick if I don't agree with you, that makes me ignorant? Let me add as an aside I was educated in the Canadian school system.
Major German aggression started in 1936. Britain, Canada, and America all took a pacifist approach until 1939. Then Britain France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Sept 3 1939. Canada declared war 7 days after Britain on Sept 10 39. US continued its pacifist approach until Dec /41 when we declared war on Japan and a few days later Germany declared war on the US.
If the Allies had reacted to the early military aggression of Germany in 1936, it would have likely saved many of the millions of Jews killed by the Nazis.
So Rick in my ignorance I compare the Nazis of 1938 to the terrorists of 2002.
The terrorist will kill innocent people to spread their terror. Not just the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. How about Spain? How about Saudi Arabia? How about the killing of the Iraqi leader just last week? How about attempts to blow up the French railroad? How about the Cole? How about the Pan Am flight over Lockerby?
Rick, how many people need to die at the hands of the terrorists before you would support US and Britain taking military action against this world threat? For me that number was exceeded before Sept 11 ever happened.
Like Chamberlain, Bill Clinton wanted to appease the terrorists not face them. During the last 6 years of his presidency the terrorist gained both strength and financial support. Then they made the same mistake the Japanese made at Pearl Harbor. They awoke the sleeping giant and they are now paying for that mistake.
I support George Bush. The US has made some tactical mistakes but by in large the US and British troops have done a great job. The world needs to defeat the terrorists now, not wait until they are even stronger.
It is always nice to have someone capable of making intelligent contributions to a discussion. Rick if I don't agree with you, that makes me ignorant? Let me add as an aside I was educated in the Canadian school system.
Major German aggression started in 1936. Britain, Canada, and America all took a pacifist approach until 1939. Then Britain France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Sept 3 1939. Canada declared war 7 days after Britain on Sept 10 39. US continued its pacifist approach until Dec /41 when we declared war on Japan and a few days later Germany declared war on the US.
If the Allies had reacted to the early military aggression of Germany in 1936, it would have likely saved many of the millions of Jews killed by the Nazis.
So Rick in my ignorance I compare the Nazis of 1938 to the terrorists of 2002.
The terrorist will kill innocent people to spread their terror. Not just the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. How about Spain? How about Saudi Arabia? How about the killing of the Iraqi leader just last week? How about attempts to blow up the French railroad? How about the Cole? How about the Pan Am flight over Lockerby?
Rick, how many people need to die at the hands of the terrorists before you would support US and Britain taking military action against this world threat? For me that number was exceeded before Sept 11 ever happened.
Like Chamberlain, Bill Clinton wanted to appease the terrorists not face them. During the last 6 years of his presidency the terrorist gained both strength and financial support. Then they made the same mistake the Japanese made at Pearl Harbor. They awoke the sleeping giant and they are now paying for that mistake.
I support George Bush. The US has made some tactical mistakes but by in large the US and British troops have done a great job. The world needs to defeat the terrorists now, not wait until they are even stronger.
If the world needs to defeat the terrorists a good start would have been to actually attack them. A ground war in Iraq does absolutely nothing to stop terrorism, how could it? Even if Hussien was complicit in 9-11, something that certainly has not been proven, why go after the co-conspirator instead of focusing on Bin Laden?
The terrorists are paying? I doubt that. In fact I would say the ham handed aprroach the US has taken in Iraq is aiding them. The only people paying right now are the civilians in Iraq. How attacking a nation state was going to stop international terrorism is a strategy that makes no sense and this is certainly being borne out on a daily basis. As for Lockerby -- if memory serves me when this happened, the US and Iraq were big buddies.
Now, of course, Americans have a right to revenge but attacking a friend of the bad guy is a short sighted strategy. To do it alone has now put them in the position that the only organization that has a chance to get them out of it is the UN.
It is too bad that Bush has surrounding himself with true believers instead of pragmatists. And it is truly frightening to see the leader of the most powerful country in the world pepper his speech with phrases like "evildoers." The man is so clearly out of his league it is scarey. I know most people thought the election of Bush would give us a few good laughs but watching him blindly stumble into this region of the world has made our immediate future more dangerous not less.
They had no plan past defeating a badly beat up army. They had no plan to rebuild past assuming that the Iraqi's would relish the idea of being able to consume Big Mac and watch the Osbornes. And we are all paying for this now -- and no one more than the recently liberated.
