Canada drops first bombs on Iraq...

[Toma]

Who's gonna pretend they are shocked when we become a target and someone decides to retaliate?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/isis-mission-canadian-cf-18s-drop-laser-guided-bombs-over-iraq-1.2821425

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Toma
Who's gonna pretend they are shocked when we become a target and someone decides to retaliate?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/isis-mission-canadian-cf-18s-drop-laser-guided-bombs-over-iraq-1.2821425

So we should cower in fear and let them run free just because they might retaliate? Where would that have lead Canada in WW2 if we had taken that attitude? Isolationism is a hilarious foreign policy concept that simply doesn't work.

[sr20s14zenki]

My solution

http://www.brendanloy.com/blog/images/southpark-sand2.jpg

[A790]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


So we should cower in fear and let them run free just because they might retaliate? Where would that have lead Canada in WW2 if we had taken that attitude? Isolationism is a hilarious foreign policy concept that simply doesn't work.
Right. Because bombing campaigns have done great jobs in the past. :rolleyes:

[Toma]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


So we should cower in fear and let them run free just because they might retaliate? Where would that have lead Canada in WW2 if we had taken that attitude? Isolationism is a hilarious foreign policy concept that simply doesn't work.

What "caused" ww2?

What "caused" ISIS?

Duh.

Hilarious indeed.

[icky2unk]

Originally posted by Toma


What "caused" ww2?

What "caused" ISIS?

Duh.

Hilarious indeed.

We should drop more.

And a care package with Toma and Arash

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by A790

Right. Because bombing campaigns have done great jobs in the past. :rolleyes:

Worked rather well in Lybia I would say... :dunno: I think you guys are missing the point. It's not about fixing problems it's about giving the people who are actively committing genocide some wrath of god and allowing the people who are the victims of the genocide a fighting chance.

Keep in mind Toma is all for Russian intervention in Ukraine but gets his panties in a bunch when it comes to "Western" governments. :facepalm: No clue why he doesn't move over to Putin's utopia.

[Toma]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


It's not about fixing problems it's about giving the people who are actively committing genocide some wrath of god and allowing the people who are the victims of the genocide a fighting chance.


You just get dumber by the day.

So now we are "god"?

Seriously, and I say this with all my heart.

Go fuck yourself.

[Arash Boodagh]

I would be pretty surprised if mazdavirgin was Arabic or a Muslim saying the most outlandish mainstream media comments so that people would constantly correct him and thus spread the truths on the forum.

Nasrulla of Lebanon's Hizbullah was quoited some weeks ago in saying that all the western bombing campaigns that have been done against the ISIL was equal to one days worth of bombing of Isreal on Lebanon.

The west is either acting so desperate or ruthless as ever, as not only are they commanding the ISIL to commit constant mass murders (civilian executions and even multiple gas attacks) after taking over towns, but they are also keeping the ever flow of car bombs week in week out.

They want to turn the middle east into a hell hole, possibly make more false flags at home... then put our troops on the ground to finish the job.

[icky2unk]

Originally posted by Toma


You just get dumber by the day.

So now we are "god"?

Seriously, and I say this with all my heart.

Go fuck yourself.

We all say likewise to you.

[A790]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Worked rather well in Lybia I would say... :dunno: I think you guys are missing the point. It's not about fixing problems it's about giving the people who are actively committing genocide some wrath of god and allowing the people who are the victims of the genocide a fighting chance.

Keep in mind Toma is all for Russian intervention in Ukraine but gets his panties in a bunch when it comes to "Western" governments. :facepalm: No clue why he doesn't move over to Putin's utopia.
Toma's political opinions/etc. have no relevance with respect to my comment. Just because I don't agree that bombings are effective doesn't mean that he and I are homeboys, either. In this case, I agree with his position and I think you'll find there are a lot of Canadians that find these bombings to be in bad taste (at best), certainly not becoming of a "peacekeeping" nation.

We (the west) have performed many bombing campaigns. All have been outright failures. Your citation of Libya is ignoring the fact that...

A) The Libyan people openly asked for help.

B) The Libyan people actively fought against Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The situation with IS in Iraq/Iran/etc. is very complex. We have as many sources telling us the people like IS as we do telling us the opposite.

