aymon, Thank you for your clarification.

I agree with you that monotheistic religions are the main engine, (or at least the main excuse) behind some of the deadliest wars in history.
I do recognize that you have good knowledge of history. Especially your research on Abiru, Hebrew, Hixsos, and Jewish origin.

Egyptian and the Greek, just as any empire, had their shares in wars. They were not that peaceful as you try to describe them. Alexander the great is but one example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece

Please also be aware that I'm not a Bush supporter. I appose the war in Iraq, and I don't agree with his domestic policy.
I did see that you have posted the word ONE as part of "...one of the most ...", I just said I don't agree with that statement.
The number of people killed in Iraq is ~ 1 Million, and most of them are related to the insurgency war. Thought it is morally wrong, I simply don't think it is comparable to my other examples where tens of millions people were deliberately targeted for Genocide / Conversion.

I think there is a lot of similarities between USA nowadays, and role of the Roman Empire of the classical world.

vets:

If you read my posts properly you will not get so hysterical, but i am not holding my breath. I told you in several posts earlier, that I do not believe that any of the Abrahamic religions are without their fundamentalisms, which are deviations from the compassionate and civilized monotheism of Light (non-anthropomorhic) that they learnt from Egypt from both Abraham and Moses. These fundamentalisms are the main disease that gives rise to the current dire state of affairs in the world. They are the adulterations of the three main Light guided masters' belief systems, adulterations introduced by self-serving priesthoods who followed the masters in all three faiths.

I also told you that I am a Hellenist because it is the best fusion of two beautiful, logical and humane systems of thought and governance in antiquity: the Egyptian and the Greek - - East and West in harmony. That is why Alexandria was the centre of the world in almost every field of knowledge and humane governance for nearly 700 years without initiating any war. Further by the grace of the Light, it remained so even in the midst of powerful military empires, until Roman Catholic fundamentalism destroyed it savagely.

Coming to your post, I said (if you were to read it properly) in my posts above: "ONE of the most brutal regimes . . .".

I have read your posts and they epitomise Jewish, right wing, neo-con fundamentalism. It is not even of a sophisticated kind, but a hysterical, incoherent one. Because you do not read and understand things properly, and your ability to posit coherent, sophisticated argument is almost non-existent as seen from you many posts on CD, you can see that just one sentence properly quoted from my above posts demolishes all or argument and makes redundant the data you are throwing at me. Furthermore, you seem to forget that Prescott Bush, grandpa of the current Bush, in his Wall Street days in the 1930's,was a well-wisher and monetary facilitator of the Nazis whom you show to have have killed 50-60 million people, including 6 million innocent Jews. Does that not bother you about Bush?

Blair to be appointed envoy of the Group of Four?!!!

There are so many problems with this idea one doesn't know where to begin a critique.

An honest broker he is not - as proved by his slavish devotion to Mr. Bush and US foreign policy. In the Middle East, if he is not completely ignored, he can expect to be derided as an arch spin-merchant and liar.

Presumably, he is thought to be a good choice because of his (minor) achievements with the Northern Ireland peace process. To justify his appointment, how many parallels can be drawn between a mainly Anglo/Saxon/Celtic/Gaelic/Christain conflict confined to one island, and a contorted Middle East-wide Shia/Sunni/Jewish tangle of militarised politics?

For all the world, it appears as though Bush is rewarding the loyalty of his followers, as per usual, while filling vacancies of as many organisations with friendly subjects.

I am sorry about the incomplete para. above that I have below completed.

" . . .Chretien, Canada joined the so called "war on terror" which is a euphism to large scale war on the Muslim world as seen from most Muslim intellectuals and masses one speaks to or is able to read their opinion in their own countries media if it is even a little free. It was Martin, the dithering semi neo-con, and his succesor the complete neo-con Harper who involved Canadian troops in the perpetual "war" dreamed up by one of the most brutal regimes in human history residing currently south of the Canadian border.