The terrorists are paying? I doubt that. In fact I would say the ham handed aprroach the US has taken in Iraq is aiding them. The only people paying right now are the civilians in Iraq. How attacking a nation state was going to stop international terrorism is a strategy that makes no sense and this is certainly being borne out on a daily basis. As for Lockerby -- if memory serves me when this happened, the US and Iraq were big buddies.
Now, of course, Americans have a right to revenge but attacking a friend of the bad guy is a short sighted strategy. To do it alone has now put them in the position that the only organization that has a chance to get them out of it is the UN.
It is too bad that Bush has surrounding himself with true believers instead of pragmatists. And it is truly frightening to see the leader of the most powerful country in the world pepper his speech with phrases like "evildoers." The man is so clearly out of his league it is scarey. I know most people thought the election of Bush would give us a few good laughs but watching him blindly stumble into this region of the world has made our immediate future more dangerous not less.
They had no plan past defeating a badly beat up army. They had no plan to rebuild past assuming that the Iraqi's would relish the idea of being able to consume Big Mac and watch the Osbornes. And we are all paying for this now -- and no one more than the recently liberated.
Len, I obviously disagree with your position, however there is nothing better than a good reasoned debate to find the right answer.
I compliment you on your logical and reasoned arguments and it is very clear why you come to the conclusion you do.
Time will tell if Bush made the right decision to attack Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. The Afghani front is still active; in fact I think there may still be Canadian troops deployed there. It just does not receive the same news coverage (at least here) as does the Iraq front.
In hindsight the Allies made a mistake by launching an invasion at Dunkirk and they lost a battle. History may show that the tactics used in Iraq were wrong. From a political perspective it would have benefited Bush and Blair if they would have waited for a year or two. Being a Monday morning quarter back is easy, WMD was not found even though the majority of the UN nations said they were there. They did find 300,000 bodies in mass graves. A delay of a year or two may have resulted in many more slaughtered Iraqis and a much higher price paid by the coalition forces.
There will be battles won and battles lost, but at the end of the day it is important that we win the war.
I compliment you on your logical and reasoned arguments and it is very clear why you come to the conclusion you do.
Time will tell if Bush made the right decision to attack Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. The Afghani front is still active; in fact I think there may still be Canadian troops deployed there. It just does not receive the same news coverage (at least here) as does the Iraq front.
In hindsight the Allies made a mistake by launching an invasion at Dunkirk and they lost a battle. History may show that the tactics used in Iraq were wrong. From a political perspective it would have benefited Bush and Blair if they would have waited for a year or two. Being a Monday morning quarter back is easy, WMD was not found even though the majority of the UN nations said they were there. They did find 300,000 bodies in mass graves. A delay of a year or two may have resulted in many more slaughtered Iraqis and a much higher price paid by the coalition forces.
There will be battles won and battles lost, but at the end of the day it is important that we win the war.
"From a political perspective" is the key phrase.
The "war against terrorism" is solely political. Trying to analyse this from a military perspective is, IMHO, the wrong way to go. To dicuss this in terms of "fronts" is wrongheaded since there is no "terrorist army" digging in positions etc, etc...
Instead you are fighting a highly mobile international strike force that is not tied to any one country or geographic region -- take all the territory you want -- it isn't going to affect the terrorists.
It was a complete no brainer that the US led coalition forces would easily defeat the Iraqi army -- the actual "war" was a fast drive across the desert which everyone knew it would be -- look at Gulf War 1. It was a piece of cake with most casualties coming from friendly fire. Everyone knew that this invasion was going to be even easier.
Therefore focusing on "tactics" is irrelevant. In fact the military tactics employed during this war were flawlass. Everyone knew the 'war" would be over in days.
But what wasn't flawless was the politics of war. What needed to be focused on was what were the objectives after occupation. What could the "co-alition of the willing" offer the Iraqi people to get them on side? What was the plan that was going to make a people look at an occupying army as liberators? Now it seems clear that this wasn't even thought of. Well, that's not entirely true -- the state department did have plans for "post victory" but these strategies were completely ignored by Bush and Rumsfeld. What time will look at is why did Bush listen to the defense department instead of the state department for advice after the "war" had been won.
