How far will the Army go?

Jdclyde, are sure this is only ONE recruiter? I'm so deeply concerned about the actions of this one recruiter that I decided to search around and see if anything like this was happening elsewhere in the country, and I found that something similar happens with at least 24 other recruiters in 10 states:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/national/03recruit.html?pagewanted=print&position=

You're right Oz. Whether you're pro-bush, anti-bush, or neutral, this is something that should be a concern to everyone.

Not so sure its as big as you think.

Canadians are annoyed with America, but its not over anything that US media ever covers. Its over things like softwood lumber, Mad Cow and other trade disputes that none of the US networks ever mentions. And I would object to the idea that Canadian hate America - it just isn't so. And most of us can't get NPR - I've heard it once, when I was in Montreal on business.

As for loonies and twoonies.....You do know they are nicnames right? What did people call the Susan B. Anthony? The loonie is so named because it has a loon on it. While not a national symbol (for obvious reasons) it is a bird that represents the great Canadianc wilderness. The twoonie was introduced well after the loonie was established, so it kinda made sense.

As for eh(not Ah), there are plenty of places to hear it. The urban centres may not be one of them. I heard alot of it growing up in farm country, and you hear it in the rural parts of the Ottawa valley(especially those with Irish or scottish settlements).

James

But the EU and Middle East sure has no love lost.

France because they are upset that they are not a world power.
Middle East because some believe the lies of the governement on how we want to rid the world of Islam and other who want to rid the world of anything but Islam.
Others just because they are jelous because they are dirt poor and our poorest people here are over weight. You don't get over weight from working hard and not getting enough to eat after all. So even our "poor" have it better than the average person in many of these countries.

People just don't know how to be thankful for what they have.

Note: I like Canada. Some of the nicest people I have ever met (until you get them behind the wheel of a car). And your grocery stores ROCK something fierce! I always gain weight when I go to Canada because of all the variety of food that I just can't get in Michigan. I can see taking my boys there to party when they turn 18. That will be a wild weekend! Gambiling and drinking look out!

I thought about MAC's when I was posting, suppose I got wrapped up in the insanity of it all though. :D

Yes Utopia would be ideal, the world would be at peace, we'd all be rich and working for the love of it.

Then you wake up.

Everything I typed was based on a few things.

First, the tone and content of the original post.
Second, the tone and content of the first article you linked to.
Third, your tone and content in past posting that you have done.

These three were looked at before I did my first post and were the basis for my comments.

Based on those three sources, was there anything I posted that was inaccurate (besides possibly the spelling) or not a valid question?

When you start out with a statement that makes millions of soldiers look bad because of the actions of a handful of people, I will always question your intents.

Just as we have a right to question authority, we also have a duty to make sure we are FAIR and accurate when we do. Anyone that brings up any questions should and will be required to backup their questions.

France hates America, because you don't appreciate her. To France, America is a young upstart, and doesn't respect the fact that France played a critical role in helping the young nation of the United States be born (even if it was just to piss off Britain).

To France, you keep spouting this line about bailing her out of two world wars. France paid a horrific price in WWI, with one in 4 adult males being either killed or crippled. France did not recover from that by the time WWII came around, and paid the price of being occupied.

France left NATO not because it didn't see the threat from the Soviets, but because they didn't trust her allies to let France use its nuclear arsenal to protect itself. France resented the US dominance of NATO. France also resented US interference in the Suez Crisis in 1956.

As for the middle east, its primarily the US support of Isreal that is the problem.

James

I didn't see anything there that I as an American less than a hunderd years old have anything to feel badly about in your post.

Apreciate France? Not likely.
Respect France? Not likely.
Want or need France? Not likely.

France was taken over and Paris fell without a shot.

Yes I know that the snobbish French think that they are so cultured and refined. Good for them. Didn't stop them from being neck deep in oil from the food for oil scandle. Did stop them from protesting actions against Iraq based on two things. One, to protect their own finacial interests in Iraq for oil contracts and Two, to snub their noses at the US. Not because they didn't believe in WMD, because that wasn't ANY of the arguments not to go in by them, Germany or Russia. It was pathetic arguements like "why now" do we care if Saddam has broken santion after santion from the UN. Why even impose santions if you have no intention of enforcing them?

Were WMD found? Very small and of no concequence. But that isn't the reasons given NOT to go in. No one argued that he had them because he did his best to make people think he had them.

As for the Middle East, Isreal deserves the support and will continue to receive the support. The total conflict between Isreal and Pakistan could rival the EL post (maybe).

You probably were not aware that in the 60s DeGaulle came to Quebec and pronounced "Vivre le Quebec libre" or "Long Live free Quebec", a reference to Quebec independance.

As for WWII, there was in fact a Battle of France. On paper France looked pretty formidable. It had more men, better tanks, similar numbers of airplanes. And it had a small British force as well.

But in reality, France's armed forces were plagued with old style thinking. They were depending on the fixed fortifications on the Magninot line, they didn't concentrate their tanks, their planes were not all airworthy, and their battle plans were totally out of date.

The biggest advantages that Hitler had was better trained troops(some veterans of the Spanish Civil War and the invasion of Poland), better tactics(co-operation and co-ordination between air forces, tank forces, artillery and infantry) and better communications (German tanks all had radios, French and British had one per squad of 5 tanks). There were battles, there were a few minor allied victories in fact, but on the whole, Germany effectively outmanouevered the allies. The Maginot troops were in their bunkers, underfed and had no means of transport to get to where the battle was. That was half of France's armed forces. The Germans succeeded in wiping out most of France's airforce on the ground. By the time Dunkerque was over and the British were gone, the option of continuing to fight was not really valid. Resistance at that point would not have changed the outcome.

So I dispute that Paris was taken without a shot - many French and British troops died fighting before the end came. I highly recommend Len Deighton's Blitzkreig as reading on the Battle of France.

Trust me if you look back at American tactics and battle plans in 1940, you would find that they were much less prepared for war than the French. The Americans had the benefit of learning from France and Britain's early misfortunes, and changing their tactics.

James

Recruiting is ALWAYS down during a time where you might have to do more than show up and get a college education.

People act like this is something new?

ohhhh, recruiting is down. that must mean the people don't support the war. If you look back during most conflicts in the last fifty years I would bet that this is a very consistant trend.

They are willing to be suicide bombers because their life means very little as life is hard. They are then promised a decadent orgy in heaven if they go kill themselves and don't have the will or understanding to wonder if this is so great why aren't their leaders ever carrying a bomb into the local Disco and blowing up a bunch of civilians?

As for the oil fields, they were reminded that they are the hope of the country to get back on it's feet. That they weren't keeping the US from the oil, they would be keeping Iraqis from the oil. How it that wrong?

