Terrorism in Canada?

noel · Post by **noel** » June 3, 2006, 1:28 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html

Glad to see this was caught in time.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » June 3, 2006, 4:16 pm

sad wanna be martyrs.

however, what a sweet title the cop has: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 3, 2006, 6:22 pm

I refuse to believe this is real. We have heard straight the mouths of Canadians like Kyo, that because the Canadians stay out of other peoples business and are such levelheaded wonderful people they wouldn't be a target. It's only the filthy evil Americans who terrorists want to kill.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » June 3, 2006, 6:35 pm

Quit trolling.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » June 3, 2006, 6:41 pm

Their words were sometimes encrypted, the Internet sites where they communicated allegedly restricted by passwords, but Canadian spies back in 2004 were reading them. And as the youths' words turned into actions, they began watching them.

It appears their civil rights were violated. They'll be out in 30 days if they get a good lawyer.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 6163513378

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 3, 2006, 7:22 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I refuse to believe this is real. We have heard straight the mouths of Canadians like Kyo, that because the Canadians stay out of other peoples business and are such levelheaded wonderful people they wouldn't be a target. It's only the filthy evil Americans who terrorists want to kill.

Canada currently has the largest force on the ground in Afghanistan (the US having long since abandoned the country for wealthier ones) and bin Laden has repeatedly threatened attacks on Canadian soil. The difference is we don't let partisian politics and ineffective leadership interfere with our crime fighting.

It appears their civil rights were violated. They'll be out in 30 days if they get a good lawyer.

Yes clearly their US constitutional rights were violated. quickly now; someone summon the ACLU.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 3, 2006, 7:43 pm

Go go Canada! This article is from 2003. who knows how many more Afghans have been killed since. Still, impressive work from the cannucks.

Thanks to U.S. rounds, the Canadians snipers got off some great kill shots.

It also looks like Americans are still trying to take out Canadians too!

By Stephen Thorne, The Canadian Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Killing shot made at distance of 2,430 metres

Stephen Thorne
Canadian Press

A world-record killing shot by a Canadian sniper detachment in Afghanistan could never have been made with the ammunition they were issued when they left Edmonton last winter, the triggerman said in a recent interview. The Canadian .50-calibre rounds have a maximum range of between 2,200 and 2,300 metres.

But the U.S. rounds, they discovered, "fly farther, faster," said Cpl. "Bill", a 26-year-old native of Fogo Island, Nfld.

The two-man Canadian team, coupled with American Sgt. Zevon Durham of Greenville, S.C., made the kill from 2,430 metres, or nearly 2 1/2 kilometres, on the second shot.

This feat is the equivalent of standing at the foot of Yonge St. and hitting a target in the intersection of Yonge and Wellesley Sts., just north of College St.

The first shot blew a bag from the hand of their target, an Al Qaeda fighter walking on a road.

"He didn't even flinch," said Bill, who spoke on condition that his real name not be used.

"We made a correction and the next round hit exactly where we wanted it to. Well, a bit to the right."

The kill, one of more than 20 unofficially accredited to Canadian snipers during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan's Shah-i-Kot Valley, beat the 35-year-old record of 2,500 yards, or 2,250 metres, set by U.S. Marine Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock in Duc Pho, South Vietnam.

Soldier of Fortune magazine estimated the number of kills made by the Canadians after talking to several U.S. soldiers in Kandahar for a cover story in its August edition.

The snipers themselves will not confirm the figure.

But judging from accounts given by Canadians involved in the first major coalition offensive of the Afghan war, the figure of at least 20 sounds conservative.

The 800-strong 3rd battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry is pulling out this month.

They'll first go through a reintegration process on the Pacific island of Guam before heading home to Edmonton.

About 100 British Royal Marines, too, wrapped up their last combat mission in Afghanistan yesterday after four months in Afghanistan.

The five Canadian snipers, outfitted with British desert fatigues and an array of equipment from all over the world, were divided into two detachments that earned the respect of their American brothers-in-arms after helping rescue dozens of paratroopers pinned down by enemy fire.

The five have been nominated for one of the highest awards given by the United States military - the Bronze Star, two of them with Vs for Valour, marking exceptional bravery.

Awarding of the American medal, which was to have been done at a ceremony along with other Anaconda veterans in Kandahar in April, has been delayed by Canadian protocol officials.

