Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one
The majority of Canadians do support the troops. Not all Canadians support Canada's Afghan mission. The difference is important. I disagree with treating these two concepts as the same concept.
Its possible to be a patriotic Canadian who supports the troops and yet be against the Afghanistan war.
That may be true, but shouldn't it be up to the Afghans to determine how their country is run, whether we understand it or not? Who are we to impose our version of morality and governance on the Afghan people?
Regarding the rest, I'm just offering an alternative viewpoint on this war and trying to get you to consider US actions in the context of international law and diplomacy.
Few people were aware that the Taliban initially condemned the 9/11 attacks and that the US ignored the Taliban's compromise offer to bring OBL and others to justice without starting a war.
IMO, The Taliban didn't want a fight with the Americans, but their situation, their culture and US actions gave them no other option.
The taliban had no particular interest in the u.s. and their focus was on taking over afghanistan, who
actually hadn't had any solid leadership since before the russians had invaded.
The taliban's condemnation of 911 attacks 'in words' didn't mean anything one way or another, they had
their own agenda, and the 911 attacks upset that, all the more reason to turn over bin laden, so they
could get on with their own invasions and violence against the afghan people, and saying that the afghans
should decide how they run their own country, is like saying that the people of the sudan should be let
to run their own country, 'they have no power or no say in running anything'.
I agree that the method the u.s. used, and how quickly they attacked was 'something out of the old west',
and you know who was at the helm, and he was 'brain dead', and when he actually said in his speech that
'we' have a way of dealing with this situation, referring to the old west, was so embarrassing, I squirmed
at the time, realizing that a president of the u.s. actually uttered those words.
It's really too bad that he was president when 911 took place, even reagan (and I would not be a republican
if I were a u.s. citizen),I think, would have handled it
with much more finess, BUT I do agree that there had to be an answer, it was a vicious attack, by a group
of 'arab' thugs, who really had no idea it would come off as thorough as it did.
They had no authority from anyone to do such a thing, did not represent any country at all, and didn't
act any different than a street gang who had planned and pulled off such a thing, from within the u.s. or
The 911 attacks was violence against many countries, who were present inside those buildings.
We are coming up to the 10th anniversay of 911. It would be interesting to hear just how, in a realistic
way others would have responded, if they were the u.s. president.
To say the u.s. deserved that situation in my opinion is insane. boy we're way off topic.
Don Cherry has the right to say whatever he wants, and the backlash or agreement he gets from listeners
is also their right, that's free speech, and if HNC/CBC doesn't like his statements they can act, but
I certainly don't see the harm in showing a picture and saying words to support the fallen soldier, the
poor guy/girl has lost their life for heavens sake, can't we have compassion for that? Perhaps some
people would never be aware 'enough', without his HNC presentation of that fact, and become 'more' aware
after watching Cherry.
Cherry is on there to make money, lots of money, and he has found a way to spout and spurt out many things,
some good, some garbage, and he is arrogant and embarrassing on many occasions, and as far as his hockey
knowledge, there are hundreds of more knowledgeable hockey analysts, (ex players), but they don't have
his format, and when he is gone, we will watch someone similar to him, because he is there for entertainment
purposes, and nothing else, and they will hire someone who has the 'big' mouth to make people laugh, or
get mad, that is what they want, (will probably be doug mcLean), who, at least has a sense of humour,
which cherry doesn't.