[mentalfloss]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

What are you talking about? Is English a second language? If so I apologise as you are not making sense.

Basically, I posited that war should require a serious threat to homeland security. Is that too unreasonable?

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Empty threats and ad hominem attacks.

Get back to me when you want to discuss this seriously.

If I've threatened you then there's a little button over on the top right of the offending post that you can press and use to report the post to a moderator. Feel free to use it and make an ass out of yourself.

As to my discussing this with you seriously, you need to be an active participant in that paradigm, as well.

Asking me for a level of information which, if provided to you, would probably have me sitting across a table from a panel of very stern individuals by days end is either sheer ignorance on your part or a gross overestimation of my place in the world. In any case, I was trying to take you as seriously as I could by asking if you wanted me to post national security level information on a website.

Further, it is not an ad hominem attack to ask if you've paid attention to the past ten years. Perhaps you've been away. Maybe you're just a kid. In any case it seems you pay little attention to world events.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

What are you talking about? Is English a second language? If so I apologise as you are not making sense.

Basically, I posited that war should require a serious threat to homeland security. Is that too unreasonable?

So everyone NOT in Europe should have stayed home from WW2? Or more precisely, the US should ONLY have been at war with Japan while Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc should have stayed completely out of the European theatre?

Seems to me when zealots are flying commercial aircraft into civilian buildings, that's not just a threat, but a direct ATTACK on homeland security. And if the countries that harbour them don't wanna give'em up, I guess we all should jsut sit idly by while we wait for it to happen again, and again? How many times would you like to see it happen before something FINALLY got done about it? Would 30,000 dead be enough? How about 300,000? I'm just curious as to what your "price" of admission to declare war is.

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Basically, I posited that war should require a serious threat to homeland security. Is that too unreasonable?

More Americans died on 9/11 in New York City than died in two successive declared wars when the Royal Navy and Army conducted operations against the city and more Americans died on 9/11 in New York City (that's in our 'homeland', in case you failed geography in addition to 'current events' and 'recent history') than died in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

We're a pretty logical people, us Americans, and when it looks like a war, smells like a war, and people die like in war, we don't call the UN and write tersely worded letters of protest, we don't call for a meeting of the Security Council, we don't ask for France's permission or approval before we act, we wage war.

That you don't approve is obvious. That I could care less about your approval should also be obvious.

[mentalfloss]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Further, it is not an ad hominem attack to ask if you've paid attention to the past ten years. Perhaps you've been away. Maybe you're just a kid. In any case it seems you pay little attention to world events.

Okay, let's put aside the nonsense and just get back to the rationale here. Regardless of whether you believe I'm ignorant and such and such, as I said to Eyebrock, my main rationale is as such:
--

War should require a serious threat to homeland security.

I acknowledge that this isn't always the case, but I think that's fair considering the roles nations play during conflicts. For instance, 9/11, while a dastardly terrorist act, was not a serious threat to homeland security.

It was simply an act of exploitation, and as a nation, we haven't had any such serious occurrences. We didn't need to go into Iraq and we didn't need to go into Afghanistan for this very reason that there was no threat to us.

Now, if you disagree with that, please do explain your rationale for it. That's all I'm asking. I'm actually very open if you disagree or point out my ignorances in the matter.


EDIT: Okay, read your post above. I'll leave my deliberations on the matter as they are.

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

EDIT: Okay, read your post above. I'll leave my deliberations on the matter as they are.

Cool.

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

It was simply an act of exploitation, and as a nation, we haven't had any such serious occurrences. We didn't need to go into Iraq and we didn't need to go into Afghanistan for this very reason that there was no threat to us.

True. Canada was not at all threatened by what happened on 9/11. However, Canadians died in the attack and then Canadians and Americans, despite our differences, share an abiding affinity for each other.

That affinity was amply demonstrated by the amazing generosity of the Canadians who took in American travelers who were stranded when air traffic was grounded in the USA on the morning of 9/11.

That affinity was further demonstrated by Canada's determination to be counted as an ally and friend of the USA. Granted, the Chretien government was probably relieved when the USA did not invoke any of our numerous security agreements and on Sept. 22, 2001 Chretien was rather pleased to note that GW Bush had not asked Canada to become involved.

