Iraqgate

.
Julian,

If you're going to quote me, will you please, at least, be accurate? Moreover, the context in which something was said is equally as important. Unless you can provide the entire text from which my "quote" was taken, or provide a link to the discussion in which it was said, please refrain for misquoting me. You do that all too often.

Since you have a background in journalism, I used to be rather surprised at your lack of regard for accuracy. But since we've become aware of all the lies, inaccuracies, misreporting, and "made up" stories in the press lately, namely from the New York Times and USA Today, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. The honesty of journalists, or lack thereof, now appears to be challenging that of used car salesman for the lowest spot on the totem pole.

What I probably did say is that GWB is the most honest person to occupy the oval office in 100 years, however, context is important. I would put GWB, Jimmy Carter, Harry Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, and maybe Dwight Eisenhower at the top of the "honesty" list. I never said most honest AND best. Being the history buff that I am, I could never single out one person who was the "best" president, nor have I ever tried. Since the time in question and events of the day differ, I think it would be difficult to pin-point the one "best". I would always name five or six "best" to be lumped together.

I've often compared GWB to Harry Truman, another one of my favorites. And he's similar in many ways to Abraham Lincoln, who also waged what was considered, by many, a very unpopular war. Bush, like Lincoln, had a huge burden of responsibility thrust upon him by events of the day. (Did you know, by the way, that just as many soldiers died in one battle, the battle at Gettysburg, over a 3 day period, as did in the entire Vietnam war?) GWB actually received a higher percentage of the popular vote (48% in a 3-way race) than Lincoln did (39% in a 4-way race) in their first elections. Lincoln received 55% in a 2-way re-election, as I predict GWB will receive (maybe 53%). There really are some incredible similarities between that time in history and now. For example:

In support of the Union war effort, Stephen Douglas (who incidentally defeated Lincoln in an earlier Senatorial election) said, "There are only two sides to the question. There can be no neutrals in this war, only patriots?or traitors."

(Sound familiar? With us or against us?)

and

Democrats joined Republicans in endorsing Abraham Lincoln's decision to use force to preserve the Union.

(Similar - preserve the union & fight terrorism)

and

By 1862, however, that initial burst of bipartisan enthusiasm had waned in the face of mounting battlefield casualties and growing northern divisions over war policy. Of particular importance were Lincoln's interference with traditional civil liberties on the Union home front.....and his controversial decision to make emancipation a Union war aim. In the fall of 1862 Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus throughout the North in cases involving antiwar activity, thereby authorizing the army to arrest civilians and hold them indefinitely without trial. Military authorities also suppressed and otherwise interfered with newspapers they considered disloyal. Democrats also bitterly denounced the Emancipation Proclamation and accused Lincoln of perverting the war to save the Union into a wild abolitionist crusade to destroy slavery and overthrow the South's existing social order. (Copied from an essay by historian, William E. Gienapp)

But I digress. Back to my initial point.

So please, Julian, be accurate when "quoting" me.

Hi Julian,

Are you purposely trying to bait Max?

Anyhow.

I live in a Republican stronghold.
Out of 100 local elected officials, I estimate that less then 10 are Democrats.
One reason for this, is my area is STRONGLY Pro-Life, and the Republican party has a lock on that issue.

That said, at least 75% of the people I have discussed the matter with plan to vote A.B.B.
(Anybody But Bush)

While non of my acquaintances particularly like John Kerry, they are united in the belief that a second term for the Bush Administration would be disastrous for the United States.

Now, if the only issue was the war in Iraq, there would be little or no opposition to President Bush.

Fully 90% locally support the war effort.

Personally, we cannot and should not leave Iraq until there is a government in Iraq that is capable of running and securing the country.

There are still many months to the election and the US population will be more influenced by how they feel the week before the election.

My greatest political fear is that there will be a terrorist attack on a US target near the November elections.
If that should happen, George Bush can be expected to get 75% of the vote.

Chas

Well done Max!

"(Maybe somebody will have to post an "I told you so" discussion.) "

I hope it's me, I hope it's me. But oh well, it aint my country, our guys will inevitably end up there anyhow on a clean up mission when/if you've finished killing them (if we ever finish in Afghanistan, I think both of our Canadian soldiers are there now).

Maxwell would take the bait if it were a funnel-web spider (indigenous to the east coast of Australia, and I believe the most deadly spider in the world).

As I wasn't deliberately baiting him in the first place, but using his remarks as an illustration of the attiude held by so many Americans before the invasion of Iraq, and one which persisted for close to a year thereafter, I really can't see what all the fuss is about.

And can we share a joint "I told you so" discussion?

So I deliberately baited Max; I "may have" (his words) misquoted him; as a former journalist it is my bounden duty to distort the facts at every possible opportunity, and I hate America, Americans and especially George Bush ...Blah, Blah, Blah.

Now can someone other than TheChas, and our occasional new visitor "antipodes" (thanks for your contribution) actually address the discussion topic and make a meaningful statement about the ramifications of the "war" in Iraq?

My brother leaves for the middle east today, as a military policeman. He's between fear and a sense of duty with his deployment. Being the political wonk of my family, it has fallen upon me to make sure that his absentee ballot gets to him in a timely manner so that he can put in his vote for President Bush.

Personally, I will be voting for a second term also, no surprise to those who know me here.

Why?, you might ask.

1) The War on terror
The war in Iraq is an extension of the war on terror. It is a bold initiative to change the face of the middle east. It is nothing less than a shot across the bow of other despots and religious fanatics who's methods have no place in the civilized world. If terrorists choose to come to Iraq to fight us, then better to kill them there than here.

To all nations unwilling to risk blood and treasure in this noble effort, I pity you.

2) Fiscal policy
The tax cuts are an essential component of revitalizing an economy stricken by opressive taxation.

The war on terror has an economic component as well. 911 cost the US economy over a trillion dollars. The war on terror is something that we ill afford to prosecute daintily.

3) Environmental issues
I firmly believe the global warming "theory" (really gospel to ecoradicals and the ignorant) to be a farce, and international treaties to address it do nothing but economically strangle industrialized nations to the detriment of the entire world. His relaxation of "poison pill" environmental initiatives enacted in the final days of the Clinton presidency is a good thing for the US and the world.