Regardless, my comment was based entirely on the fact that bombing campaigns have an extremely low success rate.

Who's missing the point, again?

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by A790

Toma's political opinions/etc. have no relevance with respect to my comment. Just because I don't agree that bombings are effective doesn't mean that he and I are homeboys, either. In this case, I agree with his position and I think you'll find there are a lot of Canadians that find these bombings to be in bad taste (at best), certainly not becoming of a "peacekeeping" nation.

We (the west) have performed many bombing campaigns. All have been outright failures. Your citation of Libya is ignoring the fact that...

A) The Libyan people openly asked for help.

B) The Libyan people actively fought against Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The situation with IS in Iraq/Iran/etc. is very complex. We have as many sources telling us the people like IS as we do telling us the opposite.

Regardless, my comment was based entirely on the fact that bombing campaigns have an extremely low success rate.

Who's missing the point, again?

Well how do you suggest we stop the ethnic cleansing of kurds and non Muslims in the region? Just say fuck it and let them kill each other?

FYI: The Kurds and the Iraqui government have asked for help. They are also actively fighting against ISIS/ISIL albeit they were losing prior to air strikes.

[Inzane]

CANADA............. Fuck YA!!

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2009/12/28/1262005546510/Team-America-World-Police-001.jpg

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Toma
Who's gonna pretend they are shocked when we become a target and someone decides to retaliate?


News flash, Toma: As a western, developed nation, we're already a target. Future action against Canada would occur whether or not we participated in the bombings.

With that said, I've never supported Canada's military participation overseas in virtually any conflict with the exception of the world wars - which were obviously before my time. We're supposed to be a neutral country.

I can see both sides of the debate, and in defense of the "pro" side, there is certainly something to be said about supporting our allies (USA) now to ensure they support us in the future if ever it became necessary. Still, I cannot bring myself to agree with these recent actions; I don't believe any outside military power can ever win against a widely accepted radical movement backed by religion.

[slinkie]

Is mazdavirgin a troll or something? Look at these hyper inflammatory posts lol. I wrote up a response but I feel like I'm being played here

[broken_legs]

To all who are extolling the benefits of our assistance in the 2011 illegal war with Libya, I urge you to type "Libya" into google and read the latest news.

Here's a couple headlines from Mainstream Media Conspiracy Websites to get you started:

Amnesty Internationl Finds no Proof of Human Rights Violations:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html


In June 2011, a detailed investigation carried out by Amnesty International claimed that many of the allegations against Gaddafi and the Libyan state turned out to either be false or lack any credible evidence, noting that rebels at times appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence. According to the Amnesty investigation, the number of casualties was heavily exaggerated, some of the protesters may have been armed, "there is no proof of mass killing of civilians on the scale of Syria or Yemen," and there is no evidence that aircraft or heavy anti-aircraft machine guns were used against crowds. It also doubted claims from the Western media that the protest movement was "entirely peaceful" and "presented no security challenge.


So basically the entire reason to go to war was a lie... Again. (WMDs?? Killing Babies in Kuwait??)

Don't take my word for it though, try that google machine out and see what's happening in Libya TODAY, never mind the last 3 years.

[frizzlefry]

While ISIS certainly deserves to be wiped out I don't think the west can accomplish that while leaving the region in any remotely stable condition. Any western involvement is always seen as negative and intrusive.

IMO this issue needs to be dealt with militarily by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. Muslims dealing with a Muslim threat. Best chance of the region being somewhat stable after ISIS is gone.

[finboy]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
While ISIS certainly deserves to be wiped out I don't think the west can accomplish that while leaving the region in any remotely stable condition. Any western involvement is always seen as negative and intrusive.

IMO this issue needs to be dealt with militarily by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. Muslims dealing with a Muslim threat. Best chance of the region being somewhat stable after ISIS is gone.

This, althought if left to their own devices, they might not decide to support US/western interests, and as such, more interventionist BS :thumbsdow

[slinkie]

Originally posted by broken_legs
To all who are extolling the benefits of our assistance in the 2011 illegal war with Libya, I urge you to type "Libya" into google and read the latest news.

Here's a couple headlines from Mainstream Media Conspiracy Websites to get you started:

So basically the entire reason to go to war was a lie... Again. (WMDs?? Killing Babies in Kuwait??)