But more important to the Canadians are the gestures from their American brethren who - while nearly killing them several times over with "friendly fire" - owe many lives to their shooting skills.

"They trusted us to do our job, without question," said Master Cpl. "James," a 31-year-old native of Kingsville, Ont., who like Cpl. Bill asked that his identity not be revealed.

At one point during a series of battles, one of the Canadians was without his rifle. Enemy bullets were hitting the earth all around. Mortars were dropping in front and behind them, some within 10 metres, bracketing their position and getting closer all the time. "They really hammered us," said Bill. He tried to get to their rifles but couldn't. Finally, an American sniper tossed him his rifle and said: "Here, you know how to use this better than I do."

They held off the enemy until darkness descended and escaped.

"They were instrumental in helping us achieve our goals out there," said 1st Lieut. Justin Overbaugh, 25, of Missoula, Mont., the soldier who recommended Bill and James for Bronze Stars.

"They are professionals; they are very good at what they do; they train hard, they are very mature, they are tactically and technically proficient so when it came time to do business, they were on," he said. "If they told me I was going out right now, I'd be begging, kicking, screaming, crying for them to come with us."

Bill and James said they pulled off several shots from 2,400 metres or more.

"Shots out that far are 60 per cent skill and 40 per cent luck, or vice versa," said Bill. "Usually, it takes two or three rounds, sometimes five. "Normally, a sniper wouldn't take that many shots, but they were out so far we felt confident they couldn't tell where we were."

One morning, the two Canadians were set up overlooking a compound when Al Qaeda fighters started "pouring out of buildings like ants." Bill started shooting while James called in a mortar attack, followed by B-52, F-16 and Apache helicopter strikes.

In a separate incident, Bill and James found themselves looking up at a large dark object screaming out of the sky directly above them - a 220-kilogram American bomb.

"We hit the deck and covered our heads with our hands," said James. The bomb landed 30 metres away, nose in, and never went off.

"By the grace of God, it was a dud," said Bill. "It landed 15 metres from the B company (U.S. 101st Airborne Division) trenches. A guy got up, walked out of the trench and kicked the thing."

Capt. Paul Madej, Operation Enduring Freedom chaplain, who debriefed the Canadians, described them: "The Canadian snipers are professional, well-trained soldiers who walked into harm's way and fulfilled their mission. They represent the best and they have our respect."

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » June 3, 2006, 8:10 pm

If I recall, haven't Canadian snipers always been some of the most prestigious snipers in history? Maybe I'm just pulling it out of thin air, but I remember Canadians have always been excellent snipers.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 3, 2006, 8:17 pm

Kaldaur wrote:If I recall, haven't Canadian snipers always been some of the most prestigious snipers in history? Maybe I'm just pulling it out of thin air, but I remember Canadians have always been excellent snipers.

No you're totally correct.

Also, regarding the friendly fire incidents... Read the book 'Not a Good Day to Die', and you'll understand exactly why our military is a victim of fratricide so many fucking times. It's goddamn sad. Our troops on the ground perform incredibly in spite of their upper leadership AKA REMFs.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 3, 2006, 8:31 pm

We's gots our snipers, and we's gots our enginameers. Ahyuk hyuk hyuk.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » June 3, 2006, 8:35 pm

kyoukan wrote:Yes clearly their US constitutional rights were violated. quickly now; someone summon the ACLU.

Where do you get the impression I was talking about US rights? Are you contending that Canadians have no civil rights of their own?

Interesting concept hey? For extra credit explain how this pertains to the Gitmo detainees.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 3, 2006, 8:54 pm

I love how you fucking armchair soldiers who are total fucking pussies in real life think it's cool to crack on Canadian military... The (special) operators in our own military do nothing but speak of them with the highest praise. Seriously shut the fuck up. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I doubt any of you would even be fit to carry their fucking gear.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 3, 2006, 10:45 pm

noel wrote:I love how you fucking armchair soldiers who are total fucking pussies in real life think it's cool to crack on Canadian military... The (special) operators in our own military do nothing but speak of them with the highest praise. Seriously shut the fuck up. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I doubt any of you would even be fit to carry their fucking gear.

Explain your rant and point out where someone was making fun of the Canadian military in this thread.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 3, 2006, 10:47 pm

Metanis wrote:Where do you get the impression I was talking about US rights? Are you contending that Canadians have no civil rights of their own?