4) Character
President Bush has it, Mr. Kerry does not. Plain and simple. Agree with him or not, he says it and then does it. Lives are lost while outlaw organizations and nations choose their place and time to act.

Excessive diplomacy works in the favor of the brutal by forestalling response.It is infinitely better for the world to know where the US stands and decide how to act.

5) Soverignity
I see the UN as the single greatest threat to world peace, not as a guarantor of peace. I'm glad to have a President who will give to UN a chance to live up to it's purpose, and then step in when it fails.

Julian,

If your PM is so far up our president's ass, then he's your problem, not ours. You go ahead and remove him from office.

If Australia hasn't the stomach for the dirty business of this war, then join the Spanish in electing a government intent on licking terrorist ass. Perhaps that will prove to be of better flavor to those down under.

Personally, I'm still waiting on that big price drop for all that free oil that the US invaded Iraq to seize. I guess the "thin veil" on that particular agenda is a lot thicker than meets the eye.....

Australian Journalist's Association
Code Of Ethics
1944
Each member of the Australian Journalists' Association is bound by its rules to observe this Code of Ethics in his employment:
?h To report and interpret news with a scrupulous honesty.
?h Not to suppress essential facts nor distort the truth by omission or wrong or improper emphasis.
?h To respect all confidences received by him in the course of his calling.
?h To observe at all times the fraternal obligations arising from his membership of the Association and not on any occasion to take unfair or improper advantage of a fellow member of the Association.
?h Not to allow his personal interests to influence him in the discharge of his duties, nor to accept or offer any present, gift or consideration, or benefit or advantage of whatsoever kind that may have the effect of so benefiting him.
?h To use only fair and honest means to obtain news, pictures and documents.
?h Always to reveal his identity as a representative of the press before obtaining any personal interview for the purpose of using it for publication.
?h To do his utmost to maintain full confidence in the integrity and dignity of the calling of a journalist.

Australian Journalist's Association
Code Of Ethics
1984
Respect for truth and the public's right to know are overriding principles for all journalists. In pursuance of these principles journalists commit themselves to ethical and professional standards. All members of the AJA section engaged in gathering, transmitting, disseminating and commenting on news and information shall observe the following code of ethics in their professional activities. They acknowledge the jurisdiction of their professional colleagues in the AJA judiciary committees to adjudicate on issues connected with the code.
1. They shall report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant, available facts or by distorting by wrong or improper emphasis.
2. They shall not place unnecessary emphasis on gender, race, sexual preference, religious belief, marital status or physical or mental disability.
3. In all circumstances they shall respect all confidences received in the course of their calling.
4. They shall not allow personal interests to influence them in the course of their professional duties.
5. They shall not allow their professional duties to be influenced by any consideration, gift or advantage offered and, where appropriate, shall disclose any such offer.
6. They shall not allow advertising or commercial considerations to influence them in their professional duties.
7. They shall use fair and honest means to obtain news, films, tapes and documents.
8. They shall identify themselves and their employers before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.
9. They shall respect private grief and personal privacy and shall have the right to resist compulsion to intrude on them.
10. They shall do their utmost to correct any published or broadcast information found to be harmfully inaccurate.

Notwithstanding the ignorance of people who have never worked in the industry, these are the ethics to which I was required to subscribe as a journalist, and which were stongly enforced by newspaper management. I could quote many an instance in which a newspaper journalist was cautioned or sacked for straying from these ethics.

Touche' "Based on the harassing emails that you've often sent me, tell me something I don't already know. Geesh, I wouldn't dare repeat some of those things here."

I've only receiced one and ONLY one email from you. Without any topic of discusison, without any provocation or previous personal email from myself, your exact statement was "F**k you , you little P**s ant."

Again, without any prior communication be myself, without any explanation of you apparent distress and without any reason stated.

Was that not also somethying that I wouldn't care to share here/ Without censoring it that is.

Perhaps you can further enlighten us by stating just how negatively and nasty I was in responding to your email oh no, actually I just said "thank you for the kind words?".

Hmmmmm, how many of your sides are we supposed to ignore? Are we expected to soft and filter out your own rude and misquoted comments in order to accept your good points or is it a tit for tat world, I guess it couldn't really be tit for tat if it is not responded to with the same rude attitude. Maybe this is why I, and many others, tag you as a hypocrite?

Much as I hate the little bugger, I respect John Howard for the manner in which he commemorated Anzac day. Here is the complete story, from Australian Associated Press, and reproduced in the Sydney Morning Herald.

PM surprises troops in Iraq
April 25, 2004
As automatic gunfire crackled in the background, Prime Minister John Howard paid a surprise visit to Iraq for what he rated among his "most moving" Anzac Days ever.
Intent on thanking Australian troops "in the most evocative way", Mr Howard was undeterred by shots heard during the dawn service at Baghdad airport.
"You just get on with what you're doing - that's the Australian way," he said.
Thousands of other Aussies decided the Australian way was to defy Government terror warnings and attend the annual service at Gallipoli.
And with tens of thousands attending parades in towns and cities at home, it was clear the Anzac spirit this year was very much alive and kicking.
Mr Howard, wearing a camouflage flak jacket, flew into Iraq under tight security which included a decoy announcement listing him to attend services in Canberra.
"It's the most moving [Anzac Day] dawn service I've been to in many respects," he said, recalling services at Gallipoli and at Kanchanaburi in Thailand.
"There's an immediacy about this."
Mr Howard's unannounced trip echoed the visit President George Bush made to US forces in Iraq last Thanksgiving Day.
Its defiant nature mirrored that shown by thousands of ordinary Australians who flocked to Gallipoli despite government warnings to stay away because of a perceived higher terrorist threat.
The prime ministerial visit could not have been better timed for the morale of troops following the withdrawal of Spain and several smaller nations from the US-led coalition.
"He's the man who sent them there and it's always good to get a visit from the boss," said Australian Defence Association head Neil James.
Increasing violence and lawlessness, including a spate of suicide bombings, have prompted anti-war campaigners to warn the coalition is unravelling and Iraq could turn into another Vietnam.
Mr Howard acknowledged those setbacks when he said his trip recognised the great sacrifice and contribution Australians were making in the "challenging" conditions in Iraq.
At Gallipoli, where the Turkish Government deployed hundreds of troops in a heightened security drive, Defence Minister Robert Hill said those making the pilgrimage were sending a powerful message that "the spirit of Anzac is alive and well and will not be defeated".
"We must not be cowed by extremists who use terror to undermine our way of life and break our spirit," he told a predominantly young audience draped in an array of beanies, corked hats, flags and green and gold tracksuits.
That sentiment was reinforced at the Canberra service when Governor-General Michael Jeffery, a decorated Vietnam veteran, proclaimed: "When threatened by evil, including the scourge of global terrorism, it is worth fighting for and if necessary dying for."
At the Perth service, RAAF Group Captain Peter Capwell predicted: "We will eventually win the war on terror but ... we will do well to draw on the Anzac spirit and approach it with the same courage, tenacity and selflessness that was shown in Gallipoli on this morning 89 years ago."
Two of Australia's six surviving WWI veterans made it to the Anzac Day parades - 106-year-old Peter Casserly in Perth and 105-year-old Marcel Caux in Sydney.
But it was the increasing numbers of young people that caught the attention of South Australia's RSL president John Bailey.
"It doesn't seem just a curiosity interest," he said, "it seems to be a genuine wish to participate in a genuine service of remembrance."