You talk about how the colonization is resented, and then say we should support this education of women which is in direct contridiction to the beliefs of many in the middle east. This is different how? Yes, they should be educated, but isn't that the kind of interferance that you were just saying we shouldn't do?

His whole wrong war at the wrong time talk would have really helped the troops believe in him too.

And of course his big talk about pulling allies in to help with what he had already said was the wrong war would not have gone well either.

His "I actually did vote for the funding, before I voted against it" was the nail

When you compare our candidates to any other countries' (except maybe for Australia or England) ours actually still have some sense of right and wrong and it was good to see the American people (if not the world) pay attention to the American political game. When was the last time a Canadian election had you teetering on the edge of your seat. For them it was a choice between a queer and fag...and neither of them won or both won...depends on who you speak to.

Heck look at the European elections...their turnout is so bad, Bozo the Clown could've ran and would have probably been elected too.

Its so easy sometimes to listen and be influenced by some of these "foreigners" who think they know more than the people that live here...yet when you ask them about their country's political processes...they are PROUD to admit they dunno shit. My answer is...if you don't know anything about your own country, WTF makes you think you know about anyone else's.

I dunno who you voted for and it doesn't matter, but don't trash American candidates when responding to other countries' citizens...our candidates whether Democrat or Republican are much better than theirs in every issue and with far more power and influence.

Unfortunately, their relation to public discussion is too often related only be a flimsy, complex matrix that overvalues shock value and undervalues logic, truth, provability, relevance and plausibility, just to name a few.

I'd really like to see what would happen if party platforms and planks were written via a more democratic process. I posit that "social issues" would all but disappear from discussion, politics would return to the concerns of basic law and order, and the whole world would look a lot more rational. But issues that evoke a raw, emotional reaction are favored instead, leading not only to contentious politics, but disagreements throughout the populace that I claim would never be of any interest in the first place were it not for these coin-operated politicos.

There are other parties. One is called "Libertarian", which is closer to the original British Liberal and literal meaning of liberal: freedom, not communism or socialism as it means in politics now. Anyway, the two major parties have made silly, un-Constitutional obstructions to restrict these other parties (Green and Independent are the other two, oh and I think there might be a Socialist party still lurking about) from getting onto national ballots, but you don't have to live overseas to notice that the animals used to parody the Dems (jackasses) and Reps (pachiderms) are far too generous. There are choices, they just aren't publicized as promiscuously.

www.lp.org

No agenda, no personal bias, and nothing but facts from within his own little world.

WHY do people have so much to say about US politics?

Well Garion, you should know, as many people here have explained this to you too many times to count.

YOUR politics are in everyone else's face day in and day out, just as they are in your own country.

MOST of our TV channels are US networks and local channels from close-by states.

ALL of YOUR politics are splattered in our daily papers.

For some reason you have this misguided opinion that you get a better side of the story than others outside your country, which is of course absolute garbage. We get YOUR channels, the exact same reports that YOU watch. Our newspapers report columns written and reported in YOUR newspapers, not SPINS from a lefty view, as you would like so much to believe.

BUT, the biggest difference is, we also get news from Canadian reporters, including those in Iraq, (not as heavily content focused left or right as the US reports) , we get Wold News, BBC News and news from Asia and the Middle East.

I don't know how many times various peopole have explained that we see YOUR news reports, then our own, and it's amazing how much is conveniently omitted to support the specific US network's twist on the story, whether pro-republican or pro-democrat. We see both US views. As our stations have less concern about which party they are supporting you will find the reports much much more open and less suggestive either way.

So while you go on, once again, with the age old yarn that only YOU get the full picture and it's only YOUR concern, perhaps you should realize;
1) You are wrong
2) When your government performs on a world stage, it's the WORLD's business not just your own.
3) Everyone else sees the exact same stories you do but generally in a less suggestive way without the predertimined or focused opinions.

But as you say, don't listen to me, I just see both sides daily. It's not like yourself who simply KNOWS better because you are American.

Riiiiiight! :D

I have to agree with Oz about the information we are relying on. I recently have used the internet to get access to broadcasts outside the US. I have felt for a long time that we are seeing and hearing only what the government or the media wants us to.

By exposing myself to other media outside the US, I force myself to get more information on how others perceive issues and situations. This allows me to make a more informed decision on what I will believe. I am proud to be an American, but it doesn't mean I am happy about how we present ourselves to the world. There is much more good in the US then what we show the world. That is the really sad part.

In a way, this discussion reminds me of a line from "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde". Towards the end of the movie Resse Witherspoon and Sally Field have an argument about what Sally did to undermine "Bruiser's bill". Reese tells her she is going to "Take it to the people" and Sally responds "They won't care, they believe what we tell them to believe".

This attitude toward the military is emerging because the generation that succeeded in ending both a war and the draft when it was merely young and noisy is now reaching the age of political power. The aging Flower Children still regard the post-WWII military as nothing but a tool of the corporate class. It's not an easy position to argue against once you notice the tiny Halliburton trademark on the new Iraqi flag.

It's also not easy to refute the hypothesis that 9/11 would never have happened if the entire Muslim world weren't just a wee bit infuriated over the presence of a Christian nation's military bases within driving distance of Mecca. And that the only reason those bases are there is to make sure that the U.S. can always depend on a steady supply of petroleum when the energy industry and the auto industry finally succeed in getting Congress to pass laws outlawing working at home and requiring every citizen to drive an SUV.

While I don't think he was the solution:
Kerry DOES have the ability to gain internatoinal support, moreso than Bush ever will that's for sure.

His idea was to reduce the US burden by having other allies afford greater support, which I honestly think that he would have a FAR better chance at achieving than Bush.

Wrong war at the wrong time, well I think half ofd the soldiers believe that already. This also doesn't mean he wasn't to just ship everyone home and call off the whole thing, he also said you were in it now and needed to follow through with it. Only the dumest and most ignorant soldier would see such a comment as negative toward his personal actions, only a dummy wouldn't see what was actually meant, and yes it IS the wrong war at the wrong time, unfortuynately, BUSH still can't seem to grasp this as well as his banana.

NO Kerry wasn't the best choice, but seeing as your elective process only allows you to choose one of TWO candidates, like them or not, it would have been a better choice out of the presented options, Bush had already screwed up big time and mislead thr people with no apologies, yet you stand for this without a problem?

As for having a say in what happens, what 'SAY' do YOU have in what happens? None, correct.

As for having an invested interest in what happens, that's everyone's issue and yes thay are 100% correct and well withing thier rights in showing thier disproval of the actions.