Amen to that Dr. Candle

One more point that should be mentioned about the Canadian participation in war with the Anglo-American hegemony. Rather than rebuilding the country with neutrality as it was doing under Chretien (it was Martin, the dithering semi neo-con, and his succesor the complete neo-con Harper who involved Canadian troops in the perpetual "war" dreamed up by one of the most brutal regimes in human history residing currently south of the Canadian border)

Recently the Canadian Cenlis NGO with witnesses on the ground reported that many Afghan hospitals, especially in Pushtun areas, do not have basics such as tylenol, bandages, anti-septics etc. to treat the wounded civilians, especially little children, while the troops have fully equiped field hospitals that are equivalent to a Canadian civilian hospital in Toronto. Every week, for months now, huge transport planes have been taking off from Canadian Air Force bases taking medicine, food and other luxuries from Canada for their and Euro-Nato troops, but nothing for these hospitals. Canada is spending $3 billion on its Afghan operations this year. Yet the neo-con/fundmentalist, Islamophobic, Harper regime cannot afford even $100,000 in basic hospitals supplies?

Notwithstanding alexnosal's impassioned defence (above) of the theory of the White Man's Burden, Canada has no role to play in Afghanistan, and the Afghans don't want Canadian troops there.

The Canadian "mission" is to intervene in a civil war on the side of a reactionary, misogynist torture state, whose government was basically handpicked by the USA from among the worst elements of the warlords and druglords, and is therefore a staunch and compliant ally of the United States. It's Canada's contribution to Bush's phony war on terror.

Canadian troops have been complicit in war crimes in Afghanistan — first, as participants in the illegal Operation Enduring Freedom and more recently as part of the quasi-legal NATO force that is currently killing more Afghan civilians than the Taliban are. They have handed over prisoners to the United States to be sent to Guantanamo Bay and to the Afghan government, to be kept in their torture jails.

Canada has no business taking sides in other countries' internal conflicts or propping up repressive governments. Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam?

PJD E-mails are friendlyer to the environment than letters.
Switching to e-mail will also save tax payer money.

I think there aren't many people today in north America that have access to letters, but not to E-mails.

I have no problem to see the house of common switching to E-mail.

You may not be aware of this up there, but you should be thankful you can still send letters to your PM and MP's.

Down here, using the anthrax scare as an excuse, the US congress or White House no longer accept mail - only e-mail and faxes.

fbelcast:Afghanistan did not attack the world trade center or anyone in Canada. Canada did not also invade Afghanistan. Canada is part of a supposed NATO mission at the invitation of the Afghan government to provide security in the rebuilding of the country. The Taliban afterall represent the minority of Afghans, were responsible for large scale mayhem and came to power via violent revolution.
If (and it is a big 'if' admittedly)Canada stuck to the narrow agenda of rebuilding the countryside and supplying protection to locals as long as the populace expressed a willingness for the Candians to assist them (and the majority appear to approve of NATO forces with the exception of the U.S.)then Canada's role can be productive and appreciated. However if at anytime the population asks the Canadians or anyone else to leave, then the visitors must do so.
As for demanding the extradition of Osama to the U.S., do you really believe that the Taliban would have cooperated with U.S. officials? America didn't earn international scorn for their pursuit (half hearted and ill planned as it was)of Osama in Afghanistan. The Americans lost support from their traditional allies once they tried to make a false connection between Iraq and 9-11 in order to invade that country.
Further harm to America's reputation came once they refused to make any signifigant improvements to Afghanistan (No Marshall Plan here!) as they reconcentrated their efforts to Iraq. Germany, France, Canada and other countries have no imperial interests in Afghanistan and I for one believe that their participation is not only helpful but necessary after the dismal state of affairs that have resulted there after 20 years of war. The death toll in Kabul is afterall still far below than that of lets say Houston, Texas. The unpopularity of NATO forces are rare in both the countryside as well as in urban areas. The country needs a lot of help to deliver it from its current state of despair.

There is some difference in the mentality between Americans and Canadians.

Canadians usually will take the live and let live approach.
Americans, If they see something broken, they will go out and try to fix it.

Alexnosal, Canada's role in AFghanistan really is all that abhhorrent! what are Canadian troops doing in Afghanistan? Afghanistan did not attack Canada. Sixteen of the 19 men who took part in the downing the Twin Towers were from Saudi Arabia so the United States attacks--Afghanistan? The invasion of Afghanistan was a pre-emptive strike which is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration made the Taliban its enemy and issued a most-wanted list of Taliban officials whose major offense was defending their country. Afghanistan did not bomb the Twin Towers. Oh, it housed al-Quida which did? Al-Quida did not represent the Afghanistan government. If the Klu Klux Klan bombed Parliament in Great Britain, does that give Great Britain the right to invade the United States, destroy its government and armed forces, and set up its own temporary government? If the US wanted Osama bin-Laden, it had the legal recourse to ask for extradition as it did in Libya for the downing of the PanAm airliner over Lockerbie in 1988. The United States knew its people wanted revenge and Afghanistan was a convenient excuse. Despite its commitment to NATO, why should Canada be complicit in an illegal activity?