The Terrorists are only in Iraq after the invasion and the removal of a lawfully elected Government no matter how distasteful we may have found it. Sure there where some remains of the army who where prepared to fight a guerrilla war after the overthrow of the Iraq Government but now there is an organized resistance from outside Iraq doing most of the damage. I'm betting that within 10 years of all of us withdrawing from Iraq that will be back in exactly the same position that they where before the invasion a Dictator running the place as he / she see fit.

The current problems in the Middle East can be traced directly back to a English man commonly known as Lawrence of Arabia who is considered as being responsible for the current layout of the Middle East as it exists today. He was also responsible for the current Political system which is mostly Monarchical in type.

The real problem with terrorists is that they have no borders to defend so they can just move around as they need to and leave the country that they where staying in previously in tatters as they get attacked and defeated. It is the terrorists who know when to run away and hide not the individual countries who have a lot to lose and sometimes a lot to gain like in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 there the Talaban was supported financially by Al Quedia.

Now it is widely considered by many that some of the remnant's of this group escaped into Pakistan which is an Allie and who is incapable of even venturing into the area where they where thought to be as it is such a lawless place that no Government official is safe no matter if they be a member of the Government or a group of well armed and supported soldiers. While this particular area is in Pakistan it is effectively a different country as they only pay lip service to what the Pakistan Government wants to happen.

You also have the problem of even if you manage to wipe out the heads of these organizations the survivors will only go elsewhere and start new groups so instead of only having one problem you end up with many from different sources. The only way to prevent this is to stop the reasons why people are drawn to these groups and it is not "Religious Zeal" but poverty as they see their actions as the only way out of the present situation.

In all of the oil rich Middle East Countries it is a fact that while there is an enormous revenue from the oil the general population see no results from this and are now in a worse position than they where 30 years ago as they now have a far larger population to support {something like a 4,000% increase in that time} and a far lower standard of living. If it is possible to break the hopelessness of these people there just would not be the people willing to join these fanatical groups in the numbers that they currently are. A suicide bomber in Palestine family gets $10,000.00 US when the person blows him/her self up and takes a few Jews with then. Now they are not doing this for the "Idea" or even in the hope that they will be blessed with the 40 virgins at the gates of Heaven but for the money to support the family.

If it was possible to break the cycle of poverty in these countries this problem simply would not exist to the extent that it does today if at all as the people who are only too willing to send others to their deaths seem somewhat reticent to do the same thing when they have the chance. These leaders are effectively no different to our Politicians who do exactly the same thing.

Now I'm not advocating this for a single minute but just how far do you think your President would get if the Military refused to follow his orders? About as far as Ben Ladden would and that isn't very far at all. The current idea of chopping off the head to see the rest of the beast wither away just isn't going to work what needs to happen is to cut their legs out from underneath then so they do not have the cannon fodder to throw away at will like they are presently doing.

Have a think on the above.

Col

.
I searched the on-line stories published by the Sidney Morning Herald looking for a story about the WMDs found in Jordan, WMDs that were intended to be used to kill 20,000 people, WMDs that, most likely, came from Iraq. I found nothing.

I did, however, find a story that was sympathetic to the terrorists fighting "against the US military's bloody offensive against insurgents in Fallujah". (Yes, an EXACT quote)

The Story:----------------------------------------

Baghdad on strike against Fallujah offensive

April 11, 2004 - 12:18AM

Most of Baghdad closed down yesterday after a prominent religious leader called for a strike to protest against the US military's bloody offensive against insurgents in Fallujah.

Most shops, banks, government ministries and schools across the capital kept their door closed, particularly in the Sunni Muslim neighbourhood of Aadhamiya, in sympathy with the restive town where hundreds have died.

The neighbourhood's main Mustansiriya University was deserted.

Across the city, traffic moved easily along roads which are usually jammed throughout the day.

During his weekly sermon yesterday, prominent Sheikh Harith Sulaiman al-Dhari, a prominent Sunni Mulsim cleric, called for a three-day strike to protest against US army offensives.

His sermon -- which also marked the one-year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad -- further branded Iraqi politicians serving on US-appointed bodies as "traitors" siding with the occupation.

"Fire on every traitor, and to everyone who pushed towards occupying this country," said Dhari, head of the influential Committee for Islamic Clerics and is also the imam of the Sunni mosque of Um-al-Qura.

Dhari's angry sermon was mainly meant to condemn the US military's siege of the Sunni town of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, sparked by the killing of four American civilian security contractors.

Muslim fighters in the area have been waged a fierce resistance for the past six days, but hundreds of Iraqis have died and the US-led coalition has offered a temporary unilateral ceasefire.

End of story--------------------------------------

Is that story slanted, or what?

A "prominent religious leader"? How about a ruthless and murderous terrorist?