CSIS is the most accountable intelligence agency on the planet. There are no laws against monitoring people who are suspected to be a threat to security. I understand your napoleon syndrome regarding your own country's inability to secure itself against terrorists (I don't know Cletus, just arrest anyone that's brown. YEEE HAW) fuels your need to troll superior nations in some backwards attempt to compensate for your shortcomings, but any fucking country is going to monitor people who talk about attacking their country.

Seriously jackoff, I know more about fucking America than you. Do not seek to question the laws of my own country, you worthless hillbilly.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 3, 2006, 10:56 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Metanis wrote:Where do you get the impression I was talking about US rights? Are you contending that Canadians have no civil rights of their own?
CSIS is the most accountable intelligence agency on the planet. There are no laws against monitoring people who are suspected to be a threat to security. I understand your napoleon syndrome regarding your own country's inability to secure itself against terrorists (I don't know Cletus, just arrest anyone that's brown. YEEE HAW) fuels your need to troll superior nations in some backwards attempt to compensate for your shortcomings, but any fucking country is going to monitor people who talk about attacking their country.

Who cares, it's just Canada after all. It's not like Canada has any real influence anywhere unless you count Quebec.

Sorry to see that they are having suspected terrorism problems to the north of us though.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 3, 2006, 11:30 pm

Yeah, that is the napoleon syndrome I was talking about. We didn't need another example, but thanks anyway.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 4, 2006, 12:15 am

Winnow wrote:
noel wrote:I love how you fucking armchair soldiers who are total fucking pussies in real life think it's cool to crack on Canadian military... The (special) operators in our own military do nothing but speak of them with the highest praise. Seriously shut the fuck up. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I doubt any of you would even be fit to carry their fucking gear.
Explain your rant and point out where someone was making fun of the Canadian military in this thread.

It was a general statement.

Explanation: The best of our best consider the Canadian military first rate and as good as they are.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 4, 2006, 1:07 am

I'm well aware the what's left of the Canadian military special units are well trained.

Here's a straight forward look at what the Candian military is and what is was.

INDEPTH: REALITY CHECK
What do we want the Canadian military to do?
CBC News Online | May 12, 2006 | More Reality Check

The temptation at first was to suggest that on the matter of military spending, Stephen Harper is backtracking on his election promises. The Conservative campaign, remember, had been impressive: Short-haul tactical aircraft; long-haul strategic ones; armed icebreakers; helicopters; an Arctic deepwater port; reviving a disbanded regiment; new bases; new housing; more troops. All told, $5.3 billion in new money over five years.
Harper even went to Trenton, Ont., site of Canada's largest military air base, to announce his defence plan. He pushed all the right buttons. It was a national embarrassment, he said, that Canada must rent Russian or American cargo planes to provide transport for overseas missions.

"To be truly sovereign, we must be able to deploy our forces and equipment, where they are needed, when they are needed," he said. "Our Forces stand on guard for us, both at home and around the world. So we must stand up for them."

The surprise came with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget this month. There was the promise of more money, to be sure, but no specifics on where it would be spent. After weeks of speculation from supposedly informed sources, with eager reporters assembling their own shopping lists of multi-million-dollar hardware, there was nothing.

No short-haul tactical, no long-haul strategic, no helicopters. Nothing.

A lot of money, but where to spend it?

The best explanation seems to be that the government, like the military, is trapped in uncertainty about what Canada wants or needs from the armed forces. The easy formula is to describe it as a conflict between Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier.

O'Connor, a retired brigadier-general, is seen as the voice of the past, a man trained in the Cold War who never got over it. Hillier is more modern, a rapid-deployment guy who no longer worries about the Berlin Wall and the Communists. Whether those descriptions are true or not, that's what is being said. Defence headquarters must be a pretty bitchy place these days.

By way of further explanation, it might be pointed out that O'Connor has the baggage of eight years of lobbying in Ottawa for a variety of huge military contractors, most of them now trying to peddle their wares to O'Connor's defence department. Hillier's baggage seems to be a hugely inflated impression of his own importance.

O'Connor favours buying long-haul strategic transports such as the Boeing C-17; six would cost $1.2 billion. (O'Connor prefers the rival Airbus A400M transport, but the Airbus will not be ready in time and, anyway, O'Connor was an Airbus lobbyist before he became a politician.)

As a result of his operational experience in Afghanistan and Bosnia, Hillier wants the government to spend $4.6 billion on 16 short-haul tactical transports.