To say otherwise sorta udnermines the whole Iraqi invasion, YOU made decisions based on unproven heresay that you disagreed with HIS politics, and made it such an issue you took it upon yourselves to invade the country, remove him from power, and press for a new government against the advice and wishes of your allies.

Yet anyone speaking out against it is out of line?? Get real, who the hell do you think YOU are, other than one country on the planet (one of the NEWEST countries on the planet at that)?

As for the spending, Kerry retracted his support after the bill as modified from what he had originally supported, it wasn't apples and apples. It wasn't the soldiers that he didn't want to support.

I can see the post by OZ and your reply - FINALLY, but the thread seems maxed out to me. I had to go up 2 levels to post a response. This is really weird.

I think Oz had a lot of good points. Of course, there is one correction. There are other people on the ballot. It is just that in America only two parties have the money to really get their candidates noticed. I do remember once or twice that a different party was in the running, but didn't win. I think it was when Perot tried to run, but I could be wrong on that point.

As to why Kerry didn't make it, I think he threw the race in the end. Too many weird things during the debates and the way he was VERY careful about not attacking Bush in the traditional flame war of a political race. Something smelled funny to me, but that is just me.

You are a dear person, but you sure can piss people off. So my liberal canadian friend (I guess two wrongs can make a right, i mean left, i mean...sorry slipped into a Bush-ism) I have a surprise for you.
Click this
http://www.patsajak.com/news2.php?view=says&id=45?FARK

my point exactly.

I didn't know Sajak had that in him.

Well spoken.

Thanks for sharing and caring!

Check this one, even better!

http://www.patsajak.com/news.php?view=says

Yes, Perot is the only reason Bill Clinton got elected in the first place.

Perot was never in the running, but I think he got 12% which is HUGE for a third party.

So yes there are up to six people running, the only thing all but the big two do is the following:

Get their ideas out in front of the public and if people listen the big two must address them and hopefully take them on.

The main thing they end up doing is acting as a spoiler for the party that is closet in beliefs. Gore was close and Bucannon alone took more than enough votes to have handed the election to him instead of Bush winning.

That is why there was a big hissy about Nader running again because he never had a chance and it would be the kiss of death to Kerry who self-destructed the more he came out in front of people.

Liberal? At what point did I say I was a Liberal, or Democratic supporter?

Be careful how you pigeonhole people based on comments that don't support the US right wing.

Who the hell cares what Pat Sajak, or anyone else for that matter, thinks?

For some reason, you have deduced I am a Democrat, no...make that Liberal, no...make that.....

I am not a supporter of Bush, therefore I MUST be the enemy!

Kind like, all fish swim, therefore all that lives in water is a fish. Clever.

Pat Sajak's little spew touches SO lightly on the issue, 'you don't like the Iraq war' and then equates it to not supporting pushing democracy around the world.

See, this is the typical assumption of anyone who refuses to see an argument for what it realy is.

I am NOT opposed to global democracy, I am NOT opposed to using force when all else fails, I am NOT opposed to removing Saddam and Liberating Iraq.

I AM opposed to changing the game plan and attacking prematurely against better knowledge.

I AM opposed to misleading, deceiving or simply passing on misinformation to the people of a country and then when proven wrong, not admitting it or being forthright enough to offer a public explanation. (Which Blair did, Bush didn't)

I AM opposed to an allied country seeking advice and support from another ally and when they don't find support or are asked to wait until further proof is shown, going for it anyway.

Bush removed the opportunity to confirm the allegations, he removed any possible chance of obtaining such intelligence and went ahead and invaded anyway. Only to be proven wrong in his motives.

Want to remove Saddam and Liberate Iraq? Go for it. Americans wouldn't have supported such a move though as it wasn't in their best interests to LIBERATE another country's people. BUT, when faced with possible fear so soon after 9/11, it was a cakewalk to gain support, remove inspectors who were successfully working in Iraq and invading anyway, against all the recommendations and wishes of allies.

Then you wonder why there's no support? Why people don't stand side by side and back the lunacy at hand?

As for France, I am from a country that has been at war with France since the dawn of time, I have reasons to dislike French political motives, not the French people though, which is something many Americans can't seem to distinuish. One Muslim is bad and they are ALL bad. One Frenchman is bad and they are all bad. Clever.

But I certainly like the way you protest, or attempt to protest a product (buy as much French wine as you can spend your American dollars on and pour it out in the gutter, do you want France to ship MORE wine over so you can protest some more by buying and wasting thier products? PLEASE protest my CD sales in the USA.

again, clever.

Way off base as far as my stand and my political views, WAY off base.

We vote for the party, not the person.

The party selects it's representative.

If the representative isn't liked by anyone, he gets fired.

We also don't limit the ability of a GOOD representative to stay in office. We can actually hold onto what we feel is doing well for Canada, we don't HAVE to choose someone else in four years.

Just think how much farther ahead your country would be on a global scale if you wer actually able to hang on to the presidents that did the most for America.

Unfortunately, GWB has taken a once respected and favoured country, and dragged it through the toilets. Your country, your citizens and your atitudes have been tarnished globally by the work of one man. Yet you admire and support him, was this also your objective?

Pictures tell the whole story.

http://www.foxnews.com/photo_essay/photoessay_396_images/051005_bush9.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/photo_essay/photoessay_396_images/051005_bush4.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/photo_essay/photoessay_396_images/051005_bush8.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/photo_essay/photoessay_396_images/thumbnail_051005_bush6.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/photo_essay/photoessay_396_images/thumbnail_051005_bush.jpg

Here is the article

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156028,00.html

NOw that's funny, I certainly hope you WERE actually joking that time though. :D

Half of your country is opposed to Bush and the current administration, most British are against Bush and your government, I haven't met a Canadian that is FOR bush or the government, haven't asked any Frenchmen though. I'd hazard a guess to say he is currently one of the most disliked men on the planet.

That's a pretty bold and generalized statement in itself. Do you not realize that most of the free world (including nearly half of your own countrymen) and the allied nations actually didn't favour Bush and his actions in Iraq at all?

Haven't you noticed how many Americans on TR are opposed to Bush and the war in Iraq?

Gotta be a joke, right? ;)

I think they shouldn't do it.

a) because they are teaching the kids to cheat to get somewhere in life, i.e.- teaching them that immoral conduct (lie and cheat the system) is better than moral conduct.

b) because they (the recruiters) are circumventing the military's system of which they have taken oath to uphold.

c) because those dropped-out and/or drughead kids they're taking off the street and paying to feed, furnish clothing, put in housing, detox and/or train...is coming out of *our* tax dollars. It's not fiscally responsible to educate or detox someone via a conduit as expensive as the US armed forces. It's cheaper to put someone drug-addicted in a mental ward or a prison than to detox them, or to educate a dropout at a technical school.