Everyone with a smattering of knowledge about this region knew that how the victors conducted themselves would be the key to sucess -- everyone except Bush and Rumsfeld (Powell knew but he was ignored and now has to be the one to go and try and make nice with the UN, talk about having to eat shit for your boss).
The aim of stopping terrorism is noble. No one would deny that.
The need to avenge a wrong is human. No one would deny that.
But one has to stop and think -- is this administration capable of doing either of those things. I would say no. And they should be thrown out
And this is not Monday morning quarterbacking, most people knew that the idea of attacking Saddam Hussien to get Bin Laden was a wrongheaded idea to begin with. But the US government took the easy way out -- everyone hates Saddam, he's a bad man -- and now they are paying for it.
In a battle of ideology, perception is everything. And the world's perception on the American attack on Iraq is that a poorly educated man driven by fundamentalist Christian zealotry decided to finish his dad's job and used 9-11 as an excuse to attack Iraq.
Nothing that has happened since the first bombs were dropped has changed that.
The "war against terrorism" is solely political. Trying to analyse this from a military perspective is, IMHO, the wrong way to go. To dicuss this in terms of "fronts" is wrongheaded since there is no "terrorist army" digging in positions etc, etc...
Instead you are fighting a highly mobile international strike force that is not tied to any one country or geographic region -- take all the territory you want -- it isn't going to affect the terrorists.
It was a complete no brainer that the US led coalition forces would easily defeat the Iraqi army -- the actual "war" was a fast drive across the desert which everyone knew it would be -- look at Gulf War 1. It was a piece of cake with most casualties coming from friendly fire. Everyone knew that this invasion was going to be even easier.
Therefore focusing on "tactics" is irrelevant. In fact the military tactics employed during this war were flawlass. Everyone knew the 'war" would be over in days.
But what wasn't flawless was the politics of war. What needed to be focused on was what were the objectives after occupation. What could the "co-alition of the willing" offer the Iraqi people to get them on side? What was the plan that was going to make a people look at an occupying army as liberators? Now it seems clear that this wasn't even thought of. Well, that's not entirely true -- the state department did have plans for "post victory" but these strategies were completely ignored by Bush and Rumsfeld. What time will look at is why did Bush listen to the defense department instead of the state department for advice after the "war" had been won.
Everyone with a smattering of knowledge about this region knew that how the victors conducted themselves would be the key to sucess -- everyone except Bush and Rumsfeld (Powell knew but he was ignored and now has to be the one to go and try and make nice with the UN, talk about having to eat shit for your boss).
The aim of stopping terrorism is noble. No one would deny that.
The need to avenge a wrong is human. No one would deny that.
But one has to stop and think -- is this administration capable of doing either of those things. I would say no. And they should be thrown out
And this is not Monday morning quarterbacking, most people knew that the idea of attacking Saddam Hussien to get Bin Laden was a wrongheaded idea to begin with. But the US government took the easy way out -- everyone hates Saddam, he's a bad man -- and now they are paying for it.
In a battle of ideology, perception is everything. And the world's perception on the American attack on Iraq is that a poorly educated man driven by fundamentalist Christian zealotry decided to finish his dad's job and used 9-11 as an excuse to attack Iraq.
Nothing that has happened since the first bombs were dropped has changed that.
The problem with the US policy of pre-emptive attacks on all potential threats to their national security, is that one day the US will find themselves a threat to someone elses national security. But it wouldn't be right then. Would it? What if The US posed a threat to China's national security, and instead of waiting for something to happen they decided 'unilateraly' (or with a coalition of maybe N. Korea and Canada) to make a pre-emptive strike on US soil. In their own eyes they would be 'protecting their national interest'.
But to you Americans out there, how would you feel??? Because that is how the majority of the Iraqis feel right now.
It's not 'your' country it's not your business. Iraq never attacked the US. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Oh yeah that doesn't apply in the US either. I guess it's all about the 'golden rule'. He who has it, makes the rules.
But to you Americans out there, how would you feel??? Because that is how the majority of the Iraqis feel right now.
It's not 'your' country it's not your business. Iraq never attacked the US. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Oh yeah that doesn't apply in the US either. I guess it's all about the 'golden rule'. He who has it, makes the rules.
There is no way the warnings the US gov gives of a terrorist attack would ever be correct or accurate. Just think about it.