But that embarrassed Chretien at home with Canadians who noted that the US didn't have to ask Britain, Australia, New Zealand, or Spain - all of which had already deployed troops as of that date. While those countries remembered that American blood had been spilt for them once upon a time we were still digging bodies out of the rubble when Chretien's Multicultural Minister, Hedy Fry, denounced the USA for having a history 'soaked in blood'.

In the end, it was the reaction of Chretien's government that created a momentum for Canada to come into the fray and it was about ten months after the attacks when Canadian troops deployed to Afghanistan, and then with scant support from their own government. I recall CF having to hitch rides with US and UK units to get to their operational areas because Canada forgot to hook them up with, oh, cars or trucks.

The 'why' for why Canada did this is because Canada, frankly, depends on the USA for its defence. If the precedent were set that an attack on the USA could be ignored by Canada then an attack on Canada could be ignored by the USA. Maybe the Canadians who sent troops to SWA aren't so in favor of it, but they do know that it will come back to them if Canada ever needs help.

By the way, we also appreciate that Canadians were among the first responders in New Orleans after Katrina, CF-18 aircraft have performed CAP over the USA countless times since 9/11, and one of the leser-known facts of 9/11 is that CF-18s even flew CAP over New York City and Washington, DC the week after 9/11.

Don't think we will forget any of this.

If Canada is ever attacked the USA will slaughter whoever does it and then we'll bury Canada in aid to make her whole again.

[ASLplease]

Bart, thanks for that.

The feeling is mutual. When 9/11 happened, my heart could not have hurt any more if it happened on Canadian soil.

[ManifestDestiny]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

War should require a serious threat to homeland security.
I acknowledge that this isn't always the case, but I think that's fair considering the roles nations play during conflicts. For instance, 9/11, while a dastardly terrorist act, was not a serious threat to homeland security.

You being serious? What about the attack on the Pentagon?

So killing 3000 people within the borders of a soveriegn nation does not count as a threat to homeland security??

[EyeBrock]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

War should require a serious threat to homeland security.
I acknowledge that this isn't always the case, but I think that's fair considering the roles nations play during conflicts. For instance, 9/11, while a dastardly terrorist act, was not a serious threat to homeland security.

You being serious? What about the attack on the Pentagon?

So killing 3000 people within the borders of a soveriegn nation does not count as a threat to homeland security??

And there are now two villages shy of their resident idiots.

[mentalfloss]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

War should require a serious threat to homeland security.
I acknowledge that this isn't always the case, but I think that's fair considering the roles nations play during conflicts. For instance, 9/11, while a dastardly terrorist act, was not a serious threat to homeland security.

You being serious? What about the attack on the Pentagon?

So killing 3000 people within the borders of a soveriegn nation does not count as a threat to homeland security??

I personally consider it a very mild and short term threat, all things considered, and therefore not serious enough to warrant the wars that followed. That is just my own view on it though.

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

I personally consider it a very mild and short term threat, all things considered, and therefore not serious enough to warrant the wars that followed. That is just my own view on it though.

I'm curious, what would you consider to be a serious enough threat to go to war over?

[Thanos]

Sept 11 fully justified any and all actions against Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. Iraq remains an unjustifiable war. Since 2003 there has been no credible evidence presented at all that Saddam Hussein was any sort of direct or immediate threat to the United States.

Any upcoming American attack on Iran, should one occur, will also be unjustifiable in the absence of any credible proof that Iran has any designs towards attacking the United States. Not that it matters to the neo-cons or any of the lap dogs and warmongers who follow them but the doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' is dead as a justifiable philosophy. No one excpet the circle of far-right-wing assholes in Washington DC believe it anymore. Perhaps Botswana will be a 'threat' to America a few decades from now so be sure to add them to the official list.

America can do whatever it wants. As a people they're no longer capable of basic logic and are now driven by such extremes of radicalized emotion that talking to any of them about the value of cool-headed reason, or even about the worth of a semi-comfortable atmosphere of peace, is all but pointless. They'll have to suffer the consequences of whatever they choose to do next, even if those consequences include national bankruptcy and a permanent state of economic recession. All I'm concerned about now is that Canada remains safe from whatever nonsense the Americans (and/or Israelis) are going to unleash next on the world. We'll be walking a tightrope for a long time because of all this.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Sept 11 fully justified any and all actions against Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. Iraq remains an unjustifiable war. Since 2003 there has been no credible evidence presented at all that Saddam Hussein was any sort of direct or immediate threat to the United States.