I'd rather see good, talented folks enter the military and have a chance rather than someone there to get detoxed or learn a job skill.

The military is supposed to be about honesty, integrity, teamwork, and excellence, and commitment to country...not about social reform and welfare. And we should be weeding the bad apples out of our military...not putting them in.

jck

I honestly thought you were joking, no joke. :)

Whatever gave you the idea that only Canadians and the French disliked Bush?

I don't even think it's disliking the MAN himself as much as the ACTIONS of the man. (he's probably a really cool guy, you never know.

His his old video clips show him laughing at fellow politicians at a party while saying "doesn't drink, doesn't smoke" (as being condescending) while sipping a drink and having a smoke, now I've had many a party in my youth where you would laugh at anyone who didn't drink or smoke, he seemed like a normal guy at one time.

His global political relations sure have been a farce at best though, he pretends he has friends he doesn't really have, like one of those guys who everyone laughs at when they leave the room but they humour him when in his presence.

Failed miserably in the oil business, can't run a company to save his life, offered incorrect information about Iraq, went to war prematurely without allied support, trips on his d**k for a living.

Just needs to find his place in life, best bet is to start with a red nose and big shoes, making balloon animals comes in time. :D

if I were a woman...I'd wanna have your babies. hahaha.

First I was labelled a conservative...now you're a liberal.

wow...I'm sure Jerry Falwell wouldn't like being grouped with me considering I have lots of gay friends and co-workers I associate with.

Who's a popular liberal in Canada? What's your outlook on thoughts of being associated with you?

I'd be honored, but again...I'm too conservative to hang out with the liberal likes of you!!! haha ;)

jck

p.s.- I'm American and I don't like Bush and didn't vote for him either time.

I had to stop lurking and crawl out of the shadows for this one.

I think you've missed the point of Sajak's rant. He isn't passing
comment on the war, but instead commenting on how liberals
tend to throw a spin every debate by using the tired old trick of
assuming an unfounded sense of moral and intellectual
superiority over anyone that disagrees with them. Kind of like
you're doing now.

But more specifically...

Oz:
"I AM opposed to an allied country seeking advice and support
from another ally and when they don't find support or are asked
to wait until further proof is shown, going for it anyway."

Do you take the same offense when a work colleague asks your
opinion, but disagrees with, and disregards it?

Oz:
"Bush removed the opportunity to confirm the allegations, he
removed any possible chance of obtaining such intelligence and
went ahead and invaded anyway. Only to be proven wrong in his
motives."

How did Bush alone do this, and do you have quantifiable proof?
Links please.

Oz:
"Want to remove Saddam and Liberate Iraq? Go for it. Americans
wouldn't have supported such a move though as it wasn't in
their best interests to LIBERATE another country's people. BUT,
when faced with possible fear so soon after 9/11, it was a
cakewalk to gain support, remove inspectors who were
successfully working in Iraq and invading anyway, against all the
recommendations and wishes of allies."

What about Clinton recommending the same action, only failing
to do anything about it? As for the inspectors, why did many of
who returned fom Iraq say that the Iraqi government was
obstructing the inspectors every move? How can that be defined
as successful?

Oz:
"As for France, I am from a country that has been at war with
France since the dawn of time, I have reasons to dislike French
political motives, not the French people though, which is
something many Americans can't seem to distinuish. One
Muslim is bad and they are ALL bad. One Frenchman is bad and
they are all bad. Clever."

Generalize and/or stereotype much?

Oz:
"But I certainly like the way you protest, or attempt to protest a
product (buy as much French wine as you can spend your
American dollars on and pour it out in the gutter, do you want
France to ship MORE wine over so you can protest some more by
buying and wasting thier products? PLEASE protest my CD sales
in the USA."

With the government mandated quota of Canadian music that
MUST be played up there I'm shocked you're having trouble
selling your CD.

In closing, I think your passion for debate is commendable, but
your strawman act isn't going very far.

Now, back to lurking.

as:

"....the tired old trick of
assuming an unfounded sense of moral and intellectual
superiority over anyone that disagrees with them."

doesn't sound like a liberal...it sounds like GW.

One guy at an event I went to questioned him about something in his governorship in Texas...and he got red-faced.

The guy has a napoleon complex....little man...big ego...and thinks because he goes to church it makes him chaste.

I'd also like to emphasize again...I made a higher GPA than GW when I graduated from college :)

I am an ex-soldier from the British armed forces so I would like to think I know a little about this.

Our Government has decided to over-commit our forces tremendously in various areas around the world putting exceptional stress on individuals, units and families. But they continue to deploy us.

In Americas case (and I will try not to be too political) she is too committed all over the world. Where do the soldiers come from to do the Governments bidding? Whereever they can be found. Governments have always been known for fiddling the books somehow and I really don't think this is any different.

I guess that is what happens when you take it upon yourself to be the worlds police force.

First of all, to suggest that Liberals are the only people who resort to low methods of enforcing thier beliefs is ridisulous.

Republicans and Dems are no different in ANY waya at all. You would have seen th eexact oposite comments being shared here when this forum was mainly Republican based (supported), but they have gone quiet on omst political issues over tha last 6 months, the election is over, they won and they don't care what happens now.

But to address some of your comments:

[i]"Do you take the same offense when a work colleague asks your opinion, but disagrees with, and disregards it?"[/i]

If it means the company being dragged into the dirt and other companies no longer wanting to do business with us, then yes, and it's not just Y opinion but an entire management team and game plan being ignored.
You used a really poor analogy on that one, you are talking about an opinion of one on one, not a nation with it's allies. Especially when it effects ALL other allies (or coworkers too).
___________________________________________

[i]How did Bush alone do this, and do you have quantifiable proof?
Links please.[/i]

Been sleeping or something? Bush removed inspectors in order to advance his invasion. Allies had requested waitng for inspections to complete, as originally planned, and using force TO COMPLETE INSPECTIONS, not invade Iraq. Inspections were being completed on schedule (finally) and they had turned up nothing but unused wartheads with no intercontinental ability to attack Americans.

"He said Wednesday that America's allies would be able to choose whether they join a "coalition of the willing" to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein should he not cooperate with the U.N. inspectors."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/20/us.iraq.uk/

But he didn't go along with the agreed resolution of using force to complete inspections, BEFORE they were finished (estimated 5 - 6 weeks depending on teh sourrce) he decided to invade Iraq, not force inspections, which is what even Kerry had originally supported but then backed away from after a full scale invasion was being launched.

"Germany has ruled out taking part in any military campaign against Iraq, and France has insisted on further Security Council talks before action can be authorized."