Even if O'Connor and Hillier are excluded from the mix, there is still no agreement. How does military planning encompass an Arctic deepwater port and Afghanistan, war in Bosnia and drinking water in Sri Lanka?

There are times when it all seems a bit Alice-in-Wonderland. The Canadian military establishment, for example, decided in 1987 that Canada needed a dozen nuclear submarines; when that was dropped, the military agreed that four conventional, second-hand submarines would be just fine.

One of the urgent justifications of submarines is the assertion of Canadian sovereignty, but non-nuclear submarines cannot operate in the Arctic. The four submarines Canada bought from Britain in 1998 have been plagued by troubles; of the four, only one is now seaworthy and one may never sail again.

Anyway, as the Conservatives acknowledged during the election campaign, maybe technology is going to assume pre-eminence in considering Canada's military role, whatever that may be. Can unmanned patrol aircraft conduct the surveillance of Canada's coasts? Can undersea monitors, especially in the Arctic, do the jobs that Arctic submarines would do, if Canada had them?

Eventually the questions lead back to the fundamentals? Why does Canada have a military? Who are Canada's enemies: terrorists such as Osama bin Laden? Expansionist Chinese who want Canada's energy? Rogue states like North Korea? Or rogue Americans who want Canada's water?

The world is a different place since the end of the war in 1945, when Canada had the third largest navy in the world. There was no debate; Canadians knew where they fitted in the world.

Then came Korea, and then there was Suez and Canadians became the peacekeepers of the world, and that suited the needs of the time and our image of ourselves.

Suez was half a century ago and Canada's military role today is in Afghanistan, a strange conflict whose definition falls uneasily between peacekeeping and war-making, between the Golan Heights and George W. Bush's Iraq.

The fault lies not with the military that Canada does know where its military fits in a changing world. That task is not for Hillier or any other general.

Nor does the fault lie only with the Harper government, but with the succession of governments that went before it. The reality is that until this government or the next figures out Canada's place in the world, nobody will know where to spend that $5.3 billion.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 4, 2006, 4:37 am

kyoukan wrote: Canada currently has the largest force on the ground in Afghanistan (the US having long since abandoned the country for wealthier ones) and bin Laden has repeatedly threatened attacks on Canadian soil. The difference is we don't let partisian politics and ineffective leadership interfere with our crime fighting.

Interesting math there kyoukan. I didn't know that 2,300 was greater than 23,000. Abandoned? Must be a new definition for that word too.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/i ... le/ID/6725

Feb 27, 2006

The Canadian Forces are currently in the midst of increasing their force level in Afghanistan to 2,300 troops.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish ... 005955.php

Fri, 12 May 2006, 00:13

With about 23,000 troops, the United States currently has its largest force in Afghanistan since its military involvement there began in October 2001, Pentagon figures showed.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 4, 2006, 5:05 am

Aruman wrote:Who cares, it's just Canada after all. It's not like Canada has any real influence anywhere unless you count Quebec.

Sorry to see that they are having suspected terrorism problems to the north of us though.

Translation: Hi, I'm a retard who has no clue of the impact any attacks on my country's largest oil supplier could have on our economy. I'm also not worried about an attack on their hydro-electric system (which is connected to ours to the point that it went fuck a couple summers ago when ours did in the NE) or about the existence of possible terrorist cells on the other side of the world's longest border.

Your problems and our problems are the same thing in these cases, whether you're blissfully oblivious or not.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 4, 2006, 6:26 am

Wulfran wrote:
Aruman wrote:Who cares, it's just Canada after all. It's not like Canada has any real influence anywhere unless you count Quebec.

Sorry to see that they are having suspected terrorism problems to the north of us though.
Translation: Hi, I'm a retard who has no clue of the impact any attacks on my country's largest oil supplier could have on our economy. I'm also not worried about an attack on their hydro-electric system (which is connected to ours to the point that it went fuck a couple summers ago when ours did in the NE) or about the existence of possible terrorist cells on the other side of the world's longest border.

Your problems and our problems are the same thing in these cases, whether you're blissfully oblivious or not.

I'm in favor of eliminating dependence on foriegn oil or energy anyway. Be it through decreased consumption, alternate fuel sources, higher prices, or however it is accomplished. I think we need to force the issue instead of being complacent.

