Canadians and Missile Defense

[rookie1]

Thought our Canadian brothers woukd be interested in this article:






Kudos to Canada for Backing Missile Defense
Monday, August 30, 2004
By Baker Spring

The government of Canada should be commended for standing up to its relentlessly liberal critics in Parliament as well as much of its “street” and announcing on Aug. 5 that it will allow the United States to use data gathered by Canadians at NORAD , the North American Aerospace Defense Command, in the development of our missile defense system .

It’s a great deal for Canadians. They merely acknowledge the United States can use NORAD’s radars and other devices as the eyes and ears of its missile defense system, and they get the same protection as Americans. To say no would have been foolish; the United States would merely have constructed its own parallel early warning system, and NORAD, which both countries have relied on since 1958 to track airplanes and incoming missiles and provide for our joint defense, would’ve been essentially moot.

Yet polls say nearly 70 percent of Canadians oppose even this tiny step, even though its government did not commit beyond this step to participate in America’s missile defense program. Members of Parliament from nearly every party, including the prime minister’s, also oppose Canadian involvement — one argued that it amounted to the “weaponization of space,” which Canada officially opposes.


The opposition to participating in missile defense comes down to four points, all of them misguided in today’s post-9/11 world:

— The system doesn’t work.

— It’s not cost-effective.

— Other more-effective, less-expensive options exist.

— Missile defense amounts to a blatant break from détente, the START I and II treaties, and is actually a commitment to a peace-through-force imperative that will only further spur a nuclear arms race. Not to mention that missile defense means taking the fight to space, where Canadians have said they don’t want it to go.

First, the system does work, and it’s getting better all the time. It has worked perfectly during the last three tests and four of the last five. And this argument is disingenuous anyway, since those making it aren’t interested in spending anything to make the system more effective.

Moreover, the United States is constructing a system in Alaska right now. All Canada did was save both countries some money, strengthen a necessary and effective alliance and assure its citizens maximum protection.

Second, today, neither country could stop even one missile lobbed from North Korea or China. And while we probably can count on cooler heads in China to prevent any of its missiles from heading our way, we can’t count on any stable decision making in Pyongyang .

The current phase of our program will cost about $5 billion — small change in a budget of more than $400 billion. According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, it could cost upwards of $80 billion to research, construct and deploy a “boost-phase system” — one that would intercept incoming missiles soon after takeoff so the collision, destruction and fallout from those missiles would occur over enemy territory, not ours.

What is a fair price for security? Most right-thinking people would agree it’s a bargain for Americans at $80 billion and an even bigger bargain for Canadians, who would be required to spend far less.

Third, sea-based (such as Aegis cruisers and other systems (such as the Patriot missiles used by U.S. forces in the Middle East) are effective against shorter-range missiles, but North America is also threatened by long-range missiles. And again, would those who push for “other options” be willing to pay to fix those systems to cover all this ground? Or are they simply raising these objections when they have no intention of supporting what it would take to overcome them?

Fourth, détente and other weapons-control treaties worked to keep the Soviet Union at bay, but Canadians ought to realize that our adversaries today operate on different principles. They don’t care whether we retaliate — most are content to die during their attacks on us anyway. They may or may not act on behalf of a state against which we could retaliate.

Despite the best efforts of the United States and others, such as Russia, we no longer can account for all the fissile material in the world. How long until a private person or group, controlled by no nation, obtains enough nuclear weapons and missile technology to threaten the lives of millions of Americans and Canadians? Further, the U.S. is now executing a treaty with Russia that will reduce its deployed strategic nuclear arsenal to its lowest level in decades.

A missile shield will be our only defense. Kudos to Canada’s government for recognizing this and getting the country on the right side of history, even if a majority of Canadians don’t yet see it that way.

[hitchhiker]

Thought our Canadian brothers woukd be interested in this article:






Kudos to Canada for Backing Missile Defense
Monday, August 30, 2004
By Baker Spring

The government of Canada should be commended for standing up to its relentlessly liberal critics in Parliament as well as much of its “street” and announcing on Aug. 5 that it will allow the United States to use data gathered by Canadians at NORAD , the North American Aerospace Defense Command, in the development of our missile defense system .

It’s a great deal for Canadians. They merely acknowledge the United States can use NORAD’s radars and other devices as the eyes and ears of its missile defense system, and they get the same protection as Americans. To say no would have been foolish; the United States would merely have constructed its own parallel early warning system, and NORAD, which both countries have relied on since 1958 to track airplanes and incoming missiles and provide for our joint defense, would’ve been essentially moot.

Yet polls say nearly 70 percent of Canadians oppose even this tiny step, even though its government did not commit beyond this step to participate in America’s missile defense program. Members of Parliament from nearly every party, including the prime minister’s, also oppose Canadian involvement — one argued that it amounted to the “weaponization of space,” which Canada officially opposes.


The opposition to participating in missile defense comes down to four points, all of them misguided in today’s post-9/11 world:

— The system doesn’t work.

— It’s not cost-effective.

— Other more-effective, less-expensive options exist.

— Missile defense amounts to a blatant break from détente, the START I and II treaties, and is actually a commitment to a peace-through-force imperative that will only further spur a nuclear arms race. Not to mention that missile defense means taking the fight to space, where Canadians have said they don’t want it to go.

First, the system does work, and it’s getting better all the time. It has worked perfectly during the last three tests and four of the last five. And this argument is disingenuous anyway, since those making it aren’t interested in spending anything to make the system more effective.

Moreover, the United States is constructing a system in Alaska right now. All Canada did was save both countries some money, strengthen a necessary and effective alliance and assure its citizens maximum protection.

Second, today, neither country could stop even one missile lobbed from North Korea or China. And while we probably can count on cooler heads in China to prevent any of its missiles from heading our way, we can’t count on any stable decision making in Pyongyang .

The current phase of our program will cost about $5 billion — small change in a budget of more than $400 billion. According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, it could cost upwards of $80 billion to research, construct and deploy a “boost-phase system” — one that would intercept incoming missiles soon after takeoff so the collision, destruction and fallout from those missiles would occur over enemy territory, not ours.

What is a fair price for security? Most right-thinking people would agree it’s a bargain for Americans at $80 billion and an even bigger bargain for Canadians, who would be required to spend far less.

Third, sea-based (such as Aegis cruisers and other systems (such as the Patriot missiles used by U.S. forces in the Middle East) are effective against shorter-range missiles, but North America is also threatened by long-range missiles. And again, would those who push for “other options” be willing to pay to fix those systems to cover all this ground? Or are they simply raising these objections when they have no intention of supporting what it would take to overcome them?