________________________________________________

As for Clinton, he's not Bush, stay on track. As for weapons inspectors, yes they had a terrible time and wer ekicked out of Iraq for years, but during the time immediately prior to the war they wer efionishing inspections on schedule and had only found unised warheads from an old war.

". Peaceful means to achieving Iraq?s disarmament were, many stated, far from exhausted.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said his Government would not allow a resolution to pass that authorized the automatic use of force. The military agenda must not dictate the calendar of inspections. While he agreed to timetables and to an accelerated calendar, he could not accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors were reporting cooperation. "

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

"It is important to show that inspections can work in disarming a country by peaceful means. [b]I believe we still have that opportunity. I still believe we are able to succeed."[/b]:- UN Weapons Inspector March 5th , 2003
____________________________________________

[i]"Generalize and/or stereotype much?"[/i]

Not at all, actually in teh comment you were referring to, I used the term "many Americans" and not ALL Americans. Again, you are seeing everything as an indiaction of ALL people, no matter how carefully stated.
________________________________________________

[i]"With the government mandated quota of Canadian music that MUST be played up there I'm shocked you're having trouble
selling your CD."[/i]

With a couple of Canadian network radio stations that the CRTC madates to play 30% Canadian content, I have no issues.

I am also not selling MY CD and it is not Canadian music I sell. Many are very well selling US bands, but most European. And they do sell hoards in teh US, infact that's a joke with many bands that you can release demo quality music in the US and it will sell, thank you. I just suggested you r attempts at a 'protest' need to be rethought. A protest would entail NOT purchasing a product. Buying Wine and pouring it is is actually NOT a very good protest at all, boycotting French Fries, that aren't actually French is another idiocy. But to each his own I suppose. LOL :D

So thanks for reiterating the same old 'righty-rhetoric' for all to be reminded of again. But as I said before, that hook can be slung both ways.

But my CAT could have achieved a higher GPA that that clown.

As for thoughts being associated with me, I find it flattering. I have never been pigeonholed into a political stand before, nobody has EVER asked what I favour in Canada. In fact, I don't know anyone who knows what party his best friend supports, it's just not discussed nor is an issue of any concern here. Good way to clear a room, mention politics in Canada. It seems in the US, as I've descrived before, knowing someone's political affiliation is no different than dogs sniffing each others bum when they meet. Hi, my name is Oz." doesn't mean anything until I have stated my political affiliation like a serial number, so people can put me in perspective and form an instant opinion.

As for Canadians, all politicians are liars and cheats, we just don't pretend they aren't and then go on to defend them regardless of thier actions.

I am also not a Liberal though.

In fact, I CAN'T vote in Canada, I'm not Canadian. :)

You have an Army you can be proud of. It's full of dedicated citizens who are willing to put thier lives on the line for your country's security and the safety of its citizens. The men and women who make up our Armies ar ALL heros and we should be proud of the job they do.

This is an isolated incident, as far as we know, and as the Army IS being dutiful and upholding its reputation, they ARE taking care of it, again so we are told and believe.

I don't blame the US Army as a whole for this, that would be ridiculous, but to bring these offenders to public light and show that this behaviour ISN"T tolerated is all one can really expect.

My hats off to any man or woman who would go to such extremes to defend thier beliefs and pride in thier country, may they all stay safe.

You description of Bush becoming red faced (which I'll take with
a grain of salt seeing as how you're telling a second hand story
with no back up or proof whatsoever) sounds more like a man
that knows he's in the presense of an intellectual superior
instead of the opposite.

Also, what does Bush's religious beliefs have to do with Sajak's
rant? For that matter, what does your GPA have to do with the
discussion? The same answer applies to both question:
Absolutely nothing.

[As an aside (and completely off my original point), before
bragging about one's own GPA, one should ensure one's post is
correct. The term is "Napoleonic Complex" (upper case N,
optional upper case C), and is commonl rhetoric found on most
liberal web sites. Try another angle, as that one has been
beaten to death.]

Regardsless, you're a strawman as well. My position is that
liberals assume a moral and intellectual high ground whenever
anyone disagrees with them. In case you're not familiar with a
strawman:

The Strawman fallacy is committed when a person simply
ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted,
exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Commentary is easy, but sensible and focused debate has a
protocol.

Strawman gets used here all the time, old political rhetoric (or wer you giving an example to support your own point?).

As for the correction, I have terrible typing and make tonnes of typos, but to comment on someone using incorrect grammar, and then following with a typo of your own is just too damn funny!

As far as strawman, I've seen it used against Republicans for blindly following Bush (one guy even said it was his [b]DUTY[/b] to support Bush, whether he's right or wrong, because he voted for him...then he bleated his way off to the meadow).

I have also seen Ddeomrcats accuse Liberals of building straw men, Liberals blaming Democrats etc. It's not a phrase used to describe how Liberals build an argument out of nothing at all.

It's a common term used by all political parties to simply flame the oppositions comments (building a straw man of thier own) without addressing the persons comments themselves.

I say your a liar and don't believe you because...
You retort by saying I'm bulding straw men.

Which person hasn't just shot he messenger? OR "built a straw man" while not addressing the comments at hand?

We have been down the circular road of US politics too many times here. There are no correct opinions there are no incorrect opinions, they are all just opinions based on the crap we are fed and expected to see as news. This then gets cut down to which SOURCES are correct or incorrect, again going in endless circles of opinion.

Face it, we all hear a tiny little bit of what's REALLY going on, nobody actually KNOWS what's best, just assumptions based on what THEY choose o believe.

In the end though, America is still at war, it's been shown that more Americans have died trying to Liberate Iraq and save Americans than Saddam would have ever done in with his WMD. So who REALLY wins? Americans die, Saddam happy, Iraqi's die, Saddam happy. Saddam lives, Saddam happy.

Great job Bush! Gonna send Saddam to that special country club where Bin Laden's hanging out too? (remember him? Bin Laden was the leader of the terrorist group that actually DID attack America and claim responsibility for killing thousands of Americans on your own soil). But that's not really important is it?

I was being sarcastic. I got pigeon-holed earlier in another discussion as being "conservative"...then...I voted for Kerry and was labelled a "liberal"...it's ironic to me...we can't just be people.

That's all it was really about...we divide ourselves when we (here in the USA) claim to be so united.

jck

Well, HG...I'm sorry I didn't think to take a camera to an event (which I got into because I knew the former Governor of Oklahoma) to get a picture with the Governor of Texas when I was a resident of Oklahoma and really had no aspiration to get to know the man or have my photo taken with him.