"Most shops, banks......kept their door closed.....in sympathy with..."???

How about in fear of?

And the Iraqis who want their freedom are referred to as "traitors".

And where is the SMH story about the WMDs found in Jordan????? If anyone can find it, please provide a link.

Here's something else I found in the Sidney Morning Herald. They have a story that QUOTED - yes, quoted (with the quote marks), President Bush as saying, "GOD told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

Does anyone want to wager that this is a fabricated MISQUOTE?

I've had such a discussion about the Sidney Morning Herald with one of our Australian friends in the past, and I proved that they misquoted and misled.

It's no wonder that our friends living in the land down under don't understand.

.
I'm dumb for believing that mean-spirited and intolerant people could possibly be open to constructive dialogue.

I'm dumb for believing that I might change someone's mind if I present a reasoned and well researched opinion.

I'm dumb for thinking that my attempt at humor, albeit a lame attempt, might be chuckled at instead of taken the wrong way.

I'm dumb for thinking that people who continually criticize America and Americans could possibly set aside their intolerance for even a minute to wish someone's brother a safe return from a war zone.

I'm dumb for thinking Americans could ever be seen in a positive light in the eyes of those who hate us.

I'm dumb for getting involved in these pointless discussions.

I've been posting on usenet/internet discussion groups for 10 years, and on compuserve/bulletin boards somewhat longer still.

One of the good rules of most of them, is when the discussion turns from ideas to people, take it offline - go to email.

It doesn't raise anyone's credibility to get into personal name calling or dredging up personal emails in these discussions. Its like wrestling with a pig - you get covered in shit and the pig enjoys it.

Stick to a rational and reasoned discussion of the issues. Even some of the charecterizations of Bush, Kerry and Howard have been less than reason and more about emotion.

James

What a lot of folks forget, is that Clinton does NOT want a Democrat in the White House come November election. In order for Hilary Clinton to have a shot at the top spot, she will need to run in 2008 and not against an incumbant. Therefore, Clinton will sabatoge the democratic candidate.
Result, big victory for GWB. Whether I like it or not, GWB will continue as the prez.

Michael R.

I?m sorry, I was responding to your comments about how Bush had 48% of the vote and Lincoln had 39%, I was just pointing out the fact that Bush had less Popular votes then Gore, but thanks to the Electoral College system it does not matter. In our Republic leaders are not directly elected by the people.

"A major difference is that Lincoln WON the popular vote." Comment on the popular vote not the overall election!

Not worth the sticky it was posted with originally. It is simply a way for someone to declare defeat without a fight.

IF people CHOOSE to discuss an issue, we should. You can always click away if ti is boring you or you feel it goes nowhere, we are not kids and don't need a mentor or chat rule to cease fire.

big deal tell me something I don't know.

The issue is, unless someone accepts your apparently well reasoned and conclusive opinion, then they are just baching you and Americans, don't forget Raod Dogs brother who we wish the worst for. NOBODY said anything about RoadDog's brother being wrong. I feel for him myself, the poor guy is standing up for whast he is COMPELLED to feel is right. His friends all fouhg t probably and he is just doing his 'duty' as an American. I salute him for his allegiance and wish him a safe return to his home. Nobody wishes any US soldiers harm, EXCEPT the president of the United States of America whom they are mindlessly fighting for. BUSH has decided that the 3000 peopple who died are worth sacrificing all these other lives over, not to mention the devastation on the WTC (unrelated to this Liberation 'attempt')killed FAR less INNOCENT people than Americans have killed in Iraq. When's the score even, 1:1, 10:1, 20:1 ?

What a fruitless effort on behalf of the US, I hope you can all understand that this is EXACTLY why other countries didn't join your little revenge conquest. It was a futile attempt at best and has resolved nothing so far, and no forseeable resolutions or end to death is apparent for the future. It'll just be another fight until you are spent and have SPENT everyone's money, FINALLY elect a real leader with the ability to run a country and pull out, leaving the terrorist regimes to rebuild, conquer the newly formed and unwelcomed Democratic Iraqi government and start all over again bombing and attacking Americans.

You can't accept this opinion without flaming others, why should others accept your opinion without flaming you?

It's a two way street Max, give AND take. Not just Max said so that's the way it is, apologize and accept it. We aren't American, we don't follow the loudest one in the bunch.

You must stop with these retaredd little disclaimers intended to pad a response or give you a reason to dismiss responses.

"(Okay, now go ahead and turn my words around to suit your desired outcome, and read things into them that weren't intended. That seems to be the sport of the day around here.)"

It's not very clever and something that is purely child psychology, grow up.

Secondly, "But there are plenty of good things to come out of it as well. Some people, however, just refuse to acknowledge that."

How so, Max? Let's see we are liberating people who don't really want to be liberated. We are seizing temporary control of a country and have sent it way out of control, people don't want that. We are pushing them to have a similar goverment structure to the USA (Democracy) I don't believe they asked for that either and certainly aren't going to welcome it without countless years of further terrorism within their own country as they work to toppple this newly formed government as ssoo as the USA if finished killing Iraqi citizens. Now I am certain, yet I don't have the little link you love so much, that there have been more friednly and innocent citizens killed in this war than terrorists. Secondly, a citizen doesn't want to die for this cause, the terrorists Do, so how effective is killing terrorists and turning them into heroes? It's not effective at all unless you eliminate an entire 'race' and then stop them the minute a new one are born.

It's no different than the Christian conquests of yeteryear, there are other religions and beliefs in the world now. It is unstoppable and is a futile effort that has killed too many people already, but hey, keep at it another year, two years or four years if you elect GWB again, until someone with a head on his shoulders is in charge you will never see an end to more Americans dying in the name of dead Americans.

For Road Dog, I sympathize with his position, I sympathize with his brother who is fighting with doubts of the US intentions and objectives. I feel sorry for all Iraqi's who you have killed, far mroe than they took from the USA, I feel sorry for the opther US soldiers who have been convinced this is they way to resolve an isue, all in all I feel sorry for America and everyone there who is subjected to this crap each day as their sons and daughters die in a futile attempt to resolve an issue that your president has brought upon your country himself.