Fourth, détente and other weapons-control treaties worked to keep the Soviet Union at bay, but Canadians ought to realize that our adversaries today operate on different principles. They don’t care whether we retaliate — most are content to die during their attacks on us anyway. They may or may not act on behalf of a state against which we could retaliate.

Despite the best efforts of the United States and others, such as Russia, we no longer can account for all the fissile material in the world. How long until a private person or group, controlled by no nation, obtains enough nuclear weapons and missile technology to threaten the lives of millions of Americans and Canadians? Further, the U.S. is now executing a treaty with Russia that will reduce its deployed strategic nuclear arsenal to its lowest level in decades.

A missile shield will be our only defense. Kudos to Canada’s government for recognizing this and getting the country on the right side of history, even if a majority of Canadians don’t yet see it that way.

Well that's big of them since we paid them several time over for it!

[hitchhiker]

Thought our Canadian brothers woukd be interested in this article:






Kudos to Canada for Backing Missile Defense
Monday, August 30, 2004
By Baker Spring

The government of Canada should be commended for standing up to its relentlessly liberal critics in Parliament as well as much of its “street” and announcing on Aug. 5 that it will allow the United States to use data gathered by Canadians at NORAD , the North American Aerospace Defense Command, in the development of our missile defense system .

It’s a great deal for Canadians. They merely acknowledge the United States can use NORAD’s radars and other devices as the eyes and ears of its missile defense system, and they get the same protection as Americans. To say no would have been foolish; the United States would merely have constructed its own parallel early warning system, and NORAD, which both countries have relied on since 1958 to track airplanes and incoming missiles and provide for our joint defense, would’ve been essentially moot.

Yet polls say nearly 70 percent of Canadians oppose even this tiny step, even though its government did not commit beyond this step to participate in America’s missile defense program. Members of Parliament from nearly every party, including the prime minister’s, also oppose Canadian involvement — one argued that it amounted to the “weaponization of space,” which Canada officially opposes.


The opposition to participating in missile defense comes down to four points, all of them misguided in today’s post-9/11 world:

— The system doesn’t work.

— It’s not cost-effective.

— Other more-effective, less-expensive options exist.

— Missile defense amounts to a blatant break from détente, the START I and II treaties, and is actually a commitment to a peace-through-force imperative that will only further spur a nuclear arms race. Not to mention that missile defense means taking the fight to space, where Canadians have said they don’t want it to go.

First, the system does work, and it’s getting better all the time. It has worked perfectly during the last three tests and four of the last five. And this argument is disingenuous anyway, since those making it aren’t interested in spending anything to make the system more effective.

Moreover, the United States is constructing a system in Alaska right now. All Canada did was save both countries some money, strengthen a necessary and effective alliance and assure its citizens maximum protection.

Second, today, neither country could stop even one missile lobbed from North Korea or China. And while we probably can count on cooler heads in China to prevent any of its missiles from heading our way, we can’t count on any stable decision making in Pyongyang .

The current phase of our program will cost about $5 billion — small change in a budget of more than $400 billion. According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, it could cost upwards of $80 billion to research, construct and deploy a “boost-phase system” — one that would intercept incoming missiles soon after takeoff so the collision, destruction and fallout from those missiles would occur over enemy territory, not ours.

What is a fair price for security? Most right-thinking people would agree it’s a bargain for Americans at $80 billion and an even bigger bargain for Canadians, who would be required to spend far less.

Third, sea-based (such as Aegis cruisers and other systems (such as the Patriot missiles used by U.S. forces in the Middle East) are effective against shorter-range missiles, but North America is also threatened by long-range missiles. And again, would those who push for “other options” be willing to pay to fix those systems to cover all this ground? Or are they simply raising these objections when they have no intention of supporting what it would take to overcome them?

Fourth, détente and other weapons-control treaties worked to keep the Soviet Union at bay, but Canadians ought to realize that our adversaries today operate on different principles. They don’t care whether we retaliate — most are content to die during their attacks on us anyway. They may or may not act on behalf of a state against which we could retaliate.

Despite the best efforts of the United States and others, such as Russia, we no longer can account for all the fissile material in the world. How long until a private person or group, controlled by no nation, obtains enough nuclear weapons and missile technology to threaten the lives of millions of Americans and Canadians? Further, the U.S. is now executing a treaty with Russia that will reduce its deployed strategic nuclear arsenal to its lowest level in decades.

A missile shield will be our only defense. Kudos to Canada’s government for recognizing this and getting the country on the right side of history, even if a majority of Canadians don’t yet see it that way.

Well that's big of them since we paid them several times over for it!

[QWK SVT]

Well that's big of them since we paid them several times over for it!
Funny, but your math is a little off... It appears there was some sharing of costs, involved in the construction:


The Pinetree Line was a radar network built in the early 1950s across southern Canada (near the 49th Parallel). Composed of 34 sites from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland, the Pinetree Line was the Canadian extension of a US system called the Permanent Radar Network. Canada paid $150 million of the Pinetree line’s $450 million cost and operated 16 stations. The US paid the other $300 million and United States Air Force (USAF) personnel operated the other sites (even though they were located in Canada).

In August 1953 the USSR detonated their first hydrogen (thermonuclear) bomb. That action led the Canadian government to construct another radar line to support the Pinetree. In June 1954 the Louis St. Laurent government accepted the advice of Canadian defence-research scientists to construct a series of mostly unmanned radar warning sites at 55 degrees north latitude. The all-Canadian Mid-Canada Line project was begun and, by 1957, consisted of 98 radar stations across Canada at a cost of $250 million. The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) operated the Mid-Canada Line.

Because Soviet bombers could outflank both the Pinetree and Mid-Canada lines, the US put pressure on Canada to allow the construction of a radar line in the far north. In November 1954 Canada and the US agreed to construct the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line in the Canadian Arctic. The agreement made the US bear the full cost of construction. The labour requirements were substantial; over 25,000 people were involved in the construction. By the summer of 1957, the 22-station DEW line was declared operational. Canada retained ownership of the sites located in Canada and command of the major stations.

[QWK SVT]

Fourth, détente and other weapons-control treaties worked to keep the Soviet Union at bay, but Canadians ought to realize that our adversaries today operate on different principles. They don’t care whether we retaliate — most are content to die during their attacks on us anyway. They may or may not act on behalf of a state against which we could retaliate.
:soapbox:
This pretty much says it all... I can't understand why the above referenced poll is so low.