Keep in mind that Canadians watch the same propaganda as Americans do from Hollywood to Fox News. Somehow only a third of Canadians have fallen for the Neo-conservative BS and even those 'right wing' Canadians are very far left of America's 'left-leaning' Democrats. (e.g. Canadians would never consider abandoning our universal health care system!)

Having said that, is Canada's role in Afghanistan really all that abhorrent? The Afghans do need protection, infrastructure and security. Extending Canada's participation in Afghanistan is a far cry from participating in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I'm afraid that's already happening, davepepper. We are pretty close to being as dumbed down as Americans are. Majority or minority government -- it doesn't much matter, so long as the opposition parties refuse to bring the government down. On orders from Washington, Harpo has already diverted so much funding from our social programs to beef up "border security" and the Afghanistan front on Bush's crusade against evil that our social landscape is beginning to resemble America's. But our loyal opposition is waiting until their debts are paid off and war chests are flush enough for a comfortable election.

It's not as categorical as Siddiqui suggests: Harper has not committed himself to ending Canada's Afghan mission in February 2009.

What Harper said was, "The mission that we've extended ends in February 2009. I will want to see some degree of consensus among Canadians about how we move forward after that." Harper would consider, for example, withdrawing troops from Kandahar back to Kabul as "ending" the current "mission".

Opposition leader Stephane Dion sees it that way, too. On Friday he suggested that simply moving the troops back to Kabul might be acceptable to his Liberal Party. "If it's outside the combat zone, it will not be a combat mission," he said.

Meanwhile, the strongest anti-war party, the NDP, is dumping its clear opposition to the war. Although the party convention voted to demand immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, the NDP caucus in Parliament is now talking about "changing the mission" and "withdrawing from southern Afghanistan" and playing a "positive" role in Afghanistan, as if Canada has any legitimate role to play at all.

I have no doubt that Canada will continue to have thousands of troops in Afghanistan after February, 2009.

It had to be said. And, Haroon, said it very eloquently.

Canada should go it's own way. The Conservative party is not the party that will have an independent foreign policy.

Bakunin, Vermont has a proposal to secede from the U.S. before the state house. Vermont and the rest of New England would be welcomed in Canada.

Quadilious, Ontario, the most populace province in Canada, will be voting for proportional representation this fall. If it passes then the multi-party systems problems you state will be reduced.

Canada, while very similar to the US, is a much more humane society in many ways. However, they are involved, along with the US and the UN, in a brutalizing campaign in Haiti and were involved in the un-democratic removal of Aristide. There is no excuse for their, the US, France's or the UN's actions in Haiti. So while I agree with the article, it would be nice if Canadians, and Americans, would stop brutalizing Haiti. If Canada doesn't want to become part of America's imperialist project, stopping its actions in Haiti is a good start. Here's an article on the situation:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8394

Yes, Dave Pepper, I'm confident that you Canadians have more sense than we do down here. You'll get rid of Harper and his fellow neocons at the next opportunity. You will indeed return to your excellent social democratic system, but we here in the United States will only get that with another revolution I think. The fascists are so well-entrenched here now, and they would have the backing of enough of the military (mostly from our authoritarian southern and mountain states) to back a complete fascist takeover here, ie, a declaration of a state-of-emergency following another "terror attack," martial law, and a suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens. The United States is too big, and is polarized. I wish we in New England could simply secede and join Canada.

Let's hope Canadians don't get as dumbed down as Americans have become. Canadians tend to be more well read, and make more ducated decisions than Americans. Let's kick out the neocon government in Canada, and go back to our social democratic system of catering to our citizens, and staying out of American imperialist wars of conquest. Power to the people, not to the elite on Bay Street.

the press may be tilting to the right...alot more stenography these days like in the US but I agree that the Canadian people won't be fooled....the right's agenda is plain as day for all to see and oppose.......the (real)multi-party system is a sound model for governing!