15 of the 19 highjackers were Saudi. Do you see the Bush administration declaring war against the Saudis? No, way too many political and business ties to the Saudir royal family and the Bin Ladens. I cant wait to see Michael Moore's new documentary. I just hope it isnt a rehash of the excellent 5th Estate documentary of about a year ago. Just chiming in...
PS if they can attack Iraq for what is apparently no good reason, I dont want to be here when they realise they are running out of water. Oil is one thing, not having anything to drink is quite another.
PS if they can attack Iraq for what is apparently no good reason, I dont want to be here when they realise they are running out of water. Oil is one thing, not having anything to drink is quite another.
Britain/US The Empire Strikes Back
Hi
Before one debaits on the these questions you should always insure that you check
your facts and are aware of the historical facts.
1. Britain was only in WWII becuase of Churchhill The day he made his famous speech
""we shall never surrender"etc... The leaders of the house and the royalty were going to have churchill
removed and a aggreement signed with Hitler
2. Iraq was created by Britain to balance out the other Oil producing countries.
3. The Brits and the US created the problems in the middle east and still do so only in
their best interest.
If you wish reading materials to confimr these facts I can direct you to the proper periodicals and
research material.
Hi
Before one debaits on the these questions you should always insure that you check
your facts and are aware of the historical facts.
1. Britain was only in WWII becuase of Churchhill The day he made his famous speech
""we shall never surrender"etc... The leaders of the house and the royalty were going to have churchill
removed and a aggreement signed with Hitler
2. Iraq was created by Britain to balance out the other Oil producing countries.
3. The Brits and the US created the problems in the middle east and still do so only in
their best interest.
If you wish reading materials to confimr these facts I can direct you to the proper periodicals and
research material.
it amazes me that people still dont get it, these crazies want to kill us end of discussion there is no is and buts about it. In response to an earlier thread ignorance is a country who accepts our largess and protection then stabs us in the back. Or how about this one they condem us for doing what we did but, wont help us out, but then starts to whine when there frozen out of the rebuilding contracts. That does take a certain amount of balls.
WW1 - Britain declared war on Germany. Canada was declared at war with Germany at the same time... by the Brits... our political system at that time gave the british gov't/royal head of state far more power than they have today. In fact, it wasn't until Piere Elliot Trudea repatriated our consistution that things really changed.
WW2 - Britain was at war and Canada, independantly this time, declared war shortly thereafter. Our ties with Britain were still close and the threat was imminent. The Americans, it should eb noted for both wars, engaged in war profiterring up until the point (and for some afterwards) they entered the war effort themselves.
Canadian soldiers perfomed extrodinarily well on many occasions... most of which when they made the decisions for themselves. The most disasterous events in the wars for the Canadians was when the British decided where, when and how for them.
I'm not vetran and I certainly don't know/rember as much as I should about those events... but I do know enough to give respect to those that sacrificed their lives in the name of peace and freedom.
An interesting note... not supplying tyrants with weapons and equipment is a good place to start. Henry Ford set up shop in Germany after WW1... guess who's assembly lines were rolling out the Panzers? Krupp Muntions was a munitions factory in Germany that "escaped" bombing... ie, British Pilots were told to avoid hitting it. Why? Prominent British and American interests had extensive holdings in it.
Where did I learn that? From my grandparents... one was a flight mechanic stationed in Britain and the other was on the front lines in the troop morale division. They were there, they talked with those pilots... they saw first hand the horrors of war. The flight mechanic said most planes came back so full of holes you didn't know how they managed to come back at all. The other, well, his truck was hit by a land mine. He survived...the guy in the truck ahead of him didn't.
They were both Canadians, both on the war front... both were young men. My great grandfather even changed his ID to appear older so he could join the army in WW1.
I think Canadians have distinguished themselves enough on the battlefield to be above such pot shots. One more thing, alot of European nations dislike war and avoid it whenever possible because they have experienced it on their front steps far to often. What has propelled the US is war is miniscule compared to the devestation those nations have seen. I hope US citizens keep that in mind whenever they criticize a Euro country for taking the peaceful method... such as France tried to do with Iraq.
True... but who are the Americans handing the keys of power over to? His police force is back in action... the same force that would storm into someones house and drag them off to a prison somewhere. Ya, that's instilling great confidence in US/Iraqi relations.
From one tyrant to another.