Canada not selling us oil or other energy sources would be doing us a favor in all honesty. Sure, it would be painful in ways to some people, for whatever length of time, but I'm sure we, as a nation, can handle it. Please, do quit selling us oil or energy. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I'd be curious what it would do to your economy though.

As far as the probability of terrorist attacks on Canadian soil, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. However, if one cell (if in fact it was a cell) exists, there is most certainly the possibility that more exist.

I'll be interested to see the effects of this event on your population.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » June 4, 2006, 11:36 am

kyoukan wrote:
Metanis wrote:Where do you get the impression I was talking about US rights? Are you contending that Canadians have no civil rights of their own?
CSIS is the most accountable intelligence agency on the planet. There are no laws against monitoring people who are suspected to be a threat to security. I understand your napoleon syndrome regarding your own country's inability to secure itself against terrorists (I don't know Cletus, just arrest anyone that's brown. YEEE HAW) fuels your need to troll superior nations in some backwards attempt to compensate for your shortcomings, but any fucking country is going to monitor people who talk about attacking their country.

Seriously jackoff, I know more about fucking America than you. Do not seek to question the laws of my own country, you worthless hillbilly.

You seriously need to learn to read what I actually post rather than what your drug-damaged brain thinks I post.

In accordance with the subject of my original post...

Anser Farooq, a lawyer who represents five of the accused, pointed at snipers on the roof of the courthouse and said: "This is ridiculous. They've got soldiers here with guns. This is going to completely change the atmosphere.

"I think (the police) cast their net far too wide," he said, adding his clients are considering suing law enforcement agencies.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 8793972154

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » June 4, 2006, 3:05 pm

Kaldaur wrote:If I recall, haven't Canadian snipers always been some of the most prestigious snipers in history? Maybe I'm just pulling it out of thin air, but I remember Canadians have always been excellent snipers.

Russians. The Russian "sniper culture" in there military has been a cult since WWII. It's a very prstigious thing there to be a bad-ass sniper.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 4, 2006, 3:48 pm

Aruman wrote:Canada not selling us oil or other energy sources would be doing us a favor in all honesty. Sure, it would be painful in ways to some people, for whatever length of time, but I'm sure we, as a nation, can handle it. Please, do quit selling us oil or energy. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I'd be curious what it would do to your economy though.

We'd just sell it to China. You know, the country that's replacing yours on the relevance scale.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 4, 2006, 4:52 pm

Aruman wrote:I'm in favor of eliminating dependence on foriegn oil or energy anyway. Be it through decreased consumption, alternate fuel sources, higher prices, or however it is accomplished. I think we need to force the issue instead of being complacent.

Canada not selling us oil or other energy sources would be doing us a favor in all honesty. Sure, it would be painful in ways to some people, for whatever length of time, but I'm sure we, as a nation, can handle it. Please, do quit selling us oil or energy. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I'd be curious what it would do to your economy though.

I applaud your baseline stance, in wanting to reduce foreign dependence on what is a strategic resource but at the same time you're not being at all realistic. If Canada and other non-domestic sources cut off your supply, the US would be devastated, but the oil producing nations would just, as Kyou pointed out, sell to the Chinese, Indians and other developing nations who are putting increased demands on the existing supply. Yeah it wouldn't be as profitable to have to ship Canadian oil across the ocean but there would still be money in it... and probably more than was in the industry 5 years ago at $25-30/bbl.

As discussed in many threads here on VV and elsewhere, all of us who live in western nations are dependant on oil whether we like it or not, and solutions are still years away. I think the ramp in the price of oil in the last 5 years (and subsequent increase in the price of gasoline and heating fuels) has finally put some pressure on gov'ts and the private sectors of our respective countries to look for alternatives but they are really just starting. Spouting off that you wish everyone would cut you off is at best, bravado.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 4, 2006, 6:29 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Aruman wrote:Canada not selling us oil or other energy sources would be doing us a favor in all honesty. Sure, it would be painful in ways to some people, for whatever length of time, but I'm sure we, as a nation, can handle it. Please, do quit selling us oil or energy. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I'd be curious what it would do to your economy though.
We'd just sell it to China. You know, the country that's replacing yours on the relevance scale.

Sell your oil to whoever you want, it's yours to do with as you wish.