Don't take my word for it though, try that google machine out and see what's happening in Libya TODAY, never mind the last 3 years.

:werd: especially the red part

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Kloubek
We're supposed to be a neutral country.

Canada has never been a neutral country, ever. We've fought more wars than we've sat out. The only major war we've sat out from has been the Iraq war, because Chretien wasn't satisfied with the reason for going to war (which was a good thing.) We were under any obligation to fight in Vietnam, and we had no interest there, so we sat that one out. Other than that, Canada has fought in pretty much every single conflict since we've been a country.

Canadian history, people. Read it.

[ZenOps]

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/ITheBozManI/canadas_army.jpg

[tirebob]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Well how do you suggest we stop the ethnic cleansing of kurds and non Muslims in the region? Just say fuck it and let them kill each other?

FYI: The Kurds and the Iraqui government have asked for help. They are also actively fighting against ISIS/ISIL albeit they were losing prior to air strikes. There is ethnic cleansing going on in other places in the world but those places don't have oil fields so we are content to just say fuck it there... :dunno:

[codetrap]

Originally posted by tirebob
There is ethnic cleansing going on in other places in the world but those places don't have oil fields so we are content to just say fuck it there... :dunno: Really? Where? Have any of those places, like Burma for example, asked for help? I'm not trying to jump on you here Bob, but there are mitigating factors that come into play. Canada can't just invade a place like Burma to stop the ethnic cleansing going on there, for one, we'd be literally going to war with the legitimate government there, unfortunate as that may be. Also, for cases like the Bosnia ones years ago, that would have started WWIII with the USSR. What is preferable.. global conflict killing billions, or doing what we can with sanctions etc hoping to minimize the death toll to millions...

Personally, after doing a bunch of reading up on IS, I'm glad Canada is doing something about it. I'm glad we can do something about it. As far as wanting Iraqi oil, is that really a valid motivation for Canada? Do we really want Iraq oil? Wouldn't it be better for us if Iraq oil production went away? That would boost prices here at home. Seems to be that going to war there to bring stability is a bit counterproductive in the long term for our own economic interests...

Just saying...

[tirebob]

Originally posted by codetrap
Really? Where? Have any of those places, like Burma for example, asked for help? I'm not trying to jump on you here Bob, but there are mitigating factors that come into play. Canada can't just invade a place like Burma to stop the ethnic cleansing going on there, for one, we'd be literally going to war with the legitimate government there, unfortunate as that may be. Also, for cases like the Bosnia ones years ago, that would have started WWIII with the USSR. What is preferable.. global conflict killing billions, or doing what we can with sanctions etc hoping to minimize the death toll to millions...

Personally, after doing a bunch of reading up on IS, I'm glad Canada is doing something about it. I'm glad we can do something about it. As far as wanting Iraqi oil, is that really a valid motivation for Canada? Do we really want Iraq oil? Wouldn't it be better for us if Iraq oil production went away? That would boost prices here at home. Seems to be that going to war there to bring stability is a bit counterproductive in the long term for our own economic interests...

Just saying... I don't mind being jumped on. Your opinions are yours and you have obviously researched out what has made you come to your conclusions. Nothing wrong with that and no need to apologize...

I hear what you are saying but I just don't buy that Canada is on a humanitarian mission or is needing to protect all of us from terrorists. Canada is on a buddying up mission to the countries that are concerned about oil (as well as other things).

I honestly don't have the time or energy (or desire if I am being honest) to try and convince anyone or change their minds. Nobody on Beyond EVER changes their minds lol! I am just counting my voice as being in disagreement with our actions in this case...

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


Canada has never been a neutral country, ever. We've fought more wars than we've sat out. The only major war we've sat out from has been the Iraq war, because Chretien wasn't satisfied with the reason for going to war (which was a good thing.) We were under any obligation to fight in Vietnam, and we had no interest there, so we sat that one out. Other than that, Canada has fought in pretty much every single conflict since we've been a country.

Ummm.... I have to disagree with you there. Firstly, besides the world wars, we've really been under no obligation to fight in ANY war. Any country decides whether they wish to participate or not depending on where their interests lie - which includes working with their allies, protecting their national interests and, in some cases, to help prevent mass genocide. Countries are happy to get involved in civil wars too if it suits their interests as well, so you can't rule those out as conflicts we COULD participate in. (Which the USA has quite often)

Canada *was* involved in the initial Iraq conflict, if you recall - though I imagine you're referring to the second round - which I too am happy we were not involved.