Now as for the press, I see MANYlocal and network US reports, MANY in fact we have more US channels and networks to watch than Canadian. With the 60 channels I get there are, FOUR that are Canadian. that leaves 54!!! US channels to watch. I will tell you first hand and with MUCH knowledge, you are NOT seeing the whole picture. Sure there are those stations that ONLY report bad news, but even those BAD reports are nothing compared to the reality we see on Canadian and oher news reports. So either the rest of the world has 'as you say' lied or America just can't get the story straight. Based on what is aired elsewhere and what is aired on US channels, I would say that the implied censorship of the media is the real issue in the USA. They are not ALOWED to present the truth there as it does not favour the US governments actions. This isn't just left vs right, it is blatant censorship. What you conceive to be bad news is only a simple twist, the real negative stories are just not allowed to be aired.

If you wish to contest this, just come North and watch TV for an hour or so, you'll see INSTANTLY what I mean.

We see all your reports and a few of our own. We see British reports, we see Iraqi reports we see reports from Pakistan. YOU are the one who is only getting one side of the story (or two colored sides) while accusing others of not weighing the rest of the stories.

YOU don't have the correct information to provide a qualified and educated response to these issues, not myself, Colin and Julain. We live in truly free countries that don't censor our media, we get it straight from all angles and sources, not just the US media, which I will agree is as corrupt as any, but at least we get varied opinions and reports to reach an opinion based on ALL the facts as they are shown.

How big is the gun rack in your pickup? Did you get new tires for your house last year?

My goodness what an ignorant and typically US statement, I thought such a mentality was gone in the 40's!

So now you are claiming that the USA is so all powerful and mighty that you could take on the rest of the world and not end up just shooting all your own troops?

When and what gave you such a backward thought process?

Do you REALLY believe that the US is so powerful and mighty that they could conquesr the world? You should tell BUSH, I'm sure he's had those wet dreams too.

Judging by recent efforts by the US, you would fail miserably, destroy your entire country and all its citizens and should neuclear war come into play you would fire upon yourselves and wipe yourselves out, your track record is not that impressive, even thought you can spend everyone's money on the military. If your government actually put money back into edication and health care instead of weapons, you MIGHT have a slim chance of saving yourselves from the process of natural selection that will inevitably wipe out Americans as we know them.

Nobody needs to attack you guys, you kill more of your own in one week than others have in decades.
You live in a country that spends billions each year for a war on drugs that just gets more expensive each year with little to ZERO effect.

Your past presidents paid several hundred million to PROVE that marijuana was harmful and caused you to go insane and kill each other, yet when the proof was NOT found and the opposite was, the president trashed the report without reading it. Giving him the fuel to increase the drug war spending to tens of billions. Instead of capitalizing on a market with less personal and social harm than smoking or drinking. Clever.

So judging by the fogged statements of the US government, I can see how one could be led to believe you were the all powerful super force/world police you THINK you are.

Sure, not enough Canadians would be interested in invading the US to make it a worthwhile or effective effort, we KNOW our country is great, we don't need to prove it we can enjoy it instead and don't live in fear.

Sure the British couldn't give a toss about what you are doing on your own soil, but lets see the US navy take on the Royal Navy. Remeber England is an island with a navy that has proven it's ability as a force to be reconed with over MANY years.

Now this is only two countries, goven that MOST of the world sees America as wrogn in this effort, how many allies do you think would stand up AGAINST America if needed? All of them, friend or foe would come together to see america eliminated.

So before you spout about how tough and wonderful you THINK you may be, weigh your opponent(s) and realize you wouldn't have even the slightest foggiest chance at survival, yet alone victory.

Give your fat overinflated head a shake and get with reality.

This is all based on a personal issue between a couple of members that goes back a year or so and nothing more.

This is a flaming session based on character dismissal and reduction of credibility, not much else at all.

You see James, we have discussed this over and over again, we have even all agreed that there is no way we can predict the outcome as we are not ALL seeing the same story, we are simply spoon fed what is allowed. Yet US reports are very minimal compared to what others see outside the USA. The issue is that outside the USA we se more than you do INSIDE the USA and yet are constantly told that not being American, we don't see the whole story. Well I suppose this is somewhat right as we are not expected to believe everything Bush says and follow blindly like many do.

It is more of a media squabble than an attempt to find answers as answers simply aren't available unless we have the full story, which we don't.

...sadly it became Iraq's. Pak's role in Talbinasation of Afghan has been conveniently forgotten. Does'nt Pak have a dictator with nuclear weapons? Pak's terror tactics in India has been ignored. Turkey's oppression of Kurds does not come out in front pages. Israel's occupation does not merrit discussion. When we talk about the muslim fanatics nobody even wants to mention the word 'Zionists'. When Palestenians throw rocks..we mock them. Well they do not have money otherwise the entire world would have sold them arms.
Well I don't have an atlas in front of me..otherwise I just could go on and on with scores of human problems that the entire world faces.

Iran was such a fertile place to instil democracy. The students were and are waiting to get support. There was even a pro-reform faction in the government. The world could have supported and augmented the resources. Iraq was more secular than any of the other countries in the region.
I think Saddam just got off on the wrong side of the bed......

The entire M.E.Asia is a like a giant banyan tree. Branches turning into huge roots and trunks...You cut a root here and there it does not matter...the tree keeps growing.

The only solution is to make the soil infertile so that the growth is curtailed. Unlike the banyan tree that offers shade, fruit and rest place..the hatred in M.E.Asia is so evil to the world. It can not be weeded out with a war.

I particularly like Col's comments here as it very much resonates with my views.

We - the world - should have worked on a giant Public Relations exercise.... when we can flood the Iraqi air waves now...why did'nt we do it earlier? Can't we have floated pamphlets to the poor about thier evil dictator? What are we doing to eradicate poverty there? What are we doing for educating people other than madarasa?

If we think it is their problem,...you bet they are going to make it our problem pretty soon.