Honestly, I live in Toronto, a city with over 3 million people, less than a few hours drive fron NYC, and most people feel that it could never happen here, or that terrorism below the border won't impact us... I dunno what they're smoking, but it smells like vancouver tobacco...

Granted, we don't have as much segregation as the US has, and the Canadian culture tends to be more accepting of multiculturalism, in general, but fallout's a *****, and doesn't stop at the border, just 'cause it's a different country.

[hitchhiker]

Funny, but your math is a little off... It appears there was some sharing of costs, involved in the construction:


The Pinetree Line was a radar network built in the early 1950s across southern Canada (near the 49th Parallel). Composed of 34 sites from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland, the Pinetree Line was the Canadian extension of a US system called the Permanent Radar Network. Canada paid $150 million of the Pinetree line’s $450 million cost and operated 16 stations. The US paid the other $300 million and United States Air Force (USAF) personnel operated the other sites (even though they were located in Canada).

In August 1953 the USSR detonated their first hydrogen (thermonuclear) bomb. That action led the Canadian government to construct another radar line to support the Pinetree. In June 1954 the Louis St. Laurent government accepted the advice of Canadian defence-research scientists to construct a series of mostly unmanned radar warning sites at 55 degrees north latitude. The all-Canadian Mid-Canada Line project was begun and, by 1957, consisted of 98 radar stations across Canada at a cost of $250 million. The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) operated the Mid-Canada Line.

Because Soviet bombers could outflank both the Pinetree and Mid-Canada lines, the US put pressure on Canada to allow the construction of a radar line in the far north. In November 1954 Canada and the US agreed to construct the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line in the Canadian Arctic. The agreement made the US bear the full cost of construction. The labour requirements were substantial; over 25,000 people were involved in the construction. By the summer of 1957, the 22-station DEW line was declared operational. Canada retained ownership of the sites located in Canada and command of the major stations.

You can cite millions, but the US spent billions. My point stands.

[RCSignals]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rookie1
Fourth, détente and other weapons-control treaties worked to keep the Soviet Union at bay, but Canadians ought to realize that our adversaries today operate on different principles. They don’t care whether we retaliate — most are content to die during their attacks on us anyway. They may or may not act on behalf of a state against which we could retaliate.



:soapbox:
This pretty much says it all... I can't understand why the above referenced poll is so low.

Honestly, I live in Toronto, a city with over 3 million people, less than a few hours drive fron NYC, and most people feel that it could never happen here, or that terrorism below the border won't impact us... I dunno what they're smoking, but it smells like vancouver tobacco...

Granted, we don't have as much segregation as the US has, and the Canadian culture tends to be more accepting of multiculturalism, in general, but fallout's a *****, and doesn't stop at the border, just 'cause it's a different country.

Before 11 September 2001, people in the US believed nothing like what happened that day would ever happen here either.

What segregation is in the US? The only segregation I've seen is the same type that exists in any large Canadian city.

You are correct, there is no reason for Canadians to smugly feel "safe"

[RCSignals]

NORAD is a joint Canada/US treaty agreement. This sudden declaration of using it for 'missile defence' should not even be questioned. Missile defence is part of what NORAD has always been about, not just tracking of aerocraft.

and yes, the US did pay the lions share of the systems, paying for all of the DEW line

[rookie1]

My intent wasn't Canada bashing. I'm from Detroit and trips to Canada were a regular thing for my family not to mention the myriad of adult entertainment in Windsor when I got older and had to entertain clients. I thought the article was interesting because of the seemingly disproportionate high number of the population that was against this. I suspect the actual percentage of Canadian citizens that opposes this is much lower.

[hitchhiker]

My intent wasn't Canada bashing. I'm from Detroit and trips to Canada were a regular thing for my family not to mention the myriad of adult entertainment in Windsor when I got older and had to entertain clients. I thought the article was interesting because of the seemingly disproportionate high number of the population that was against this. I suspect the actual percentage of Canadian citizens that opposes this is much lower.

My intent isn't Canada bashing either. Just holding up our end (United States). ...and don't even get me started about France!

Best Regards,

David

[Dr Caleb]

I thought the article was interesting because of the seemingly disproportionate high number of the population that was against this. I suspect the actual percentage of Canadian citizens that opposes this is much lower.

No, your first assessment is correct. Many are skeptical because we don't trust our government. They've wasted billions of dollars on rewarding businesses loyal to the Liberal party, on protecting our streets from duck hunters, from implementing Kyoto with no clear cut goals or costs or even a half assed plan.

We are skeptical because in most tests, the system has failed. Like most weapon systems, it will get better with time, but in the mean time - we don't know how much more it will cost us. Most feel there are other priorities on the list that should be looked at first.

Police, military, healthcare, schools and roads are all in various states of disrepair. Imagine what the Billion dollars that went to protect our streets from duck hunters could have done for border and port security? The billions sunk into Kyoto would have let our navy fill up ships with fuel once in a while. We need Doctors bad, and we have recently immigrated Doctors and Engineers who drive taxicabs because the immigration process is so slow.

It's not that we are blind to the threat of terrorism, but there are children who are starving and homeless that need looking after a little sooner than Lockheed Martin needs some R&D money.

[Logan]

<exceptionally rare="" rant="" on="">[Expceptionally rare rant on]

Yeah, uh, I'm with the rest of those disagreeing Canuck's.

It's not a matter of being "smug". People care about what affect's their everyday lives. Missle defense doesn't even come close to the issues close to Canadian's hearts. Yes, of course it's important, but is it more important than people living on the streets and folks dying because medical assistance isn't readily available? I don't think so.

You can only worry and deal with issues at hand, while keeping a eye towards prudent security measures. That being said, I'd rather the money be spent on the real threat of homelessness, crappy healthcare, lower taxes, and a better equipped and funded conventional military.

Cart before the horse gents. Canada's got so many catastrophic, pressing issues. If any of the major issue's facing Canada where happening here in the states, there's be folks in the streets with guns demanding change. When I left Quebec 4 years ago, my tax rate was almost 52% of my income. So don't presume to question what the priorities of the average Canadian are, you simply won't get it.

Canada has a population of around 40 million people. The US is over 280+ million people. Yes, Canada is large, but has a relatively small population, so set expectations accordingly and take your flag waving elsewhere.

So don't thank anyone, it's just another grandstanding episode in the reality comedy series that is the Canadian Government.