By the way... where is Canada at on your relevance scale, or does it even register?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 4, 2006, 6:56 pm

Wulfran wrote:
Aruman wrote:I'm in favor of eliminating dependence on foriegn oil or energy anyway. Be it through decreased consumption, alternate fuel sources, higher prices, or however it is accomplished. I think we need to force the issue instead of being complacent.

Canada not selling us oil or other energy sources would be doing us a favor in all honesty. Sure, it would be painful in ways to some people, for whatever length of time, but I'm sure we, as a nation, can handle it. Please, do quit selling us oil or energy. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I'd be curious what it would do to your economy though.
I applaud your baseline stance, in wanting to reduce foreign dependence on what is a strategic resource but at the same time you're not being at all realistic. If Canada and other non-domestic sources cut off your supply, the US would be devastated, but the oil producing nations would just, as Kyou pointed out, sell to the Chinese, Indians and other developing nations who are putting increased demands on the existing supply. Yeah it wouldn't be as profitable to have to ship Canadian oil across the ocean but there would still be money in it... and probably more than was in the industry 5 years ago at $25-30/bbl.

As discussed in many threads here on VV and elsewhere, all of us who live in western nations are dependant on oil whether we like it or not, and solutions are still years away. I think the ramp in the price of oil in the last 5 years (and subsequent increase in the price of gasoline and heating fuels) has finally put some pressure on gov'ts and the private sectors of our respective countries to look for alternatives but they are really just starting. Spouting off that you wish everyone would cut you off is at best, bravado.

In the short term it isn't realistic at all, but it has to start somewhere. Let Canada be the first to step up.

In the long term, I would disagree. I think it is entirely realistic for us to reduce our dependence quite a bit, but I don't think we will be able to be 100% independent. Resources on this planet are funny that way. No one country has enough of every resource it needs within its own borders.

People here in the US look at oil dependence in somewhat the same way they do the Social Security crisis. They don't care because right now it doesn't affect them much.

We have it too good here in the United States as far as gasoline prices go. We are just now starting to pay what Germany was paying at the pump in 1987.

Anyway, not wanting to hijack this thread with arguments about oil dependency. Done here.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » June 4, 2006, 8:17 pm

Aruman wrote:
Wulfran wrote:
Aruman wrote:I'm in favor of eliminating dependence on foriegn oil or energy anyway. Be it through decreased consumption, alternate fuel sources, higher prices, or however it is accomplished. I think we need to force the issue instead of being complacent.

Canada not selling us oil or other energy sources would be doing us a favor in all honesty. Sure, it would be painful in ways to some people, for whatever length of time, but I'm sure we, as a nation, can handle it. Please, do quit selling us oil or energy. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I'd be curious what it would do to your economy though.
I applaud your baseline stance, in wanting to reduce foreign dependence on what is a strategic resource but at the same time you're not being at all realistic. If Canada and other non-domestic sources cut off your supply, the US would be devastated, but the oil producing nations would just, as Kyou pointed out, sell to the Chinese, Indians and other developing nations who are putting increased demands on the existing supply. Yeah it wouldn't be as profitable to have to ship Canadian oil across the ocean but there would still be money in it... and probably more than was in the industry 5 years ago at $25-30/bbl.

As discussed in many threads here on VV and elsewhere, all of us who live in western nations are dependant on oil whether we like it or not, and solutions are still years away. I think the ramp in the price of oil in the last 5 years (and subsequent increase in the price of gasoline and heating fuels) has finally put some pressure on gov'ts and the private sectors of our respective countries to look for alternatives but they are really just starting. Spouting off that you wish everyone would cut you off is at best, bravado.
In the short term it isn't realistic at all, but it has to start somewhere. Let Canada be the first to step up.

In the long term, I would disagree. I think it is entirely realistic for us to reduce our dependence quite a bit, but I don't think we will be able to be 100% independent. Resources on this planet are funny that way. No one country has enough of every resource it needs within its own borders.

People here in the US look at oil dependence in somewhat the same way they do the Social Security crisis. They don't care because right now it doesn't affect them much.

We have it too good here in the United States as far as gasoline prices go. We are just now starting to pay what Germany was paying at the pump in 1987.

Anyway, not wanting to hijack this thread with arguments about oil dependency. Done here.

Just want to chime in, that while Europe may have to pay more at the pump than us and has had to for longer, they also do not have to drive distances as great as often. The U.S. is much more spread out.