I'll start carrying a camcorder with me from now on just so I can settle your skeptical heart next time. ;)

and as an added note: watch news conferences where Bush's policy's have been questioned by more than one reporter. He gets flustered...not because he thinks he's right. He stammers and stutters to explain things because others are making decisions for him. It's because he doesn't want to have his positions questioned. It's pretty obvious that he's the true representation of the "figure-head" leader that the job is cracked up to be.

If ya don't believe me, watch Bill Clinton's old conferences and listen to the man explain his positions and agenda. He had no problem...because he knew what he was talking about.

Once again you've taken the strawman position by turning your
attention to my requesting back up to your claims with a
seemingly light hearted reply.

Let me remind you what my original post was about and see if
we can get back on target: liberals skew the topic and assume a
false moral and intellectual high ground to suit their needs.

Having said that, I don't think the topic will revert to the original
subject, so I'll leave you to actively hate Bush and all that
support him. I'll jump back in when or if you decide to discuss
the questions and observations stated perviously in the thread
without playing a game of "dodge-em".

I included the definition so there would be no mistaking my
point as partisian rhetoric, and from what I've seen here the
definition stands as correct.

Everyone apppears to be skating around the original topic and
reasoned debate by resorting to the typical "I hate Bush"
nonsense.

Let's see, we had the liberal intelligence card played when jck
bragged about his GPA. Then you played the moral card with
your indignant comment on misleading and deceptive
information from the government. What, did you actually expect
this administration to act any differently or be more honest than
say Clinton's administration?

In short, the past dozen or so posts in this thread proves Sajak's
point quite nicely.

All politicians "skew the topic and assume a
false moral and intellectual high ground to suit their needs".

Look at Bush...he's handing contracts to Halliburton, in which his vice-president holds active options...is that not morally wrong?

Bush would assume an intellectual high ground...if he could learn how to read his teleprompters.

Get a grip...there is no such thing as an "honest politician" because at one time or another, they've all given in on their morals and/or commitments to their constituency to get something they want.

Political affiliation is not a determination of "moral and intellectual" standing.

jck

The world isn't always so black and white.

As for terrorism, I won't prattle on all day, but we in Canada have experienced it. When a politician from Quebec and a British diplomat were kidnapped in 1970, martial law was declared across the country, civil liberties were suspended and the army patrolled the streets.

Where I suspect we disagree is on Iraq. Some people, myself and perhaps Oz included, may agree with a war on terror, but disagree that Iraq was part of that war. By the way, there are many Americans who feel exactly the same way. That doesn't make any of us Anti-American, or pro death. One of my co-workers had a son who worked in the towers, but was at an offsite meeting that day.

Canada was with you in Afghanistan - there was a very clear link between the Taliban regime and the fact that they encouraged Al Qaeda to set up training camps there. We still have troops there today. We helped run the naval blockade in the gulf to try and intercept arms and terrorist smuggling in the Gulf region.

You are judging others as well as thinking we are judging you. Its not helpful to resort to name calling, and making grand assumptions that we are some kind of terrorist lovers.

James

you posted:

Look at Bush...he's handing contracts to Halliburton, in which his vice-president holds active options...is that not morally wrong?
(And are you to tell me it's not all about who you know in any industry? You've gotten to where you are without any help whatsoever? liar)

and...

Bush would assume an intellectual high ground...if he could learn how to read his teleprompters
(And yet you think our President is Super-Human? I guess you've never done anything wrong or ever said anything and mispronounced it or misspelled it? again, liar)

So he's human. is that the point you are making? wow, I never knew. I guess that makes you less.

that pointing a finger at liberals and saying they stand on "false moral and intellectual" footing is putting a label on a certain political alignment, when it is a common trait of all political alignments.

As for where I got in life...well...if you take it in the context of my professional career, as the presidency and politics is GW's?

Yes. I can say I have NEVER gotten a job handed to me or gotten what I have professionally because of who I knew.

As for calling me a liar, that's typical of you. A personal attack when you have no proof of my work history and how I've busted my ass to get where I got. Sure, my parents raised me. I guess they shouldn't and have thrown me out of the car in the hospital parking lot too, right? Just so I could cry a river?

As for where I am now: I knew 4 people in the county I live in before I got this job. I didn't pull *any* strings to get this job. I got it because I knew everything *and* I was willing to take a 40% pay cut to work up here within the pay scale structure. So, I got here where I am now ENTIRELY on my own credentials, thank you very much.

As for what I've done wrong...hm...I've never given a company I knew my co-worker had a significant vested interest in $5B of un-bid contracts. I did steal a piece of bubble gum when I was 2...I guess I should be in prison for that, right?

As for being inarticulate: Being raised with all the opportunity in the world and a graduate of an esteemed Ivy League university, you'd think Bush could pronounce the word "nuclear" properly. I, on the other hand, graduated from a small state university in Oklahoma in a small city...I have right to be inarticulate. ;)

BTW, the GOP called...you can get your nose out of GW's butt now ;)

jck

In 1933, General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC, wrote the following comments in his book War is a Racket:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns six percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem off for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881?June 21, 1940), nicknamed "the fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye," was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and at the time of his death the most decorated marine in U.S. history. Butler was twice the recipient of the Medal of Honor, one of only 19 to be so honored; he is noted for his outspoken left-wing views and his book War is a Racket, one of the first works describing the military-industrial complex. An immensely popular figure in the United States at the time, Butler led the Bonus Army and came forward to the U.S. Congress in 1933 to reveal a Business Plot by wealthy industrialists to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Butler was known for his outspoken views against war profiteering and nascent Fascism in the United States. His book War is a Racket holds a highly critical view of the profit motive behind warfare. Between 1935 and 1937, Butler served as a spokesman for the League Against War and Fascism, a leftist organization.

The Camp Smedley Butler Marine Corps base on Okinawa, Japan is named in honor of Butler.

Smedley Butler died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940. His doctor had described his illness as an incurable condition of the upper abdominal tract, presumably cancer.

And frankly, the old man knew what he was talking about...

I don't care how many people you knew, though I would have guessed far fewer. I'm amazed that never once in your life did anyone help you out or give you a hand. Jesus can't even claim that (if you believe in him. I don't want to be accused of calling you a christian or catholic). And to know that you wouldn't help out a friend. wow! what a guy. I'm done with you. You have proved Sajak's point over and over and over. You've shown enough of your "intelligence" here. I remain unimpressed.
By the way, Saddam called and you can get your mouth of his ****.

First you attack me for getting where I am now professionally, when I pulled no strings to get here. And, you called me a liar before you knew the facts.

Now, you're saying I'd never help anyone out? I've helped plenty of people. However, again in a professional environment, I've never given anyone a job or insider trading info or the like. That is unprofessional and unethical. And more importantly, it would risk my career and my ability to pay for my house, car, and other things.