Whee-oooh! What a discussion thread. I love to click the Print button so I can read the posts through without having to stop and click and stop and click. Anyway, FWIW, as an American with prior service ('81-87) in the Army Guard, here's my two cents about the Iraq war. I was all gung-ho to go in and get Saddam because, having seen the pictures of the Kurds apparently killed by chemical weapons, I thought he had WMD. Then we made a huge mistake by giving him what, six months, to move/dismantle/hide anything he might have had before we ever came in. Doh! No wonder they didn't find anything. If he had them, he had MORE than ample time to hide the evidence.

Next mistake: When we had the elite Iraqi soldiers in our sights, we let 'em get away, and they hid amongst civilians, sans uniforms. Next big mistake: Overestimating the Iraqi civilians' gratitude with being freed from Saddam's rule. Worst mistake: No clear-cut exit strategy.

hate that we're in this war, but at this point, I have to ask what is the best use of our time and energy? I'm less concerned about why we went in and why it was a mistake and more concerned about how we're going to finish up and get out.

All that said, I predict GWB will win because only one war-time president has been unseated (Johnson, I think). US voters don't want to change the people in charge in the middle of a war. I agree with the person who predicted Hillary Rodham will be first in line for the Dems in '08, though I'm not sure I could ever vote for her, no matter WHAT the world war/peace landscape.

This Iraq war makes me miss the Cold War.... The world seemed a lot more sane when the worst thing we had to worry about was some Communist threat lobbing a nuke our way...

We do not have a separate election for the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister (after previously being elected as leader of the particular party) is automatically the leader of the party which wins the election.

Because we have a two-party preferential voting system, in which secondary and tertiary etc preferences have the same value as primary votes, the outcome of any election is largely dependent on the preferences given to minor parties or individuals. Hence the elected party is not necessarily the one which receives the most primary votes.

The distribution of preferences in marginal seats can have a dramatic effect on the outcome of the election.

An interesting example of this was demonstrated in a by-election about a year ago in the strong Labor seat of Cunningham. Howard chose not to enter a Liberal candidate -- presumably either because he thought it would be a waste of time and money, or perhaps because it might give a message to the electorate that support for Howard and his government was waning. As a result, with Liberal preferences going to the Greens, the first ever Greens member was elected to The House of Representatives.

This preferential voting system is also used in most State elections and Local Government elections.

CBC is repeating the one hour show tonight called 'talking to Americans'.

Rick Mercer ghoes to the USA and interviews American's about their indifference to Canadians. HE also asks them about world views etc. It is VERY funny (almost satirical like "This Hour has 22 minutes")yet almost scary when you realize these people are not joking and that's REALLY how they feel about other countries.

One guy even agrees whole heartedly that our Prime Minister Mr. Beaver Pelt shouldn't be pushed out of office for chewing on the furniture.

We all live in igloos is another biggie, we have less deaths by handgun because it is too cold to fire a gun (Although we have more guns per houshold than America does).

Canada doesn't have an army of their own and simply uses US reserves in time of conflict, etc. It's very amusing and you can see first hand just how the media in the US focuses on ONE thing, THE USA. Way to be worldly!

Yet I am expected to take what American's say is the REAL reason for Iraq and dismiss what is proven by video and still footage? Because our media is biased and they are getting the real story by sifting through several US stations.

8PM CBC.

Apart from all the bally-hoo and nonsense (did I hear someone mention my name?) I am very pleased with the overall response to this discussion.

It has evoked a variety of interesting viewpoints, as well as some interesting facts.

I would especially like to thank Colin -- the ultimate diplomat -- who always manages to make his point quite forcibly without being offensive.

However I will no doubt continue to be myself and speak out whenever I encounter lies and bigotry.

In reality I am not a trouble-maker, but I do like to provoke people to think and re-evaluate their views.

Bigotry and hypocrisy are not, of course, the exclusive domain of any particular country or group of people. I wish to recount an incident in my own life.

Leading up to the November 2001 Federal Election in Australia, I had been regularly attending a communion service at a local Anglican Church which was also a polling place. We were a diverse little group, and after a short service based on the Book of Common Prayer, we would have coffee and munchies.

As I was assisting in the campaign for the Labor candidate in the seat of Bradfield (at that time the second safest Liberal seat in Australia) I undertook to set up the stall at this church (St Martins) and hand out how-to-vote-Labor leaflets.

Now without exception, these "Christians" who had been drinking from the same cup as myself (symbolically representing the blood of Christ) rudely snubbed me for my association with the Australian Labor Party. Of course they were not to know that the much revered semi-retired Bishop who conducted these services was also a member of the Labor Party.

I mentioned this episode to the minister, who said there was no excuse for such rudeness, but I never again felt comfortable in sharing communion with these bigoted hypocrites.

That make all of the Muslim world think Americans are the Infidel and you are only helping them in your comments.

They have this idea that all Americans are gungo ho and prefer to shot the crap out of anyone first and then think about their actions latter. At the very same time they believe that while Americans are on a killing spree they are also looting.

When you post comments like the above you are only reinforcing the belief.

Is that what you really want to do?

If it is God I feel sorry for all the nice Americans that ( know as I'm sure that they will be amoungst the first to go when you do get invaded by the United Muslim World after they throw us all out of Iraq. With a victory like that behind them they will be far more dangerous than they ever where previously and believe that they really do have "God on their side" so it is only a natural progression to see the total destruction of the USA by the Muslim world in an attempt to rid the world of the Infidel that has to be apposed at every occasion by their beliefs.

For God's Sake grow up and stop feeding the flames there is currently enough trouble without making it any worse.
Col

well Maxwell, I never said he was a favorite religious leader. Not did I say he was a popular religious leader. But he IS a prominent religious leader. If he wasn't, this wouldn't be world news. According the the definition of Prominent, YES Vernon Howell, a.k.a. David Koresh was a VERY prominent religious leader to the Branch Davidian cult.

Prominent doesn't mean OUR favorite or OUR approved.

\Prom"i*nent\, a. [L. prominens, -entis, p. pr. of
prominere to jut out, to project; pro before, forward +
minere (in comp.) to jut, project: cf. F. prominent. See
{Imminent}, {Eminent}.]
1. Standing out, or projecting, beyond the line surface of something; jutting; protuberant; in high relief; as, a prominent figure on a vase.

