Things not going well for U.S. in Afghanistan either...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mike F

I didn't say anything of the sort -- they do have a massively powerful army, but the reason that it was amassed was mainly for defensive, protective purposes, not to invade anyone, so the notion that North Korea is some sort of serious threat to international peace would be wrong.

I still disagree with this sentiment Mike.

Many of the defectors from high ranking positions in the Korean Military stated very clearly that one of King Jong-ils big goals is re-unification under North Korea's terms and rules.

The military also feels that there will be a war, and one of the prime goals is to pretty much slaughter men, woman, children and dogs because they have been brainwashed by the Imperialist Americans and won't be able to convert to the North way.

The liberation tunnels are there so that the NK's can avoid the heavy defenses to the south and make a break out run through North Korea.

Thier army and airforce are very much offensively capable, the fact that they haven't moved is because the food shortages that effect the NK civilians is also effecting the Army, they don't have enough food to invade to the South, but the funny irony is that the only real potential farmland in Korea is in the South.

The ruling faction in the North is terrified that its people will learn too much about the prosperity in the South (which explains one channel T.V.s and radio's) and try to overturn the government, so if too much pressure is placed on the North they might throw the dice on a desparation invasion to the South.

They are also terrified that the people will eventually tire of thier 350 grams of grains (rice and corn) per day rations and it might force Jong-Il to throw the dice by going after the farm land to the South.

They are also frightened of the Chinese influence on thier government which might force liberalization, and make a roll of the dice to the south in order to become more self reliant.

This explains the nuclear weapons program, the development of long range ballistic missiles and the saber rattling of atomic arms. If the NK's get them or convince the world that they have them it removes the U.S. nuclear response in the event of a North to South Invasion, and a conventional battle between the forces of the North and the forces of the South will be a bloody slugfest but the North Korean's have the strength in numbers, and it might be a risk that Kim might be willing to take.

[rubecube]

Back on topic...Afghanistan turning even uglier.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as....ap/index.html

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Back on topic...Afghanistan turning even uglier.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as....ap/index.html

Yuck. Sounds like an ugly situation. What's weird to me is the coalition's explanation for the traffic accident--that troop convoys "have to speed and disregard traffic rules to avoid being attacked." In Kabul?!? I thought that was the most stable part of the country...

[Red Mile Style]

I have to agree with the sentiments that the U.S. is spreading itself way too thin. If there was a REAL threat to their country, the only way they would be able to do anything about it would be to reinstate the draft, which means more Americans in Canada...

However, since the U.S. is busy bullying Iraq and Afghanistan, it hasn't been stealing milk money from other countries such as Venezuela and Cuba, which is probably one of the few positive aspects of their involvement in the near east.

As a side-note, has anyone else noticed that since the printing of the Muhammed comics, Canada has fell victim to more attacks and casualties than prior? I know this sounds ludacris, but I read an article a few months ago in, I believe, the Globe and Mail warning about the possible repercussions of printing those comics. I was reluctant to believe that they would have any impact, but then again, look what happened in Denmark.

Does anyone else think there could be a possible correlation?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I have to agree with the sentiments that the U.S. is spreading itself way too thin. If there was a REAL threat to their country, the only way they would be able to do anything about it would be to reinstate the draft, which means more Americans in Canada...

However, since the U.S. is busy bullying Iraq and Afghanistan, it hasn't been stealing milk money from other countries such as Venezuela and Cuba, which is probably one of the few positive aspects of their involvement in the near east.

As a side-note, has anyone else noticed that since the printing of the Muhammed comics, Canada has fell victim to more attacks and casualties than prior? I know this sounds ludacris, but I read an article a few months ago in, I believe, the Globe and Mail warning about the possible repercussions of printing those comics. I was reluctant to believe that they would have any impact, but then again, look what happened in Denmark.

Does anyone else think there could be a possible correlation?

No I do not believe there is a correlation.

Also get off your high horse about the US bullying these countries. I am sure the freed people of Afganistan do not feel bullied now that they can walk out of their homes and watch tv and listen to radio without fear of death.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

No I do not believe there is a correlation.

Also get off your high horse about the US bullying these countries. I am sure the freed people of Afganistan do not feel bullied now that they can walk out of their homes and watch tv and listen to radio without fear of death.