And, I never said I have never had help or been given a hand. I made the specification of *professionally*. You see...everyone gets *help* at one time or another. From being bottle fed, to being clothed, to getting $5 for gas in high school from a buddy. I figured you would have known that.

Thing is, I don't help people out in a way that's unethical, immoral, or detrimental to someone else.

I'm sorry that you don't understand me. Maybe I've just not lived in the same environment as you. You have my sympathy for having such a hard life.

btw...it's "Saddam"...and...he and Satan and I having dinner with Matt Stone and Trey Parker later tonite about future South Park plots from our real life. Wanna come? ;)

The Army does have incredible people in it. However, years ago the Armed Forces here went from recruiting the top people from everywhere...to taking anyone who'd enlist that past a few requirements and a health screening.

Recruitment quotas and profiteering...they're what makes us weaker militarily. Recruiter has gotta meet that goal.

Think about it...you think the top scholars wouldn't try to be teachers if they could make $75k a year like they do in private enterprise?

If the military raised pay, there'd be more smart young men and women serving in the military instead of going straight to university to get ahead quick.

Then recruitment quotas wouldn't be needed.

you had a rough life? sounds pretty rough if you were growing up in DC knowing all those folks from the pentagon. they're real hard-knock life folk working for minimum wage.

As for me being a freak...I'm only a freak in your mind because I disagree with you.

Everything I've mentioned about Bush is what has been published about him biographically, save for my personal observations of his reactions and articulation. It's obviously clear he has problem reading his teleprompter in his speeches. It's obvious he gets irritated when he gets questioned by reporters in news conferences about touchy subjects he doesn't want to talk about. So the guy's not the brightest bulb in the light store? Does it make you insecure about him or yourself? If not, why the anger toward me for saying it?

And btw...just because I talk about someone's flaws...doesn't mean I'm saying I'm perfect. In the case of Bush tho, it's my opinion we could have done a lot better for a president. Morally and intellectually. Bill Clinton got red-faced too when questioned alot about his infidelity. And, I've never said Clinton was a saint either. Although, he's far more articulate and scholarly and been far more successful (approval and budget wise) than Bush so far.

You're a real character, ITGirli. That chip on your shoulder must really irritate you. Sorry that you think I'm swill...or a liar...or a freak. But just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me any of those.

It just makes me an American with my own opinion...just like you.

BTW...Saddam sends his best...your burka is on the way ;)

If so, you'd be wrong. I am trying to decipher what you've meant.

You may or may not be aware of how interconnected our two countries are. Canadians own more commercial real estate in the US than Japan. Our economies are intertwined. I work for a Canadian division of an American company. I used to work for a Canadian company with tens of thousands of American employees -for a while I was the only Canadian team member of a US based department.

We lost 25 Canadians on 9/11 - small numbers in comparison to the US of course, but other than the Air India Bombing, the largest loss we have had outside of war. The company I was working for at the time was in the nuclear industry and partnered with US companies - you bet we were affected.

You and I don't have to agree on everything - my wife and I don't, my boss and I don't etc. Our countries don't have to agree on everything to maintain a healthy relationship either.

James

Somebody pass me a beer!

This is a perfect example, to those outside of America, just how personally offended people get about politics in America.

What a show, from a difference in political opinion to a personal slagging match about having a harder life than th eother. YOu ever seen Monty Pythons Four Yorkshiremen...LUXURY. LOL

Anyhow, either kiss and make up or pass me a cold beer. It's really pretty stupid when you sit and watch it though.

Be condescending and avoid the issue? well done. You've mastered it perfectly. You are swill and you have proved it. Thank you! Thank you so much!
:)

Oz...you mean to seriously tell me you haven't seen the old men in the pub as a youth talking about politics and the such in England??

BTW...I'd be honoured to get you a pint...

am I spelling that properly for you? :D

Doesn't take much to lose you does it? Geez, you wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in a real TR political thread! LOL, settle down lady!

As for your personal attacks, they are not acceptable on TR, the personal name calling will get you ousted and have this entire thread removed.

Now to address your ranting.

First off you ask how I would like it if a terrorist had flown planes into my country's buildings and killed thousands of my country's citizens.

I'm British, learn a little history.

9/11 was a mere dent on The Battle of Britain, not to mention the constant IRA attacks for decades on my soil and against MY people, which was eventually resolved peacefully after decades of fighting.

Don't become one of those who feel only America has seen such horror.
___________________________________________

But moreso, we are talking about justification for invading Iraq, not 9/11, don't be one of those who equate the two so closely. Invading Iraq is not in retaliation for 9/11, it is part of a global war on terrorism that your president mislead the country into believing was urgent.

You want to go after those responsible for 9/11, tell your president to go and find BinLaden instead of a man in a hole in Iraq.

As it is, AlQaeda are said to be bigger and more widespread than pre-9/11. THAT is who terrorized you not Iraqi's.
______________________________________________

You are NOT taking measures to protect yourselves, that was OLD news, NOW you are taking measures to liberate the poor downtrodden Iraqi's. Again, you gotta stay current on this one, it changes so quickly.

You were NOT under immediate threat from Saddam, you were NOT protecting yourselves from an imminent attack from WMD, Saddam did NOT have the ability to build nuclear arms, he did not have the ability to produce or refine enriched uranium.

This was proven BEFORE the war, and yet when Bush's speechwriter was interviewed he reported being told to not mention the recent confirmation that Iraq had not sought nuclear development. That same night, Bush went on National TV stating that it was confirmed that Saddam had sought and acquired the means to develop nuclear arms.

You were saving yourselves from an imagined threat, not a real one.

So while the rest of the world works to infiltrate Al-Qaeda and other terrorist sects, you are focused on "the wrong war at the wrong time" (Sorry, I hate to quite Kerry).

So stop all this tripe about saving your sould and getting retaliation for 9/11, you walked away from that fight and started a new one based on false information.

Again, you need to reduce the personal name calling, please. It really does get posts and people removed quickly.

It's got nothing to do with being heartless, nobody is being saved.

Thank you for accepting me...

First I joke (with a winking smiley...btw) that you're smoochin Bush's butt cause you so vehemently defend him and attack me for not thinking of him the same way you do. Then, I follow up your insult about me blowing Saddam and make light of it with South Park references and him sending you his love and a burka...and you go ballistic.

Then, addressing your own posts and adding my own added commentary was avoiding them. Great. I will make a note on that.

So...

disagreeing about ITGirli's opinions of Bush and talking about her makes you swill.

Not having explicitly defined your work history and that you're an honest worker to someone who insults you makes you a liar.

and

Joking that ITGirli is kissing Bush's butt makes you gay.