[Exceptionally Rare Rant off]

<exceptionally rare="" rant="" off=""></exceptionally></exceptionally>

[Dr Caleb]

You are a fine gentleman Logan.

I know Logan hates these kind of threads on this site, so I invite those of you who want to further discussion here:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/

In particular:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20040805123816314
or
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/2004081100423383

Please ignore the trolls.

[N40GL]

...and don't even get me started about France!


As soon as this article was published, France surrendered. :duel:

[hitchhiker]

As soon as this article was published, France surrendered. :duel:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[TripleTransAm]

When I left Quebec 4 years ago, my tax rate was almost 52% of my income. So don't presume to question what the priorities of the average Canadian are, you simply won't get it.


VERY well put, Logan. A tip of my hat in your direction for that fine summary of how one simply cannot pass judgment on people without knowing the situations they live in, on a daily basis. This applies to pretty much anywhere in the world, and consideration of this might even help avoid many conflicts.

Almost 52%... my total tax rate IS 52% (if not over, when you factor in the idiotic surtaxes!). Add to that a provincial sales tax that applies OVER the federal tax (ie. on the amount + federal tax). Add to that the high fuel costs in this province (again, more taxes). And on top of having exhorbitant yearly vehicle registration fees, there is talk of a new surtax on registrations for vehicles newer than 1995, with engines greater than 4.0 liters, regardless of fuel consumption - called the guzzler tax!!! Total BS!
(on the flipside, all the money being dumped on social programs has at least kept the area fairly safe - the poor don't get poor enough to get desperate, I guess)

So, yeah, I'm kind of interested in seeing some local issues fixed before wanting to fix the world.

[Logan]

I had a couple write-off's worth a point or so... Which again is a sore point with me, you can't even write-off friggin Mortgage Interest in Canuckland on your residences... That alone is worth a ton.

[rookie1]

Interesting perspectives. It would seem that possible annihilation by missile becomes more palatable when the economic and taxation issues are more severe.

I realize that isn't the real point you are trying to make but one could easily draw that conclusion.

From my perspective in the heartland of the US I think it's small potatoes cost wise if the system has any prayer of working and might lead to the further destruction of missile arsenals around the world because they cannot harm us.
52% taxation would certainly change my perspectives on a lot of issues as the real amount of taxes you pay must be much higher when you add in fuel,sales,real estate, and other taxes you must be paying. I feel for anyone paying that kind of $$$ to their government.

[hitchhiker]

VERY well put, Logan. A tip of my hat in your direction for that fine summary of how one simply cannot pass judgment on people without knowing the situations they live in, on a daily basis. This applies to pretty much anywhere in the world, and consideration of this might even help avoid many conflicts.

Almost 52%... my total tax rate IS 52% (if not over, when you factor in the idiotic surtaxes!). Add to that a provincial sales tax that applies OVER the federal tax (ie. on the amount + federal tax). Add to that the high fuel costs in this province (again, more taxes). And on top of having exhorbitant yearly vehicle registration fees, there is talk of a new surtax on registrations for vehicles newer than 1995, with engines greater than 4.0 liters, regardless of fuel consumption - called the guzzler tax!!! Total BS!
(on the flipside, all the money being dumped on social programs has at least kept the area fairly safe - the poor don't get poor enough to get desperate, I guess)

So, yeah, I'm kind of interested in seeing some local issues fixed before wanting to fix the world.
If you add our State, Federal, Medicare, Unemployment, Sales, Property and Social Security 'taxes' you will find that we pay almost the same.

Best Regards,

David

[TripleTransAm]

Interesting perspectives. It would seem that possible annihilation by missile becomes more palatable when the economic and taxation issues are more severe.


Yes, that would be one way to look at it, but only one of many. Consider how important Global Warming is to a lower-class family in a shanty-town in the heart of India. Or economic reform to a starving family in Zaire. Or Martha Stewart's fate to a broken family in Croatia. Likewise, although it is painfully clear that a missile attack on the USA would have a great impact on Canadian life, the threat is not a direct one since there is no open hostilities between the countries involved. (Of course, that could all change quickly enough, but I think that's at the heart of what most Canadians are worried about with the escalation with regards to military).

[TripleTransAm]

If you add our State, Federal, Medicare, Unemployment, Sales, Property and Social Security 'taxes' you will find that we pay almost the same.

Perhaps in your area of the US, but I strongly doubt it overall. This, based on many professionals who've expat'ed to the US (Logan included). Try doing the opposite or speaking to one who has, and then you'll see where you missed some stuff.

[woaface]

Go capitalism and lower tax rates!

[Logan]

If you add our State, Federal, Medicare, Unemployment, Sales, Property and Social Security 'taxes' you will find that we pay almost the same.

Best Regards,

David
Sorry, not even a remotely close comparison. I'm done paying the government at the end of January here in Texas. In Canada, I didn't start making money until the middle of august.

[rookie1]

Yes, that would be one way to look at it, but only one of many. Consider how important Global Warming is to a lower-class family in a shanty-town in the heart of India. Or economic reform to a starving family in Zaire. Or Martha Stewart's fate to a broken family in Croatia. Likewise, although it is painfully clear that a missile attack on the USA would have a great impact on Canadian life, the threat is not a direct one since there is no open hostilities between the countries involved. (Of course, that could all change quickly enough, but I think that's at the heart of what most Canadians are worried about with the escalation with regards to military).

I totally understand that Canada doesn't perceive itself as having a bullseye on their backs like we do here of late.
I also understand that if I was paying close to what you guys are paying in taxes I would probably be against sdi from a pie in the sky perspective. If my base tax rate was close to 52% I wouldn't want the govt spending a freaking nickel when they could lower my tax rate instead. It's often been said that all politics is local and I believe this to be true, your comparisons to Croatia, India, and Zaire were dead on in this regard.
As an American in the conservative midwest I don't consider the escalation factor because I figure there are already way to many people out there that want to kill me now.
Great discussion here!!!

[2003 MIB]

I'll be the first to admit that Texans are an odd lot. Almost all of us know more about our state history than the US history- they program us that way from birth. I never even knew there were people in the states that had "Canada issues" until I joined this site and read some of the threads. This isn't one of them.
About a year ago, a Canadian friend (let's call him "Gogan") explained the differences between the two countries. He said, "Canadians have national pride. Americans are patriotic." I instantly understood.
This is right along those lines isn't it? As Americans we assume that if someone does share our view they simply don't have all the facts. It's the same way we all assume everyone in the world understands English if you speak it at a high volume and a slow speed. Our Northern Bros see what's outside their doors and want to make things better. I can respect that.