I've heard some Americans (both left and right) say that Canada is tilting right in it's politics and use the election of Harper as an example. This is untrue and unfair and unfortunately shows the weakness of a multi-party system (3 or more parties). If the actual numbers were counted, we find that Canada is slipping more to the left. In almost every riding the numbers looked like this:
Conservatives - 34%
Liberals - 33%
NDP (very liberal) - 33%
The provinces governments bare this out even more with the vast majority being center/left.
Wow! when actual numbers are examined, the right was rejected 2 to 1, which is why the Conservatives have to step very lightly. Unfortunately they have taken lessons from the Bushies on how to divide a nation and exploited the 3 party system to get control. Fortunately Canadians are getting wise to this and the Conservatives are free falling in the polls as their neo-con agenda become more visible.

"We all live in a Mafia neighborhood now".

let's keep making sure he hears our opinions....don't rely on others to write that letter for you...it only takes a few minutes to pen the same words you might type in an e-mail and the hand written word carries more weight:

The Right Hon. Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

no stamp required in Canada

Thank goodness Harper has a minority, or Canada would be in Afghanistan for the duration. I am sure he is still stinging from having to accept public opinion.

aymon - "...one of the most brutal regimes in human history residing currently south of the Canadian border."

Aren't you exaggerating a little?
In the past you have done good historical research, There were far worth regimes in the dark chapters of human history.

Such as:
Nazi Germany (50-60 Million death)
Stalinist USSR (~30 Million death)
Maoist china (A few tens of Millions)
Spain (20 Millions in Mexico, and similar numbers in south America)
And probably the deadliest of them all - The Muslim occupation of Middle aged India (80 - 100 Millions dead Hindus)

The American who invaded Iraq are not trying systematically to kill all the population. Nor do they give you to chose "convert or die"

Dr. Candle:

Thanks for the article. Yes, I was aware of the Canadian Navy's deployment in the Arabian Sea. However, I had thought at the time (and retained that impression)that a couple of Canadian mine sweepers and a frigates operating well outside the war zone in Iraq where the more lethal Anglo-American forces were deployed and precipitating "shock and awe" in 2003, were a cosmetic attempt by Chretien to assuage Bush after he had rejected outright any participation in the Iraq war. So I didn't take this to mean anything serious in terms of Chretien's overall "Canadian" rejection of the war. Presumably this resonated well with the majority of Canadian people (since I live there, I know). True, the usual neo-con suspects in Canada such as the various chambers of commerce, the major dailies (mostly controlled by similar interests as those in the US - - e.g., CanWest media owned by Israel Asper)except for the Toronto Star cheered on the Bush- Chenney atrocity. But the "left" (no matter how tepid)in the Liberal party had louder voice under Chretien than under Martin.

Now the commitment of 750 Canadian combat soldiers to the Anglo- American (and NATO) war in Afghanistan is news to me. The retrospectives (perhaps self serving) provided by the Liberals recently in Parliament when the Harper loonies extended and expanded the Canadian role to 5000 or so soldiers to daily combat was that Harper had gone beyond the mainly reconstruction work committed to by Chretien. It is on this basis I wrote my previous post. But your information of 750 Canadian troops fully participating in frontline combat in Afghnistan under Chretien's orders certainly sheds new light that I still have to fully comprehend within Chretien's overall disdain for the "war on terror".

aymon:

Canada was not "rebuilding the country with neutrality...under Chretien."

On October 7, 2001, when the U.S. and the U.K. launched their initial attacks on Afghanistan, Prime Minister Chrétien announced that Canada would provide military support for the War on Terra. The following day, Canadian ships left Halifax en route to the Persian Gulf, where they were to join the U.S. fleet. On October 14, Chrétien said Canada would offer "unqualified support" for the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

This, by the way, was a couple of months before the UN Security Council retroactively rubber-stamped the attack on Afghanistan and gave its blessing to NATO to have its way with that country.

Here's an accurate record of how Canada got involved in Afghanistan. To quote from the article:

The previous deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan was announced by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in October 2001 as part of the Canadian commitment to an international force to "conduct a campaign against terrorism."

Under "Operation Apollo," Canadian Forces personnel were quickly sent to the region, some directly to Afghanistan, but most as part of a Naval Task Group patrolling the north Arabian Sea. Since October 2001 Canadian patrol frigates and supply vessels have rotated in and out of the region, providing support to other multinational force ships or conducting interdiction actions, such as boarding vessels to apprehend suspected members of terrorist groups. At its peak in January 2002, the Canadian Naval Task Group comprised six warships and about 1,500 Navy personnel. Since early September 2003, the frigate HMCS Calgary has been the sole Canadian vessel on patrol. [end quote]

Not much "rebuilding" or "neutrality" there.