So let's look wars and major conflicts since 1867 (according to Wiki) leaving out World Wars since they are pretty much a given that we had to participate. Note that I believe my assessment of our participation may be incorrect here and there, but I think it is fairly accurate:

Mexican Revolution 1911 Canada did not participate
Armenian War 1915 Canada did not participate
Greek Genocide: 1915 Canada did not participate
Russan Civil War: 1917 Canada never has a front line fighting role
Chinese Civil War: 1927 Canada did not participate
Spanish Civil War: 1936 Canada barely involved - though a few volunteers did go fight for the cause, it wasn't government-backed.
Polish Massacres: 1943 Canada did not participate
* Korean War: 1950 Canada participated
Vietnam War: 1955 Canada did not participate
Nigeria: 1966 Canada did not participate, but did support a side
Bangladesh Genocide: 1971 Canada did not participate
Cambodia: 1975 Canada did not participate
Afghanistan: 1979 Canada did not participate until 2001
Iran/Iraq War: 1980 Canada did not participate
Sudanese Civil War: 1983 Canada did not participate
* Iraq: 1991 Canada Participated
* Bosnia: 1992 Relatively small Canadian role
Rwanda: 1994 Canada barely participated
Congo war: 1998 Canada did not participate
*"War on Terror"/Iraq Round 2: 2001+ Canada did not participate until now.

That's 20 major conflicts - of which Canada had a prominent role in only a handful. So I'm not really sure how you believe that "Canada has fought in pretty much every single conflict since we've been a country." That's not even close to being true. We've selected certain conflicts to get involved in as we saw fit - and those conflicts were generally ones where there was a coalition put together, and in my opinion, was likely to support our allies more than anything.

The disturbing trend that I see is that we're getting more and more involved as time goes on. I think we can thank Harper for that....

[flipstah]

Originally posted by Inzane
CANADA............. Fuck YA!!

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2009/12/28/1262005546510/Team-America-World-Police-001.jpg

http://www.reelingreviews.com/teamamericaworldpolicepic.jpg

"SORRY!"

[codetrap]

Originally posted by tirebob
I don't mind being jumped on. Your opinions are yours and you have obviously researched out what has made you come to your conclusions. Nothing wrong with that and no need to apologize...

I hear what you are saying but I just don't buy that Canada is on a humanitarian mission or is needing to protect all of us from terrorists. Canada is on a buddying up mission to the countries that are concerned about oil (as well as other things).

I honestly don't have the time or energy (or desire if I am being honest) to try and convince anyone or change their minds. Nobody on Beyond EVER changes their minds lol! I am just counting my voice as being in disagreement with our actions in this case... It's all good man. And I will disagree that nobody changes their minds. I changed my mind on this issue. I was totally against it at first, but now I'm of the opinion that it's ok that we're involved, regardless of some of the other motivations that are involved. :)

[EM2FTL]

Originally posted by Kloubek


News flash, Toma: As a western, developed nation, we're already a target.



I stopped reading after this sentence. Do you really believe this?

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Kloubek


Ummm.... I have to disagree with you there. Firstly, besides the world wars, we've really been under no obligation to fight in ANY war. Any country decides whether they wish to participate or not depending on where their interests lie - which includes working with their allies, protecting their national interests and, in some cases, to help prevent mass genocide. Countries are happy to get involved in civil wars too if it suits their interests as well, so you can't rule those out as conflicts we COULD participate in. (Which the USA has quite often)

Canada *was* involved in the initial Iraq conflict, if you recall - though I imagine you're referring to the second round - which I too am happy we were not involved.