[TripleTransAm]

Interesting comment about the national pride / patriotism bit. Makes a lot of sense.

As diversified as they are from the West Coast all the way to the East Coast, one thing that Canadians share regardless of their cultural background is the desire to critique. Not criticize, but critique: disect, deconstruct, analyse, debate, argue, evaluate... okay, eventually there might be a bit of criticizing too. ;)

For example, someone may have voted Liberal for the past 2 decades, and then suddenly find themselves voting for the New Democratic party in the current elections. Perhaps they are disenchanted with the party platform, perhaps they think the current party leader is a boob, perhaps they are unhappy with the party's track record, etc.etc. (this in itself shows a profound difference between the political scenes: I get the feeling that party platforms actually do influence the voting habits of the citizens up here)

And no matter how proud we are of our country, we'll never think ourselves too proud to step back and proclaim loudly and at the top of our lungs:
"HEY... this is getting pretty f***ed up, eh? Just what the he** is going on here?"
when referring to national and provincial politics.

(just look at how we boo our own hockey teams when we feel they aren't earning their cash!)

By the way, I find that last paragraph of yours to be of remarkable insight. It takes a wise person to be able to recognize that there may be more than one point of view on a matter, and an even wiser person to realize that there isn't really one absolute correct one... it can depend heavily on local factors.

[QWK SVT]

What segregation is in the US? The only segregation I've seen is the same type that exists in any large Canadian city.
Really??? You don't think the city planners in the US have purposely isolated the lower income areas, within the US large cities? The educational opportunities afforded children from lower income families aren't impacted, based on that?

The US prides itself on being a melting pot. There are greater expectations that those that immigrate, to also assimilate (to a degree). The average American's pride in their country in MUCH more apparent than ours, up here (I think that is something Canada sorely lacks). There are no false promises, the US is as exactly as advertised. If you bust your ass, the "dollar and a dream" is possible.

Canada is much more of a tossed salad - We're much more PC. I'll bet dollars to donuts that at least 60% of the children in grade 8, or below, do NOT know the lyrics to our national anthem. Yes, we have health care, education, etc... But it comes at a cost. We're WAY over taxed. $8.00 for a pack of cigarettes, 80 cents / liter for lowgrade gas, 15% tax on purchases, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not saying Canada is perfect, or that the US is horrible... There are just differences. Which is better, or worse, really depends on each individual topic.

[QWK SVT]

Almost 52%... my total tax rate IS 52% (if not over, when you factor in the idiotic surtaxes!). Add to that a provincial sales tax that applies OVER the federal tax (ie. on the amount + federal tax). Add to that the high fuel costs in this province (again, more taxes). And on top of having exhorbitant yearly vehicle registration fees, there is talk of a new surtax on registrations for vehicles newer than 1995, with engines greater than 4.0 liters, regardless of fuel consumption - called the guzzler tax!!! Total BS!
(on the flipside, all the money being dumped on social programs has at least kept the area fairly safe - the poor don't get poor enough to get desperate, I guess)

So, yeah, I'm kind of interested in seeing some local issues fixed before wanting to fix the world.Oh, I feel REAL bad for the party animals over there! :party: What with all those scantily clad Quebec beauties running around... (j/k)

Reminds me, it's about time I made another trip to Montreal...

Honestly, 52%??? I know it's high, up here... I'm seeing better than 40% leave my pay, before it gets deposited, and I thought that was bad! I'd be thinking of quiting, and going on EI... Maybe that's just the Newf in me ;)

[TripleTransAm]

Oh, I feel REAL bad for the party animals over there! :party: What with all those scantily clad Quebec beauties running around... (j/k)


Dude, you don't know the half of it. I don't know what it is about the area I just moved into, but it takes me like 75% longer to do ANY sort of shopping these days. The women around here are HOT! This was NOT the case over in the western end of the Island where I lived before. Almost every neighbor on my street has a pool, and they all seem to know a bevy of hot female friends who just HAVE to attend their pool parties. My street being a loop, I get VERY distracted no matter what window I look out of!

Eye-candy aside: I've had many opportunities to go elsewhere and make a ton more money... contract work in Dallas, self-employment in Pennsylvania/NJ/Virginia area, consulting in the Chicago area... something always kept me here, though. (looking back, had I taken any of those opportunities, I would have found myself most likely a victim of the tech downturn, so in the end I guess it worked out for me).

And I'll say it again: I'll gladly pay for social programs that crutch the lower level scum of society, if it means I can drive around a big town like Montreal at 3am in the morning with my T-tops off and not be in the least bit worried about getting shot / car-jacked / mugged / etc.

[2003 MIB]

By the way, I find that last paragraph of yours to be of remarkable insight. It takes a wise person to be able to recognize that there may be more than one point of view on a matter, and an even wiser person to realize that there isn't really one absolute correct one... it can depend heavily on local factors.
Mama says even a blind hog finds an acorn now and again. You flatter me, Steve...Remember that I didn't understand the Canadian content broadcasting laws- seemed silly to me until YOU put it in terms of Spanish language broadcasts in Texas. Who's insightful????? Y'all seem to know alot more about us than we know about you...:canada:

[RCSignals]

Really??? You don't think the city planners in the US have purposely isolated the lower income areas, within the US large cities? The educational opportunities afforded children from lower income families aren't impacted, based on that?.

Actually I don't. At one time perhaps there was planned and forced segregation, but again, no more than in any large Canadian city.
As in Canada, cities have "pockets" of people who tend to be from similar social status, or ethnic background. As in "East side" "West side", "Chinatown", or "Little Italy" etc. I don't believe people are forced by planners to live in any such areas. That would be truly segregation.

There may be exceptions, such as in Vancouver BC when the Government built a large Condominium complex for "Chilean refugees", or the large housing project after WW2 open only to returning veterans.



The US prides itself on being a melting pot. There are greater expectations that those that immigrate, to also assimilate (to a degree). The average American's pride in their country in MUCH more apparent than ours, up here (I think that is something Canada sorely lacks). There are no false promises, the US is as exactly as advertised. If you bust your ass, the "dollar and a dream" is possible.

Canada is much more of a tossed salad - We're much more PC. I'll bet dollars to donuts that at least 60% of the children in grade 8, or below, do NOT know the lyrics to our national anthem. Yes, we have health care, education, etc... But it comes at a cost. We're WAY over taxed. $8.00 for a pack of cigarettes, 80 cents / liter for lowgrade gas, 15% tax on purchases, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not saying Canada is perfect, or that the US is horrible... There are just differences. Which is better, or worse, really depends on each individual topic.