2. Hence; Distinctly manifest; likely to attract attention from its size or position; conspicuous; as, a prominent feature of the face; a prominent building.

3. Eminent; distinguished above others; as, a prominent character.

{Prominent' moth} (Zo["o]l.), any moth of the family
{Notodontid[ae]}; a notodontian; -- so called because the larva has a hump or prominence on its back. Several of the species are injurious to fruit trees.

.
Let's see.

Ronald Reagan defeated the wealthier Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Bill Clinton defeated the wealthier George H. W. Bush in 1992.

And John Kerry's enormous wealth would make GWB's net worth look like a broken piggy bank. (And Kerry will lose.)

On campaign fund-raising:

John Kerry's fund raising intake through the end of March made him the first nonincumbent presidential candidate in history to pull in more than $50 million in a single quarter, the Kerry campaign said. The campaign did not provide an exact figure. The Kerry campaign "has over $75 million in receipts to date and is more than halfway to the $80 million goal set for 2004," the statement said.

Bush - over 100 million.

Neither amount is small potatoes, and both camps receive corporate donations.

Now let's talk "soft money":

From an article by Jim Morris:

After battling with all their might for the soft-money ban that is included in the McCain-Feingold bill, the Democrats, led by Bill and Hillary Clinton, are subverting the purpose of the legislation, consigning it to the dustbin of campaign-finance reforms. The Democratic Party, led by Clinton operative Harold Ickes, has catalyzed the formation of Americans Coming Together (ACT), an independent-expenditure organizations that hopes to raise and spend $94 million defeating Bush in 2004. To get it going, billionaire financier George Soros and Peter B. Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp., each donated $10 million to the kitty.

But this current effort is not preceded by any Republican provocation. The GOP has not established the soft-money answer to ACT. This evasion of the campaign-finance law is a unilateral act by the same political party that led the fight against soft money.

-------

You're wrong again, Oz.

Well when asked face to face the following comments were received as follows.

Statement to president Bush during the last election race:
"The Canadian Prim Minister 'Jaques Poutine' was originally not stating his preference for a US President. Yet he has changed his opinion to state that he fully supports your winning this election and becoming the leader of the free world"

Response from George W. Bush: "Tell him thank you, I respect his opinions and look forward to working closer together with him as he has always supported me"

The joke is on Bush, the Canadian Prim Minister THEN was Jean Cretien. 'Poutine' is a french dish made consisting of Fries with gravy and cheese curd on it.

To Al Gore during the presidential race: "I am wondering if you will be spending much time in Canada's capitol city of Toronto if you are elected?"

Gore's reply: "Yes, I look forward to being in Toronto and working cloely with the Prime Minister. But I can't think of that until after the elections."

Toronto is a city in Ontario. The Canadian capitol is Ottowa, Ontario (apparently where Primier Poutine resides).

Nice wolrd knowledge from these two spectacular runners. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if one of them was elected as president? Oh yeah, they did that didn't they.

Whoa Nelli!!! Settle down there Oz. First I have to remember some of you people do not understand subtle humour, I need to remember to put Sarcasm Alerts in my posts again. I figured you?d get the hints like in the title ?Bring it on?? the ??? should have set the tone for the rest of the post. The first sentence started like a typical redneck line but if you read the whole thing you would notice the ?so much of our strength deployed? I thought a reasonably intelligent bloke would see where it was going. With the next line ?We would still repel your sorry butts, but at an uglier cost to all.? I was hoping you would catch the hidden meaning of the ?uglier cost to ALL?. The line about our ?Militias? was a dig at our rednecks who go out into the woods and play soldier and think they are going to protect the US when the Commies come, yes some still think the Communist are a threat. I also hoped the closing line ?Let me know before you show up so I can head for cover ok?? would tie it all together, but I guess I was wrong.

Thanx Colin, I was going to go into a tirade about Oz?s post but yours settled me down. I even went as far as typing up about a page of rebuttal to his post above, but it would just fan the flames and I?m going to try and rise above that level.

My apologies to anyone who took offense and think I am one of those warmongers. My nephew is stationed in Baghdad so I am very aware of what is happening now. It makes it worse that he is in a support unit and they seem to be the ones getting hit. He drives a recovery vehicle so he would be the one going out to get the stranded ones. He has the common sense of my brother and the fact he is Ranger trained makes me even more concerned about his safety. We pray for his safe return along with all the others troops soon.

Maxwell, no matter is someone walked up to you and held you by the hand and SHOWED you you were wrong, you would still accuse them of being wrong. So in your eyes, everyone is wrong, all the time unless they are agreeing with you. You have NEVER stepped down in a discussion or admitted to being wrong.

BUT...my point is that corporate alliances and funding on tap is what fuels the presidential race. Whether Gore or Bush (neither of whom I relly prefer to one another) they are buying votes, not earning them. If Bush was out to EARN votes, he'd be dead in the water before he got his toes wet.

Bush has caused more danger to the US now and for the future than any leader I can think of ovein history. He is placing your country in jeopardy while saying he is protecting it and yet people just follow him. Now I know I have wrongly accused Americans of being undereducated and blinded by peer pressure so as not to see these men for who they are as people (not just what they say). I know the MAJORITY of American's aren't really stupid and just as any other country you have your share of village idiots.

I suggest before you all go gung ho and declare Bush the best guy for the job, loko at what he has done to your country.
Turned you allies against you and turned your citizens against your former allies.

Turned your citizens against Saddam by instilling fear of Iraq into the general population and sent countless numbers of American citizens to die in a war with no end in sight and no motive that will permantently resolve the situation in Iraq.

He has mumbled and fumbled his way through in the last four years with the effectiveness of a high school kid with a bone to pick.

yet you feel your entire country is going to elect this man as the favorite to lead you for the next four years.

Now, I am either right in my statements that Americans are under educated and blinded by peer pressure (which I personally think is a little too generalized) or you would not make the same mistake twice and elect a dufus to continue turning the world against the USA.

Now as for money, ALL of the example you gave were instances of money buys votes. Now it isn't neccessarily money SPENT out of pocket, that is not needed when you have some of the largest of Americas corporations behind you as your policies favour them. The bottom line is whether the oney is spent directly on a campaign or found by having multi billion dollar corporations back you, the money is still there.