So let's look wars and major conflicts since 1867 (according to Wiki) leaving out World Wars since they are pretty much a given that we had to participate. Note that I believe my assessment of our participation may be incorrect here and there, but I think it is fairly accurate:

Mexican Revolution 1911 Canada did not participate
Armenian War 1915 Canada did not participate
Greek Genocide: 1915 Canada did not participate
Russan Civil War: 1917 Canada never has a front line fighting role
Chinese Civil War: 1927 Canada did not participate
Spanish Civil War: 1936 Canada barely involved - though a few volunteers did go fight for the cause, it wasn't government-backed.
Polish Massacres: 1943 Canada did not participate
* Korean War: 1950 Canada participated
Vietnam War: 1955 Canada did not participate
Nigeria: 1966 Canada did not participate, but did support a side
Bangladesh Genocide: 1971 Canada did not participate
Cambodia: 1975 Canada did not participate
Afghanistan: 1979 Canada did not participate until 2001
Iran/Iraq War: 1980 Canada did not participate
Sudanese Civil War: 1983 Canada did not participate
* Iraq: 1991 Canada Participated
* Bosnia: 1992 Relatively small Canadian role
Rwanda: 1994 Canada barely participated
Congo war: 1998 Canada did not participate
*"War on Terror"/Iraq Round 2: 2001+ Canada did not participate until now.

That's 20 major conflicts - of which Canada had a prominent role in only a handful. So I'm not really sure how you believe that "Canada has fought in pretty much every single conflict since we've been a country." That's not even close to being true. We've selected certain conflicts to get involved in as we saw fit - and those conflicts were generally ones where there was a coalition put together, and in my opinion, was likely to support our allies more than anything.

The disturbing trend that I see is that we're getting more and more involved as time goes on. I think we can thank Harper for that....

I think you have it backwards. With the advent of the Harper Gov't, we've actually been LESS involved in wars/peacekeeping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_peacekeeping_missions

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by EM2FTL


I stopped reading after this sentence. Do you really believe this?

Absolutely I do.

Canada was already specifically mentioned as a target more than once, and well before Harper announced that we would be participating in this conflict.

Are direct threats against Canada not enough evidence for you that at least part of their group is interested in wreaking havoc here as well? Do you really think that if they were successful in establishing their Islamic state overseas that they would be content with stopping there?

Besides that, terrorists have been around long before ISIS became the catch word of the day. Even without ISIS, don't fool yourself into thinking that terror groups aren't interested in making an impact here. These are radicals who need very little convincing to turn against *anybody*... let alone an ally of the USA - which is largely considered an enemy of nearly every terror group out there.


Originally posted by codetrap
[B] I think you have it backwards. With the advent of the Harper Gov't, we've actually been LESS involved in wars/peacekeeping.


Codetrap - did you even read your own quoted article? It does mention that we have been doing less peacekeeping, and *more* UN-sanctioned military operations. It doesn't at all say we're participating in less war.

I don't actually mind Canada's participation in peacekeeping, and would be ok with our active participation in many cases; it is the active military attacks that I have a problem with - and why I say that I still view Canada as a neutral country... but with regret, that appears to be changing...

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Codetrap - did you even read your own quoted article? It does mention that we have been doing less peacekeeping, and *more* UN-sanctioned military operations. It doesn't at all say we're participating in less war.

I don't actually mind Canada's participation in peacekeeping, and would be ok with our active participation in many cases; it is the active military attacks that I have a problem with - and why I say that I still view Canada as a neutral country... but with regret, that appears to be changing... I did.. there were 3 that I know of. Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan(2001-2011), and Libya (March 2011). Still seems like a decline to me.. and as I recall, the Harper Gov't got it's majority in May 2011. Up until then, they had a minority, so the Liberals/NDP had to support them right? So.. to conclude.. I don't think you can really blame Harper alone for taking Canada to war. The timelines don't really support it.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by codetrap
It's all good man. And I will disagree that nobody changes their minds. I changed my mind on this issue. I was totally against it at first, but now I'm of the opinion that it's ok that we're involved, regardless of some of the other motivations that are involved. :) Actually, you are one of the very few I can say does not get jammed up in one idea and one idea only... One must admit though, that is uncommon here.

[codetrap]

Thanks Bob. That's the nicest thing anyone on beyond has said to me in a looooong time. :love:

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by codetrap
I did.. there were 3 that I know of. Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan(2001-2011), and Libya (March 2011). Still seems like a decline to me.. and as I recall, the Harper Gov't got it's majority in May 2011. Up until then, they had a minority, so the Liberals/NDP had to support them right? So.. to conclude.. I don't think you can really blame Harper alone for taking Canada to war. The timelines don't really support it.