...And riot in the streets chanting "Death to America" in supposedly the safest zone in Afghanistan.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

...And riot in the streets chanting "Death to America" in supposedly the safest zone in Afghanistan.

And I'm sure the poll numbers support what you said....

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I have to agree with the sentiments that the U.S. is spreading itself way too thin. If there was a REAL threat to their country, the only way they would be able to do anything about it would be to reinstate the draft, which means more Americans in Canada...

However, since the U.S. is busy bullying Iraq and Afghanistan, it hasn't been stealing milk money from other countries such as Venezuela and Cuba, which is probably one of the few positive aspects of their involvement in the near east.

As a side-note, has anyone else noticed that since the printing of the Muhammed comics, Canada has fell victim to more attacks and casualties than prior? I know this sounds ludacris, but I read an article a few months ago in, I believe, the Globe and Mail warning about the possible repercussions of printing those comics. I was reluctant to believe that they would have any impact, but then again, look what happened in Denmark.

Does anyone else think there could be a possible correlation?

I think its a ridiculous idea that the two would even go together. Printing the comics is called "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the media" something all free countries should treasure. If we're going to suddenly ban our media from printing something that might offend some nutcase Mullahs, why don't we ban Hollywood from making movies that offend Christianity?

[Red Mile Style]

What about all the freed people in the Darfur, Sudan region? North Korea? Hell, what about all the people in Taiwan and Tibet? What about Africa? Why aren't the Americans freeing them?

What? Oil? What? Israel? What? Someone wants to be like his Daddy?

Obviously, if it was that bad before the occupation, there still wouldn't be opposition three years after the fact, with absolutely no sign of letting up. In terms of Canadian involvement, it's getting worse.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

What about all the freed people in the Darfur, Sudan region? North Korea? Hell, what about all the people in Taiwan and Tibet? What about Africa? Why aren't the Americans freeing them?

What? Oil? What? Israel? What? Someone wants to be like his Daddy?

Obviously, if it was that bad before the occupation, there still wouldn't be opposition three years after the fact, with absolutely no sign of letting up. In terms of Canadian involvement, it's getting worse.

Why should the US free them? Why doesn't France or Germany?

Its much cheaper to just by the Oil, then invade the country and never really have control of the Oil, but just to be able to buy it.

But maybe the US should go into Taiwan, and do what? Africa? Why is the military needed there? Humanitarian work would help best. Tibet? Sure, lets start WW3.

If Bush 2 wanted to be like Bush 1, he would have never taken out Saddam.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I'm sure the poll numbers support what you said....

The article does...

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as....ap/index.html

From CNN

Hundreds of Afghan army troops and NATO peacekeepers in tanks deployed around the city, as protesters chanting "Death to America" marched on the presidential palace and rioters smashed police guard boxes and set fire to police cars.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The article does...

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as....ap/index.html

From CNN

Your link doesn't work.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1363276

Dec. 7, 2005 — Four years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghans express both vast support for the changes that have shaken their country and remarkable optimism for the future, despite the deep challenges they face in economic opportunity, security and basic services alike.

Note the poll as well.

Nice try though.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Really?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1363276



Note the poll as well.

Nice try though.

And your article is from six months ago, where as mine is from today. Don't bury your head in the sand, tensions are on the rise again. And this is coming from someone who supports the war in Afghanistan.

EDIT: Try this one http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as....ap/index.html

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I'm sure the poll numbers support what you said....

He doesn't need poll numbers to support what he said. He said they were rioting in the streets. Was he wrong?

And here's a tip -- your excessive use of the "rolly eyes" smiley doesn't help or make you look clever. The opposite, actually.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And your article is from six months ago, where as mine is from today. Don't bury your head in the sand, tensions are on the rise again. And this is coming from someone who supports the war in Afghanistan.

EDIT: Try this one http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as....ap/index.html

Tensions are on a rise? Just because a bunch of dumbass protestors throw rocks? Based on a traffic accident?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

He doesn't need poll numbers to support what he said. He said they were rioting in the streets. Was he wrong?

And here's a tip -- your excessive use of the "rolly eyes" smiley doesn't help or make you look clever. The opposite, actually.

And I'm sure the article represents the views of everyone in Afghanistan. Excuse me for pointing out otherwise.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why should the US free them? Why doesn't France or Germany?