I've learned so much today. I feel so enlightened.

Hey Oz...now not only am I swill and a liar...I'm gay too!!! Get me a pink t-shirt and some beads...I'm goin to Amsterdam! You still want that beer, big boy? ;) hahaha

YOu and jck seen to be having fun all by yourselves.

If I missed something, it's either because I MISSED it or felt it was age old rhetoric that's been mulled over here for years (you should really search for old Iraq and Bush discussions, you'd have fun posting away there when it mattered).

You are not going to prove anythign here, you can post 14 thousand posts and you will NOT prove YOUR point or enforce your beliefs it simply cannot, has not and will never be done.

But have fun calling people names, you will soon realize how to differentiate political from other discussions, hopefully before it's too late.

you did chime in.

Does this mean you don't want the beer anymore? ;)

Well I've told you about politics on TR before, now you have it full on.

Consider it a TRAILER if you will, I've already seen the whole movie and the four sequels, this one is just not up to par.

:D

Oh, and only if you have a sexy bum.

if you have enough beers, you'll think it sexy!! hahaha ;)

I drink I'll have another think, tarbender...

I'm not worried...I'm not offended...I'm back though :)

And not a soul here has ever condoned 9/11 or not expressed deepest sympathy and support to those who suffered. THAT's why the support was so strong in Afghanistan.

With Iraq, it's not like there were no indications the information was false. Inspectors were completing inspections and finding nothing, other nations expressed a need to complete inspections and some even supported the use of force, if needed, to do so. Bush refused to wait and decided to invade anyway.

THIS is what people oppose, people are NOT against defending your country (which you aren't doing here), people aere NOT against your retaliating against those that terrorized you.

People are against you LASHING out at those who are NOT a threat.

There are FAR more dangeraous countries in the world that pose FAR a far greater threat to America than Iraq. You DO have immediate threat of attack from other countries and terorists, Saddam and Iraq wasn't one of them though.

I don't buy that age old theory of defendig your souls, that isn't the case and that is why people didn't support it before the invasion and that's why people don't support it now. They had GOOD REASON to question the information they had, and they acted on a whim, they invaded and killed citizens of another country on a guess and false information from an informant who was KNOWN for offering false information to achieve his own agenda. When this was questioned by teh Secuity Council and Allied Nations, it was ignored, they were all slammed by Americans for not supporting you and now what....they were right? We screwed up, is all you can say?

"Ooopsie, mistake there, sorry, you can edit that out can't you?"

This isn't Hollywood, innocent Iraqi's died and continue to die everyday, they don't get back up when the camera stops rolling.

More Americans have died saving Americans that would have died from Saddam's arms, and they also continue to die every day, and will do for possibly any years to come.

America is gonna need another baby boom to make up for all the lost people if this continues.

This is mroe than misinformation, this is war and people are being killed everyday, with no end in sight more than two years after it's initiation. Not exactly the fight you had with allied support in Afghanistan and far more than a simple mistake.

I never said anything to discount what the Canadian Military did in Afghanistan, so be honest enough not to try to imply what wasn't said. What was said was if we would not have gone in, Canada would have seen fit to not go in either. This is strong on terrorism? Where has Canada shown a strong stance of rooting out terrorism? It is seen as wrong to go after any country that openly supports terrorism.

Bosnia, As I recall we went in there where Clinton was cowardly bombing them after telling them under no circomstances would ground troops go in.

Rwanda, yes it was criminal for Bill Clinton and the United Nations to intentionally turn their backs on what was going on. Clinton didn't want an incident during an election year and the United Nations has always been known for doing nothing and doing it well. Saw the footage of the mobs taking machettes to the men, women and children.

I haven't laughed or made light of anyone's death. In fact, that's one of the reason I am opposed to this war to begin with, why should people be sent ot die without every other measure first being exhausted, which they were not.

I haven't had a friend die in a war? I lost two US friends in Afghanistan. A Canadian friend with the 101st is STILL in Afghanistan and I have always been VERY clear that I support the soldiers that go to war, I don't support the people who send them there unneccessarily.

You continue to contrive al lthese things that rae just never said or intoned in any way. You have a predetermined conclusion and will go to any lengths to reach it.

Slow down, count to ten, go for a walk or something. You simply aren't making sense now.

National press reports Bush irritated in public forum:

Bush labelled having, during one 2004 debate with Kerry, "...that pursed and annoyed look."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1574-2004Oct1.html

*******************************************

National press reports on Halliburton being lined up with up to $7B in contracts in Iraq before fighting was over:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml

(BTW...Red Adair's company is still operating and they are oil well firefighters.)

************************************

I'm not the only one seeing these things...just so you all know I'm not lying or partisan.

Or is it a conspiracy by the media!!!!

*cue mystery music*

jesus...I'm with Oz...gimme a beer and I'll put a mirror out so the argument will keep going...

Let's argue about...FA CUP! :D

Show me a SINGLE comment where someone has suggested that troops should be pulled out of Iraq.

Nobody has ever suggested that, in similar discussions both Kerry and Bush supporters have actially agreed that there's no way you can just leave now.
The issue isn't the end of the war, the issue is WHY you are at war to begin with. Which is not to save your lives or get back at those responsible for 9/11 (which received global support and still does).

I think you're just reading too much into comments and lumping them in with a sterotype of how 'those who oppose Iraq' actuually feel.

In Canada, there is less left right and a lot more center than in the US. Yet our centered and our right thinking politics is seen as left in the USA. So you automatically assume everyone wants what you see in the US as an extreme lefty solution, pull them all out and apologize, but that's not the case at all.

You take one instance where we don't support you and blow it up into being soft on terrorism.

We went to Bosnia without your permission, not that we needed it. The US position was wait, but in the mean time there was a race war being waged. Did you know there was an actual three day battle where Canadian forces fought Bosnia Serbs?

As for Rwanda, how kind of you to blame the United Nations. It was a Canadian commander(Romeo Dallaire)on the ground who wanted to act swiftly to seize the warehouse full of arms and do large scale patrols to show their presense. There was a battle plan. It was American pressure that caused the UN officials in NY to cave. Yes, I blame Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright. I didn't hear Republicans in the US arguing the point at the time though - only after the fact. I can recommend some books if you like.

On Afghanistan, if the US hadn't gone in(and its almost inconceiveable), but one of our NATO partners like Britain or France had gone in, we would have gone too. Like we did in Bosnia, like we have done in Haiti.

What does Canada do to fight terrorism? We do what the US does - tighten our borders, investigate suspcious residents, share intelligence with our neighbours. Other than Iraq, where has Canada done anything but be supportive of the US on terrorism?

James