Let's see soem REALLY clever and better suited chap who manages Stereo Heaven run against Bush or Gore. It isn't going to happen, the money just isn't there, yet he may be far more capable of making global LIFE SAVING decisions and
positive effects on the US than ANY past president, yet he will never have the chance because 'the other guys' have more money and corporate backing.

In conclusion, money can't buy you happiness, but it can buy you the ability to run your own country.

Well judging by some of the opinions I have read on this exact same matter on TR, it is not surprising your comments were taken verbatim. Some people have honestly posted similar comments here and meant every word of them, I figured we were stepping back into that narrow minded dark age that used to shroud so many discussions. A little more animation and side comments make such posts easier to read THROUGH.

As for your family members, I too wish them well and hope they return safely, they didn't start the war they are performing a valiant duty for their country, which they will do no matter how pesonal feelings will enter the issue.

I watched a show last night about how the Humvees are a major point of concern right now. They are pathetically underarmoured for the duty they have been sent to perform. They are not standing up to terrorist attacks and are being destroyed faster than the US can supply them. They have a large surplus of Humvees in the US now that are slated to be sent to Iraq without a new plating system that is madly being developed by the military now. They are replacing substandard equipment with mroe substandard equipment.

They are manufacturing at a fast rate yet are unable to manufacture them as fast as they are being destroyed. I certainly hope your family members receive better protection than a poorly protected Humvee, otherwise it may be America's fault if harm comes their way.

I apologize for tearing a strip out of you but I realy saw a backstep ni the conversation that threw me for a loop. Best wishes to you and your family and here's to seeing them all return well.

That you do not live in a Democracy where everyones vote has the same value?

I'm glad I live here in Australia then as we have set electoral boundaries which mast have an almost identical number in each electorate and it is the number of seats won that makes the Government and then those members of the Government elect their leader at least that way we don't end up with the position where the leader doesn't have popular support.

Then as a break on any excesses that may be fostered upon this nation by a "popularly Elected Person" who we call the "Prime Minister" there is an upper house where Government policy can be passed or rejected and even then it is not by a simple majority but a minimum number of Senators must vote in favor of the piece of proposed legislation.

At least this way there are tighter controls placed on the leader so he or maybe one day she just can't do as they please and there then remains the power in the Governor General to remove the Prime Minister from office ands appoint the other side to power if they agree to act in a "Care Taker Role" until the next election is called which is as soon as practical after the Government of the Day is removed from power fro breaching their obligations. Granted it has only happened once and there is also the possibility that the Governor General can refuse to give "Royal Assent" to a bill that would prevent it from becoming Law the same applies with the states as well but there the Royal Representative is called the State Governor. Both of these set positions are by appointment only and there is no possibility that the persons chosen will just buckle into the whims of the current government as they have legal obligations where if they give "Royal Assent" to a piece of legislation which is illegal they are held responsible and can be charged with "Treason" because an "Officer of the Crown CAN NOT go Against an ORDER OF THE CROWN" so they are unable to revoke long standing legislation and limit its powers.

Col

If he had of been left along and eventually picked up by the current Iraq authorities that is where the story would have ended but when the US Administrator closed down his tin pot paper that was spewing venom as fast as they could put paper in the presses he became known all over the world.

This was a perfect example on "How Not To Do Something" if instead of forcibly closing the paper he had of been denied the paper to print his rubbish on he would have just disappeared up his own arse where he belongs but the way things where done has started a bloody great problem which will only get worse if something solid isn't done quickly and in what is perceived as a humane manner.

His arrest would have been better performed by two or three police rather than just taking in a well armed group who outnumbered the opposition and then instead of grabbing the fool they just closed down his newspaper now he has to be totally discredited in the eyes of his current followers which isn't going to be an easy feat.

The worst thing that could happen here is he gets killed in one of the US lead assaults as he would then become a mater and be a rallying point for all the radicals who could be possibly worse that he currently is.

Col

Did he carve a turkey? If he didn't 'pose' with a plastic turkey and tel anhandful of people he was on thier side, it hardly matter now does it?

GWB already played that angle, and he played ti well. Thousands were rejoicing that GWB had been 'in harms way' to show his support to all the poor men who were aimlessly fighting a dead end battle. He was on TV, he was in the news, he was spoken about globally, although not always favourably. But he was there with that big plastic bird all the same.
Maybe Howard should have kissed a baby or something, that's always a good one for the press. Better still, he could have hugged an Iraqi women and THEN kissed an Iraqi baby, now THERE's good press.

And a very observative one at that.

Your should have posted the first time, you actually had an intelligent and rather non-partial point to make and you made it well. I retract earlier comments about you having no point to share and apologize for the cheap shot.

OM

I think that prosperous countries (like the USA) should try to help others in development work, by sharing some of the technical know-how etc. This will bring several counrtries several notches above their current economic status and will contribute in reducing terrorism because in many countries, it is really linked to joblessness.
But the question is - is the US really concerned about uplifting other countries?

Careful Oz, your ignorance is showing. The last I checked the US had 50 states. If you know of two new ones let me know so I can update my list. It does not help your argument if you can make a simple numbers mistake like that. Was it a geographic or mathematic error? Maybe a typo? Thanks.

I also thought Canada had 11 ?provinces? and 2 territories.

.
First of all, you took my message way too seriously.

As to my source, it was all cut and pasted from a National Geographic Web site from an in-depth article they did on the subject. If you, personally, question them, who cares? Quite frankly, I'd put more faith in the accuracy of what National Geographic says than what you do. But if you want to think that you're smarter and more savvy than National Geographic's researchers, knock yourself out.

I do, however, agree with one thing you said. You said that, "more Canadians know more about the US than Americans know about Canadians." I would not disagree with that assertion at all. (Even though we've seen no study on the question.) After all, the more significant issues (or countries, in this case) are always more relevant and/or suitable for study. Canada, who cares? Apparently nobody. USA, who cares? Apparently everybody.

52 States??????

Any will you please take the time to learn the proper use (or when not to use) the apostrophe? You are always misusing it. The typos and/or spelling quirks can be understood, but that??????