Ok, that's fair. Perhaps I unnecessarily picked Harper and his government out. Personal bias getting in the way, I imagine.

But I wouldn't say there has been a decline of Canada's military (non-peacekeeping) involvement in conflicts, based on the list I provided earlier. And really, I think it does show that prior to the Gulf War, Canada was typically neutral... with the exception of heavy involvement in the world wars which we really had no choice in.

[CompletelyNumb]

:nut: niceties on Beyond. Rare.

[EM2FTL]

Originally posted by Kloubek


Absolutely I do.

Canada was already specifically mentioned as a target more than once, and well before Harper announced that we would be participating in this conflict.

Are direct threats against Canada not enough evidence for you that at least part of their group is interested in wreaking havoc here as well? Do you really think that if they were successful in establishing their Islamic state overseas that they would be content with stopping there?

Besides that, terrorists have been around long before ISIS became the catch word of the day. Even without ISIS, don't fool yourself into thinking that terror groups aren't interested in making an impact here. These are radicals who need very little convincing to turn against *anybody*... let alone an ally of the USA - which is largely considered an enemy of nearly every terror group out there.


^Interesting.

You didn't say "Canada", you said "As a western, developed nation" - which is essentially a concept from a George W speech. I was asking if you think all "western developed nations" as you refer to them are targets. I'm curious if you could list out the countries in this club, and what makes them targets for potential terrorist attacks?

Unless of course you just meant that Canada's international policy shifts over the last few years have made us a target, in which case I agree.

As for the rest of your post with the note about a marauding Islamic state that would surely take on the big 5 and their many allies... No.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by EM2FTL
You didn't say "Canada", you said "As a western, developed nation" - which is essentially a concept from a George W speech. I was asking if you think all "western developed nations" as you refer to them are targets. I'm curious if you could list out the countries in this club, and what makes them targets for potential terrorist attacks?

Wait... so you're saying that George Bush was the one who actually coined "western" and "developed"? You can reference George Bush, but that really had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Maybe it is *I* who should stop reading...

And then you ask me to determine what a radical group would consider a valid reason to attack a country? That's not something I can definitively answer, because the answer is whatever reason they fucking want. If they happen to be against Cheetos brand snacks and we eat them here, that'd probably enough reason for them to attack. Who the hell knows? But by denouncing their actions, being allies with their enemies and having a largely different religious base, I think that in itself is reason enough for us to be considered the infidel. Don't you? And yes, our foreign policy isn't going to help matters any either... to which I agree, but I'm just saying we're fooling ourselves if we don't think we were already a target.

I really don't see why it needs to be explained in the first place. If they came out to say we are a target (a part of my post you completely ignored), then I'd say there is a distinct possibility that actually can be taken for face value.

[EM2FTL]

Originally posted by Kloubek


Wait... so you're saying that George Bush was the one who actually coined "western" and "developed"? You can reference George Bush, but that really had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Maybe it is *I* who should stop reading...

And then you ask me to determine what a radical group would consider a valid reason to attack a country? That's not something I can definitively answer, because the answer is whatever reason they fucking want. If they happen to be against Cheetos brand snacks and we eat them here, that'd probably enough reason for them to attack. Who the hell knows? But by denouncing their actions, being allies with their enemies and having a largely different religious base, I think that in itself is reason enough for us to be considered the infidel. Don't you? And yes, our foreign policy isn't going to help matters any either... to which I agree, but I'm just saying we're fooling ourselves if we don't think we were already a target.

I really don't see why it needs to be explained in the first place. If they came out to say we are a target (a part of my post you completely ignored), then I'd say there is a distinct possibility that actually can be taken for face value.

Wow, no that is not what I was saying GW coined - the concept that terrorists would attack any nation because it was western and developed is what I was referring to - you know, the statement you made.

As for the rest of your post, ugh. Never mind friend, carry on.

[Kloubek]

Well, I already explained why I feel we would be a target (again, nothing to do with Bush at all) and proof of their intention of making us a target prior to our participation. Which pretty much fully answers the questions you had for me.... but if you disagree (which "ugh" generally symbolizes) then feel free to keep the debate going, and tell me why you feel we were NOT a target, despite direct threats that say otherwise.

And if not, then I'm equally happy assuming you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion, friend.