Yes, I'm familiar with it all. Canada/Canadians had more identity and pride in itself before events such as changing the National Flag, changing the words to the National anthem, and changing "Dominion Day" to simply "Canada Day" (Falsely proclaiming that the word "Dominion" represented a "dependent" Canada)
It's hard to maintain a sense of National pride when Identity and traditions are constantly being changed, dropped, or belittled.

[RCSignals]

<exceptionally rare="" rant="" on="">[Expceptionally rare rant on]

Yeah, uh, I'm with the rest of those disagreeing Canuck's.

It's not a matter of being "smug". People care about what affect's their everyday lives. Missle defense doesn't even come close to the issues close to Canadian's hearts. Yes, of course it's important, but is it more important than people living on the streets and folks dying because medical assistance isn't readily available? I don't think so.

You can only worry and deal with issues at hand, while keeping a eye towards prudent security measures. That being said, I'd rather the money be spent on the real threat of homelessness, crappy healthcare, lower taxes, and a better equipped and funded conventional military.

Cart before the horse gents. Canada's got so many catastrophic, pressing issues. If any of the major issue's facing Canada where happening here in the states, there's be folks in the streets with guns demanding change. When I left Quebec 4 years ago, my tax rate was almost 52% of my income. So don't presume to question what the priorities of the average Canadian are, you simply won't get it.

Canada has a population of around 40 million people. The US is over 280+ million people. Yes, Canada is large, but has a relatively small population, so set expectations accordingly and take your flag waving elsewhere.

So don't thank anyone, it's just another grandstanding episode in the reality comedy series that is the Canadian Government.

[Exceptionally Rare Rant off]

<exceptionally rare="" rant="" off=""></exceptionally></exceptionally>


Good Rant Logan, and excellent points. Most Canadians do not like to admit such social and other problems exist or could exist in Canada.
There [i]is a matter of being "smug" however, when it comes to the general attitude of Canadians feeling safe from any sort of Terrorist attack. I think you know what I refer to.

This particular agreement or consolation by the Canadian government though, really doesn't seem to be one that will cost Canadians money or even involve them in actual development of any missile defence system. Unless I've missed some details it amounts to:
"allow the United States to use data gathered by Canadians at NORAD , the North American Aerospace Defense Command, in the development of our missile defense system ."

Data that is already being gathered as a function of NORAD, and in most likelihood already shared under provisions of NORAD.

I don't see where Canada is involved in actual development and cost sharing of a missile defence system. But again, maybe I just missed it.
It appears to more of a "see we don't completely hate the US and are doing our part in helping in Defence of North America" gesture from the Canadian government.

It should be the sort of "grandstanding" that gets press handshakes and smiles, but life goes on.
Canadians just had an election and chance to change "the reality comedy series that is the Canadian Government" but you know what the result of that was.

[Dr Caleb]

This particular agreement or consolation by the Canadian government though, really doesn't seem to be one that will cost Canadians money or even involve them in actual development of any missile defence system. Unless I've missed some details it amounts to:
"allow the United States to use data gathered by Canadians at NORAD , the North American Aerospace Defense Command, in the development of our missile defense system ."

You are quite correct, this agreement is a no cost kinda deal. But it goes back to trusting our government. This deal costs nothing, but it opens a door to... who knows what? Who is to say that the whole plan hasn't already been worked out behind closed doors to commit us to billions in spending, and they are just spoon feeding us the good bits before we really take the big hit in the pocketbook?



I don't see where Canada is involved in actual development and cost sharing of a missile defence system. But again, maybe I just missed it.


See above, it comes later. Just as NAFTA has dessimated our manufacturing sector and shipped it all overseas, when they told us it would be good for Canadian business and would grow it, we're just waiting for BMD's pricetag to impact the spending on what little military we have left.



Canadians just had an election and chance to change "the reality comedy series that is the Canadian Government" but you know what the result of that was.

Doooon't get me started! As /steve alluded to above; I think the Canadian people have become so disillusioned by govermnments over the last 20 years through cronieism, blatant lies and outright criminal activity that they just don't care anymore. Why else would people vote for Members of Parlament that have lied to them? Outright bold faced lied to them! And the get re-elected! Most of them got re-elected anyhow. IMHO, they should be behind bars.

Isn't doing the same thing over and over (voting Liberal), yet expecting different results each time considered the first sign of insanity?

/ :soap:

[TripleTransAm]

There [i]is a matter of being "smug" however, when it comes to the general attitude of Canadians feeling safe from any sort of Terrorist attack. I think you know what I refer to.


I think your choice of the word 'smug' was a bad one, and has prompted this reply. I apologize ahead of time for the dryness.

Also, no offense intended towards my friends to the south of us. Nothing in what I am about to write is intended to insult any specific person, as I count most of you among those that I would gladly shake their hands if I had the good fortune of a face-to-face encounter.

The US has, in recent memory, been involved in at least ONE conflict with another nation or people at any given time. Regardless of the perceived justification for this conflict, it stands that the country is in a state of conflict. If not Germany, then Japan, or Korea, or Cuba, or Russia, or Vietname, or Cambodia, or Iran, or Iraq, or...
And if there isn't an all-out open conflict, there is the constant presence in many other lands that sometimes leads to resentment over what is perceived as 'meddling' (whether it is actually the case or not). I strongly suspect that this foreign policy has given rise to the current opinion on US-related matters, but that's just my opinion and what I've heard from folks in some of the 'affected' lands.

There is obviously some sort of deep hatred out there that forces people to commit such attrocities as crashing planes into buildings and such. I certainly have a hard time coming up with any justification for such a thing, but then again I live here, in relative comfort. I haven't lost any family members to actions I judged to be 'unfair' and 'descriminatory' but you can bet your a$$ I'd be the first one calling for blood if anyone took the life of my child in a manner that was callous or gratuitous.

So... smugness? I don't think so. I can't speak for the entire bloody country, of course, but I can assure you that the local preference is to lay low and not rock the boat, and then maybe peace will win out in the end. No ill will intended, just a "leave us out of it, because we didn't start anything".


Honestly, I really hope things don't continue to escalate, because the wars that are being fought right now are not conventional ones, and cannot be 'won' in the traditional sense of the word without resorting to outright genocide (or religious genocide in some cases, and we all saw how nice that was in the 30s and 40s...).

[Dr Caleb]

Well said Steve.