With 20/20 hindsight, I agree. Sadly, we didn't know that Iraq didn't have nukes until we invaded. Had Hussein not been such a douche and had just let the UN inspectors do their jobs this would never have happened because the US would've had no excuse for the invasion.

Thanos Thanos:

Any upcoming American attack on Iran, should one occur, will also be unjustifiable in the absence of any credible proof that Iran has any designs towards attacking the United States. Not that it matters to the neo-cons or any of the lap dogs and warmongers who follow them but the doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' is dead as a justifiable philosophy. No one excpet the circle of far-right-wing assholes in Washington DC believe it anymore. Perhaps Botswana will be a 'threat' to America a few decades from now so be sure to add them to the official list.

The USA will not attack Iran unless Iran starts it first. And if they are stupid enough to develop a nuke we'll just let Israel deal with it.

Thanos Thanos:

America can do whatever it wants. As a people they're no longer capable of basic logic and are now driven by such extremes of radicalized emotion that talking to any of them about the value of cool-headed reason, or even about the worth of a semi-comfortable atmosphere of peace, is all but pointless.

Let me remind you that the past 65 years of relative world peace have been because of US arms keeping that peace. We do understand the value of peace and most of us who are 30 and older like going to bed at night not worrying about a nuclear war with Russia.

Thanos Thanos:

They'll have to suffer the consequences of whatever they choose to do next, even if those consequences include national bankruptcy and a permanent state of economic recession. All I'm concerned about now is that Canada remains safe from whatever nonsense the Americans (and/or Israelis) are going to unleash next on the world. We'll be walking a tightrope for a long time because of all this.

Yep, we're going to pay a steep price for the foolishness of our politicians and for the foolishness of the electorate. And if you're looking for someone to unleash foolishness on the world, I'd look to the EU, China, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, or etc. because we just don't have the money for anymore foolishness.

[ASLplease]

Thanos Thanos:

Sept 11 fully justified any and all actions against Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. Iraq remains an unjustifiable war. Since 2003 there has been no credible evidence presented at all that Saddam Hussein was any sort of direct or immediate threat to the United States.

Any upcoming American attack on Iran, should one occur, will also be unjustifiable in the absence of any credible proof that Iran has any designs towards attacking the United States. Not that it matters to the neo-cons or any of the lap dogs and warmongers who follow them but the doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' is dead as a justifiable philosophy. No one excpet the circle of far-right-wing assholes in Washington DC believe it anymore. Perhaps Botswana will be a 'threat' to America a few decades from now so be sure to add them to the official list.

America can do whatever it wants. As a people they're no longer capable of basic logic and are now driven by such extremes of radicalized emotion that talking to any of them about the value of cool-headed reason, or even about the worth of a semi-comfortable atmosphere of peace, is all but pointless. They'll have to suffer the consequences of whatever they choose to do next, even if those consequences include national bankruptcy and a permanent state of economic recession. All I'm concerned about now is that Canada remains safe from whatever nonsense the Americans (and/or Israelis) are going to unleash next on the world. We'll be walking a tightrope for a long time because of all this.

did you write that?

[EyeBrock]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

War should require a serious threat to homeland security.
I acknowledge that this isn't always the case, but I think that's fair considering the roles nations play during conflicts. For instance, 9/11, while a dastardly terrorist act, was not a serious threat to homeland security.

You being serious? What about the attack on the Pentagon?

So killing 3000 people within the borders of a soveriegn nation does not count as a threat to homeland security??

I personally consider it a very mild and short term threat, all things considered, and therefore not serious enough to warrant the wars that followed. That is just my own view on it though.

Mild and short term?

Really.

3000 dead is mild? And 20 years of Muslims killing Yanks is short term? Libya was killing US servicemen in the 1980's in German night clubs.

I was in Cyprus in 1983 when they brought back 200+ dead US Marines from Lebanon, who were on a peacekeeping mission.

Bombings at US missions in Africa punctuated the 1990's. There was also a bombing of the WTC in the 1990's.

USS Cole, etc etc.

It's hardly a one off. 911 just got everybodies attention.