People, especially in the south or maybe the midwest, get hit with it hard. My step-father had to drive well over 100 miles to work every day for 5 years. He recently found a closer job, only 50 miles away, so Thursday was his last day driving that distance. Even I, as a college student, often drive well over 100 miles in a day. I'm just glad that my car gets 35 mpg, makes things much easier.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 5, 2006, 12:35 am

Asheran Mojomaster wrote: Just want to chime in, that while Europe may have to pay more at the pump than us and has had to for longer, they also do not have to drive distances as great as often. The U.S. is much more spread out.

People, especially in the south or maybe the midwest, get hit with it hard. My step-father had to drive well over 100 miles to work every day for 5 years. He recently found a closer job, only 50 miles away, so Thursday was his last day driving that distance. Even I, as a college student, often drive well over 100 miles in a day. I'm just glad that my car gets 35 mpg, makes things much easier.

Had to drive 100 miles? There weren't any houses closer to work than that?

Similarly, college students here often do 0 miles in a day in a car. Oh, and here's a hint, Australia is much less densly populated than the US, so sparse population isn't an excuse.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 5, 2006, 12:56 am

Here we go... guess things aren't all that different in Canada after all eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5047160.stm

Still watching to see if it gets any worse there over the next few weeks.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » June 5, 2006, 2:12 am

Zaelath wrote:Had to drive 100 miles? There weren't any houses closer to work than that?

Similarly, college students here often do 0 miles in a day in a car. Oh, and here's a hint, Australia is much less densly populated than the US, so sparse population isn't an excuse.

Yes this is true, but for decades now, the government have encouraged people to live in highly dispersed suburbs, rather than staying in urban centers close to where the jobs are. It's not entirely the fault of the individuals for dutifully doing what they thought they were supposed to do. So many people are conditioned to believing that they MUST be out in the 'burbs, far from the "dangers" of the urban areas, and this is nothing that can be fixed quickly.

The government now has the responsibility to encourage people to move back into urban centers, close to where the work is using tax incentives, large scale urban renewal projects and loan guarantee programs. Employers need to be encouraged to have larger numbers of employees working from home when practical. There needs to be massive investment in modern, efficient mass transit infrastructure. Individuals need to be disuaded from driving great distances every day in big gas-guzzling vehicles.

First we need to have concerned and courageous leadership in place that is willing to do these things, because nothing even close is ever going to happen with the current crop of jackasses in charge.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 5, 2006, 10:40 am

Aruman wrote:Here we go... guess things aren't all that different in Canada after all eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5047160.stm

Still watching to see if it gets any worse there over the next few weeks.

I don't even think that made the front page in any Toronto newspaper... except for the Sun (rofl).

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 5, 2006, 12:10 pm

For a lot of large cities housing is simply cheaper the farther out you live. I'm sure most people don't want to commute an hour or more a day but can't afford to "live where the work is."

I haven't really seen any indication of the government encouraging people to do it though.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » June 5, 2006, 2:45 pm

Aslanna wrote:For a lot of large cities housing is simply cheaper the farther out you live. I'm sure most people don't want to commute an hour or more a day but can't afford to "live where the work is."

I haven't really seen any indication of the government encouraging people to do it though.

While this is true in many cases, many small and mid-sized US inner cities are husks of their former selves. They've been replaced with "Metropolitan Areas" with populations reaching into the millions that sprawl for dozens of miles around the depleted centers. This was caused by heavy post-war suburban development and mass movement of the pouplation to these areas.

The encouragement by the government that I mentioned earlier came decades ago in the form of federally subsidized (via tax credits and cheap loans) suburban business investment and real estate development programs. It was further facilitated with simultaneous sewer, water treatement and highway infrastructure development compliments of massive federally funded programs. Suburban housing development was fueled by massive investment that was largely made possible by federal mortgage insurance programs provided by the FHA and VA. Because oil wasn't perceived to be an issue at the time, and also encouraged by the auto manufacturers and oil companies, little attention was paid to transit systems to get people from the suburbs into the urban areas other than highway systems to facilitate individual motor transport. All of these things combined to move tax revenues out of city centers and into far-flung suburban areas, which resulted in underfunded inner cities, which often were left to rot. Subsequent generations of suburbanites came to see this as the "american way," and continue to shun urban areas due to real and perceived problems in town. Many modern urban planners and experts on this subject repeatedly point to federal post-war policy as the greatest impact on the metropolis sprawl witnessed over the last 50 years.