To tie several posts together here, and again, with no malice toward anyone: one strength of Canadians is the ability to be extremely self critical. That conflicts with our inherent need to be diplomatic and polite (see my link to an editorial by Molly Ivins in my post above).

When we see our best friends doing something that will come back to bite them in the a$$ later, we can't help but point it out. Running with scissors, playing with explosives, juggling chainsaws or 'enforcing democracy' on people with nothing left to lose - we must in the interest of friendship speak up.

I forget who said it but I think it applies here: "You don't go to war with your trading partners". The best way to ensure that Nuclear tipped ICBM's don't come hurtling out of the stratosphere towards our cities is to quit ticking them off. Some crazies you just can't appease, but if you win the hearts and trust their peers, it's much easier to have good will prevail.

I think this is the best thread we've had on a hot topic such as this, and I really hope it continues . . .

[TripleTransAm]

Some crazies you just can't appease, but if you win the hearts and trust their peers, it's much easier to have good will prevail.

True, there are many crazies out there. And what many people have to remember is that for every innocent person that is killed in some sort of military operation, if that person had 6 immediate family members, we've just created 6 potential terrorists. If the person had 12 close family members, well that number is now 12. Note that I'm not singling out any one side... I think I'd be correct in thinking there's a fairly large percentage of people affected in this manner by the events of Sept 11 that are now somewhat "less than friendly" towards anyone of the Muslim persuasion, just as a similar thing must happen to anyone involved in death and destruction all over the world.

Something has to stop this cycle of violence.

[rookie1]

The best way to ensure that Nuclear tipped ICBM's don't come hurtling out of the stratosphere towards our cities is to quit ticking them off. Some crazies you just can't appease, but if you win the hearts and trust their peers, it's much easier to have good will prevail.

I think this is the best thread we've had on a hot topic such as this, and I really hope it continues . . .


This is a great thread and I read all the posts from my Canadian brothers with great interest. I am curious as to whether or not the the folks from Ontario share your feelings. My only substantial interactions and friendships in Canada were all within that province. I ask because the politics here vary greatly from region to region.

In regards to the excerpted quote, I believe France,Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and a few other nations took that attitude in the 1940's with regard to Germany without much success and currently in Iraq, France's attitude hasn't stopped 2 of their reporters frome being kidnapped(I sincerely hope they are released unharmed btw).The American military philosophy for the last 100 years has been peace thru strength. I agree that we maintain a large military presence around the world but you will see that it is starting to shrink now and will shrink further in the coming years. It remains to be seen whether the pullout of a great portion of our troops from around the world will make the world a better,safer place or not.
I feel compelled to point out the genocide going on right now in Sudan and the UN's total and complete inability to stop it or even slow it down. It will be interesting to see if this is able to be resolved without our involvment.

[Dr Caleb]

I am curious as to whether or not the the folks from Ontario share your feelings.

I think we have members here from most provinces. At least 80% of them, and I'm sure they will chime in. Please don't judge all Canadians by my or their comments. We are a small group, perhaps a dozen Canadians on this board, and since we share a passion for the same car, we most likely have similar incomes and backgrounds. Not a very representative demograpic ;)



In regards to the excerpted quote, ... France's attitude hasn't stopped 2 of their reporters frome being kidnapped(I sincerely hope they are released unharmed btw).

Your point is well taken, but consider this - with all the accusations with regard to the role (or not) of Saudi Arabia in September 11, could you concieve of the US going into there as it did in Iraq? Just a thought :)

And I hope too that any reporter just doing their job is released unharmed. But this also re-inforces my point - many Islamic friends of France (including Iran and Hamas!!! :fire: ) are speaking out against these kidnappers, demanding their release. Peer pressure!



I feel compelled to point out the genocide going on right now in Sudan and the UN's total and complete inability to stop it or even slow it down. It will be interesting to see if this is able to be resolved without our involvment.

I think the intent of the UN has been corrupted. The UN needs it's own military, or the ability to commandeer parts of members forces for occasions just like this. Somalia, Croatia, Rwanda - these are all dismal failures. Canadian diplomats tried their best to get the UN to act in Iraq, but with France and Germany threatning veto every second sentence, the UN was toothless. :twocents: In my eyes, that was when the UN failed for good.

[RCSignals]

No offence to any one here, and no specific person in mind, but my use of the word "smug" in it's context stands.

[Logan]

Oh yeah? Well we rule and you drool! Nanner Nanner Nanner. :D

[Dr Caleb]

Oh yea! The USA may rock, but it's :canada: on the drums! :woohoo:
:stooges:

[RCSignals]

Oh yea! The USA may rock, but it's :canada: on the drums! :woohoo:
:stooges:


Maple Leaf Forever Bub :hug:

[2003 MIB]

Oh yeah? Well we rule and you drool! Nanner Nanner Nanner. :D
It occurs to me that is truly a Canadian board that just happens to be based in Texas. It's okay to critize or critique but mind your manners. Kudos to the community for doing just that. I'm proud to be part of this discussion.

I hate the UN (Beruit October 1983) but would agree that the initial idea was noble. I think there are a lot of people that feel like we ignored the big dog in the fight (S.A.) after 9/11.

[rookie1]

And I hope too that any reporter just doing their job is released unharmed. But this also re-inforces my point - many Islamic friends of France (including Iran and Hamas!!! :fire: ) are speaking out against these kidnappers, demanding their release. Peer pressure!


The true measure of a man or nation can be determined by the friends they keep.

[Smokie]

So to put it in a nutshell, the U.S. is hated around the world because we can't mind our own business....so if we were just like Switzerland for the last 200 years; the world would be a happy peaceful place with no terrorism or poverty and everybody would be happy...right ?

[QWK SVT]

Actually I don't. At one time perhaps there was planned and forced segregation, but again, no more than in any large Canadian city.
As in Canada, cities have "pockets" of people who tend to be from similar social status, or ethnic background. As in "East side" "West side", "Chinatown", or "Little Italy" etc. I don't believe people are forced by planners to live in any such areas. That would be truly segregation.OK, I'll admit that perhaps my wording was incorrect. Yes, there are pockets of ethnicity, spread throughout the city. Human nature will have people naturally associate with those they feel most comfortable with. If you’ve recently immigrated, it’s likely you’ll find people from your motherland…

I guess what I was really thinking of was the designed separation of wealth, and the clearly defined boundaries. Every city, with a decent population, will have pockets of rich (who will purposely separate themselves from all others), and poor. It’s how the middle-class, lower-class and the poor are separated, that strikes me as vastly different.