Its much cheaper to just by the Oil, then invade the country and never really have control of the Oil, but just to be able to buy it.

But maybe the US should go into Taiwan, and do what? Africa? Why is the military needed there? Humanitarian work would help best. Tibet? Sure, lets start WW3.

If Bush 2 wanted to be like Bush 1, he would have never taken out Saddam.

France and Germany aren't in Iraq either. Plus France and Germany have already been heavily affected by world war, so they have history supporting them on reasons why not to participate in an unjust war. Plus, some might consider countries like France and Germany a somewhat balance of power in global affairs.

Oil has a lot of political and military clout, on top of economic. By controlling the oil, you control movement of troops. By having control over oil reserves, you have political power. Are you denying the power oil companies have in political processes? Even in Alberta, the royalties for oil are the lowest in the world. What is the number one reason Kyoto will fail? It isn't because climate change is a good thing, it isn't in the best interest of oil companies/economy.

The reason why the U.S. should go into Tibet/Africa is the same reason why you are proposing they are in Iraq in the first place. If this war was really about liberating people, there are many, many more places in the world where many more people could be saved by invading them.

If Humanitarian aid is so useful, why do thousands of children die per day in Africa? Clearly the philantropist face you're trying to paint on the Americans does not apply to those nations who aren't economically, geographically or politically powerful.

Bush Sr didn't get Saddam, although he tried. We all know Dubya is his Dad's bitch, just like a fanatical hockey-Dad living precariously through his son/daughter.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Tensions are on a rise? Just because a bunch of dumbass protestors throw rocks?

This is from the article:

The riot was the worst in Kabul since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in late 2001. It erupted in the city's northern suburbs before spreading into the city center and then to other areas frequented by foreigners, including areas near U.S. and NATO bases.

Also:

AP Television News video showed hundreds of angry young men hurling rocks at what appeared to be three U.S. military trucks and three dun-colored Humvees as they sped from the area after the crash, their windscreens cracked by the stones. A machine gun mounted on one of the Humvees fired into the air over the crowd as the vehicle sped away.
The riot continued for hours into the afternoon.

So does that sound like just "a bunch of dumbasses"? I'm not one to prognosticate on what this means for "tensions" in the area, but it doesn't seem quite right to me to dismiss it as if it were Whyte Ave. after an Oilers win. This seems to me to be much more dire and serious.

Never mind what is the major bombshell for me:

Afghans often complain about what they call the aggressive driving tactics of the U.S. military. Convoys often pass through crowded areas at high speed and sometimes disregard road rules. The U.S. military says such tactics are necessary to protect the troops from attack.

This is the SAFE part of Afghanistan? Yikes.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think its a ridiculous idea that the two would even go together. Printing the comics is called "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the media" something all free countries should treasure. If we're going to suddenly ban our media from printing something that might offend some nutcase Mullahs, why don't we ban Hollywood from making movies that offend Christianity?

You can't use the "freedom of speech" argument here. Whenever you start using the "rights" argument, you start running into the problem of whose rights are being comprimised and at what cost?

We do ban speech a lot in Western society. This is why we have things such as libel and slander. Sure, you can go ahead and slander a group of people, but then their rights are being comprimised to upheld your right of speech.

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate crimes. Regardless of how I feel about the comics being printed, the reality is it was a pretty big deal in Denmark and it wasn't the most tactical thing for the Canadian periodicals to print them especially with our involvement in Afghanistan.

I have noticed a slight incline in Canadian attacks and casualties lately. I am not saying they are a direct result of the comics, but who am I to say that they have absolutely nothing to do with it? The difference perhaps between banning the comics and censoring Hollywood is that in the West, there is (or there is supposed to be) a clear seperation of church and state. Whereas in the near East, Islam, which incorporates church and the state together, is the leading ideology.

You are suggesting that the West makes policy based entirely on Christianity, which it does not. A more appropriate comparision would be Hollywood making a movie that opposed democracy - which I think we can both agree, is not going to happen anytime soon.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I'm sure the article represents the views of everyone in Afghanistan. Excuse me for pointing out otherwise.

There are 30 million people in Afghanistan so I think it's probably difficult to get everyone's view into one article.

And really, why are you trying to sugarcoat this? What's the big deal? We all know it's a dangerous place.