I believe the government now has an obligation to address the problems that those old policies created. There is a need for urban renewal programs and other incentives to move populations back into the urban centers of small to mid-sized metropolitan areas, reducing the "need" to commute many hundreds of miles each week. Because of the decades old conditioning that encouraged the population to aspire to live in the suburbs with multiple family autos with their 2.3 kids and the family dog, we can't rely on free market influences alone to inspire a mass change of heart in the population. The weight of federal policy needs to come into play.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 5, 2006, 3:07 pm

Aruman wrote:Here we go... guess things aren't all that different in Canada after all eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5047160.stm

Still watching to see if it gets any worse there over the next few weeks.

No one has ever claimed Canadians are angels and that we lack the same % of retards that everyone else has. The same shit happened after 9/11 too: some people just can't distinguish that OBL is a Pat Robertson of the Muslim world.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 5, 2006, 4:26 pm

Wulfran wrote:
Aruman wrote:Here we go... guess things aren't all that different in Canada after all eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5047160.stm

Still watching to see if it gets any worse there over the next few weeks.
No one has ever claimed Canadians are angels and that we lack the same % of retards that everyone else has. The same shit happened after 9/11 too: some people just can't distinguish that OBL is a Pat Robertson of the Muslim world.

The police say that the broken widnows are most like the work of one man and his hammer.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » June 6, 2006, 3:53 am

My parents only live where they do because of family. My family is very close-knit and 90% of my family lives within 40 miles of home. They were actually thinking about moving because of the drive until my step-father found this new job.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 9, 2006, 12:28 pm

Aruman wrote:Still watching to see if it gets any worse there over the next few weeks.

Sorry to let you down but other than that single isolated incident, things have been pretty normal in our sleepy little town this week.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 9, 2006, 12:29 pm

week(s)

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 14, 2006, 2:04 pm

pot and kettle ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5078736.stm

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 14, 2006, 3:24 pm

Aruman wrote:pot and kettle ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5078736.stm

Yes, this is exactly the same! We have 3 men who, by the way, were told why they were being held. Of those 3, the only questionable one is the guy who they claim trained at the terror camp, and he got released on bail. Of the other two, one entered the country with a fake passport and the other has already been found guilty of purgery. They've been charged with crimes and are in the justice system. The only part I can't back is "the government's refusal to disclose the evidence against them". We'll see where that leads.

As for the deportation, I didn't read in there that they were in fact Canadian citizens, but regardless yes, the government can revoke citizenship for those who weren't born in the country at any time and send them back to their country of origin. If these 3 men didn't want that to happen perhaps they should have been more legit.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 14, 2006, 3:50 pm

Aruman wrote:pot and kettle ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5078736.stm

I don't follow.

Is the US now holding terrorism suspects in a US jail pending hearings, allowing them access to counsel and htreatening to deport them for being in the US illegally?

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 14, 2006, 4:40 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Aruman wrote:pot and kettle ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5078736.stm
Yes, this is exactly the same! We have 3 men who, by the way, were told why they were being held. Of those 3, the only questionable one is the guy who they claim trained at the terror camp, and he got released on bail. Of the other two, one entered the country with a fake passport and the other has already been found guilty of purgery. They've been charged with crimes and are in the justice system. The only part I can't back is "the government's refusal to disclose the evidence against them". We'll see where that leads.

As for the deportation, I didn't read in there that they were in fact Canadian citizens, but regardless yes, the government can revoke citizenship for those who weren't born in the country at any time and send them back to their country of origin. If these 3 men didn't want that to happen perhaps they should have been more legit.

By definition, these security certificates are issued for foreign nationals, not citizens. They cover an area that is a no-win: we don't want these people loose in our country but the government doesn't want the bad press of deporting them back to their countries of origin where they could face torture.

As far as "the government's refusal to disclose the evidence against them", I don't have a major issue with that: they are NOT citizens and thus not entitled to the rights and priviledges thereof. Citizens are entitled to due process, not those who have undertaken to enter a country illegally or for unlawful purposes. All evidence against these people is disclosed to the judge who issues the certificate, but I think a summary should be sufficient for those accused. IMO the integrity of the intelligence gathering assets is a higher priority and of greater significance to the security of the nation, than the absolute fairness to a foreign national.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 16, 2006, 1:51 pm

Winnow wrote:week(s)

Nope, still nothing.