In Canada, the poor (the co-ops, gov’t subsidized low rises, etc.) are not clumped together, such as in NYC, Detroit, etc. There are small pockets, everywhere. All the children are afforded the same educational opportunities, as a result (save the elitists, which pay for private schooling). Obviously, the goal is to help the individuals have the same chances at prospering, as everyone else. I don’t know this is the best answer, but I think it’s at least a good try…





It's hard to maintain a sense of National pride when Identity and traditions are constantly being changed, dropped, or belittled.We have traditions? You mean OTHER than the McKenzie brothers, beer, hockey and curling (an ice sport, where the grand prize is actually a very large canister of beer)???

[QWK SVT]

This is a great thread and I read all the posts from my Canadian brothers with great interest. I am curious as to whether or not the the folks from Ontario share your feelings. My only substantial interactions and friendships in Canada were all within that province. I ask because the politics here vary greatly from region to region.
Welp... I'm from Ontario (Toronto, to be exact)...

Political alliances vary from region, to region, up here as well. Ontario tends to lean to the Liberal side of the fence. Quebec has their own Political party, to fend for their special interests (French language, etc.). The west coast... Well, they're are all pot smokers, anyway :pimp:

Having said that, I find Dr. Caleb's quote ("When we see our best friends doing something that will come back to bite them in the a$$ later...") to be both very humourous, and also very true.

I understand the whole "peace through stength"-thing... Given my physical size throughout highschool, I understand it, very well. Having said that, I never had to throw it around. One can be strong, without necessarily needing to flaunt it, all the time.

I also agree that the UN no longer wields much power, nor does it fulfill the need it was designed to do. Politics, and agendas have overrun what once was a good idea.

We can’t really have every country running around, doing anything they please, with no threat of reprisal. Who decides when and where reprisal is appropriate? Who decides when an impartial third party should step in to settle disputes? What’s the solution? I don’t know… We (as in the World) had better figure it out, soon.

I also think this is a really great thread! I have been in many forums, where this would have degraded into little more than country bashing, long before now. I'm really impressed by this community! It speaks volumes, really.

Just as long as we don't talk oil, or operating systems:rofl:

[TripleTransAm]

So to put it in a nutshell, the U.S. is hated around the world because we can't mind our own business....


In a very compact nutshell, I think this statement is overall true. But as with all complex matters, it's not realistic to sum it up this way, because there are so many variables.

Such as: what is "minding your own business"? Certainly foreign aid in itself cannot be considered intrusive or abusive. Nor is the fact of sending peace-keeping forces to try and help a troubled nation to keep its ***** together (apologies to Dave Matthews). It's a complex mix of things, and it usually comes right down to basic human nature.

I'll try to illustrate by providing a couple of examples, as it's really not easy to explain...

My parents' homeland is basically a set of islands right smack in the middle of the Atlantic. Accordingly, it has been (and probably still is) a very strategic hopping point for any military unit that would wish to cross the Pond, and as such the US has operated a large military base on one of the islands for many many decades. The military personnel spend money locally, which is good for the economy, and from most accounts they are well regarded and there is no friction. Of course, there is the odd pregnancy or two that is left behind when the soldier suddenly gets transferred, never to be heard from again, and maybe the occasional loud fistfight in a bar now and again, but nothing warranting slamming an airplane into a skyscraper by any means...

Over in the middle east (particularly, Iran), it's a different story. Some of my coworkers originate from that area. As they were growing up, it was a given that one should not "mess with the almighty American" in any way. Money = power = corruption = you can get away with anything. So stories abound of drunken drivers that would often mow down the unfortunate local that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and NOTHING would or could be done about it. I suspect had the westerners been the more disciplined and respectful military, nothing this gruesome would have occurred. But the fact is that the ordinary everyday Joe could easily find himself in a position where he could play God. This is the situation that fosters hatred.

So it isn't about minding one's business, it's how one behaves in someone else's house. I'm fairly sure there would be some very offended people if I was to walk into any MM.net member's home without taking off my muddy shoes, spit my chewing tobacco on the carpet, and fart while yelling "Boy, what a ripper that was!". There's a Portuguese saying that loosely translates as "You with good intentions, be welcomed in my home with open arms" or something like that.

Since Ossama and his merry men took the spotlight in Sept. 2001, I've begun to wonder what exactly happened that ticked him off to this point. With all his wealth, wouldn't it be hella easier to just park his donkey somewhere near a nice beach and live it up, as the rest of his family has? One of my theories is that his training in the Afghan-USSR war by US forces made him a dangerous person (perhaps knowing too much) and he might have been targetted for assassination early on. This is clearly just a fanciful theory and nothing more, but I can see something like that making a guy just a little irritated.

[TripleTransAm]

I also think this is a really great thread! I have been in many forums, where this would have degraded into little more than country bashing, long before now.


I don't know about that... Lichtenstein is really beginning to p*ss me off right about now. :razz:

[2003 MIB]

One of my theories is that his training in the Afghan-USSR war by US forces made him a dangerous person (perhaps knowing too much) and he might have been targetted for assassination early on. This is clearly just a fanciful theory and nothing more, but I can see something like that making a guy just a little irritated.
Hmmm, maybe...I am more inclined to believe his issue is truly the occupation of Muslim holy land by non-Muslims (Russia, USA). I think he wanted our training/assistance as a means to an end. Use the US to get the Russians out and then deal with the US. Of course, I also believe he's been captured for months and will be paraded out just before November's election.

[2003 MIB]

I don't know about that... Lichtenstein is really beginning to p*ss me off right about now. :razz:
I'm angry with Monaco (and Polara too)!!

[RCSignals]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleTransAm
One of my theories is that his training in the Afghan-USSR war by US forces made him a dangerous person (perhaps knowing too much) and he might have been targetted for assassination early on. This is clearly just a fanciful theory and nothing more, but I can see something like that making a guy just a little irritated.



Hmmm, maybe...I am more inclined to believe his issue is truly the occupation of Muslim holy land by non-Muslims (Russia, USA). I think he wanted our training/assistance as a means to an end. Use the US to get the Russians out and then deal with the US. Of course, I also believe he's been captured for months and will be paraded out just before November's election.


I believe it actually goes much deeper than that, not to exclude the simple concept of Religious fanaticism.
It has very little to do with any US support of Afghanistan fighting the USSR.
Remember also that Osama, and the Taliban for the most part, are/were a powerful but unwelcome "occupational", not a "native" Force/entity in Afghanistan.