The US War censorship

Our gov't doesn't censor a single thing in the press, except where the information comes from the gov't, or would endanger certain lives.

Individual news companies control what their reporters give out as news. Commentaries are less controlled, but still are generally subject to the management. A journalist who is pissed that he/she can't spew out opinion as news needs to find another job, maybe with Michael Moore. The Internet is an open forum where blogs and zines abound with every opinion under the sun. Even published magazines abound with opinion that is often extremely harsh against our gov't. Where is the censorship? It doesn't exist. If it did, I wouldn't be able to read your posting.

Honestly, people that whine about censorship need to spend some time in China or North Korea. That is what censorship looks like. Open your mouth, go to jail. Distribute a leaflet, go to jail. Try to organize a rally, all of you go to jail. Take up arms, either die or jail and torture. That is censorship.

I would much rather have some Propaganda and Covert Action, hell even another Cold War than a bunch of Soldiers and Civilians having to be killed.

It's kind of funny though... the press reporting on cover-ups in the press... if it really was censored do you think they would let them run a story that says they were censored? They sale a lot of content with conspiracy and cover-up stories :)

I can personally vouch for the fact that the Canadian Press is no better. I was involved in a news article and the story that was printed was so slanted, after having read it, I am still leaning to the right.

The now ex reporter told me that his editor would not print the unbiased truth. Why? It was about something that our provincial government would just as soon the public didn't know.

All governments are like that. Only the naive or inexperienced fail to see that. But when they become "geezers", hopefully they will truly understand the way things really are!

.
Canada is in many ways a free country, particularly by world standards. It is also, however, a nation that has always tolerated a remarkable amount of censorship, and spawned dismaying numbers of self-appointed guardians of taste and morality.

-Sandra Bernstein, legal conference producer with the Canadian Institute.

-------------------

Justice Canada is proposing new intrusive powers to monitor electronic communications -- the so-called "Lawful Access" proposal. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and EFC collaborated on this response to the initiative.

EFC's Richard Rosenberg testified in Vancouver on February 19 before the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in opposition to Bill C-18 and the creation of a national ID card. Here are his remarks and an unedited transcript of the session.

http://www.efc.ca/

--------------------

More:

http://www.pencanada.ca/censor/Oct23StephenWilliams.htm

http://www.pencanada.ca/censor/TeenageDramatist.htm

--------------------

This is interesting:

The file found here since 1995, A History of Censorship In Canada, from 1914 to Now, has been effectively censored due to... Well, instead of us boring you with the details we'll let these actual e-mails do it. -- The Library Staff

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int02.htm

--------------------

There's a definite chill in Guelph (Ontario) , and it's no laughing matter. Students using computers at the University of Guelph are looking over their shoulders, scared that Big Brother could expel them if what they say in their electronic discussion groups is deemed "offensive".

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Foreign_and_local/Canada/guelph_censorship_efc.statement

--------------------

The Little Sister's Bookstore has been in a long battle with Canada Customs regarding censorship.

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Foreign_and_local/Canada/little_sisters_v_ca_customs_0795.note

--------------------

Draft legislation that would ban "killer cards" is back from the Justice Committee with recommendations that it be broadened to cover a much wider range of communication. This has many defenders of free speech alarmed.

In a report recently presented to Parliament, the Justice Committee recommends changes to the legal definition of "obscenity" to include "undue exploitation or glorification of horror, cruelty, or violence". In addition to cards and games, the report names "music, videos, comics, posters, and computer bulletin boards" as forms of communication that need to be controlled by the government. Communication that falls within this expanded definition and has "no redeeming cultural or social value" would be prohibited.

"They apparently stopped short of advocating book-burning", grumbles David Jones, a professor of Computer Science at McMaster University, who is not happy with the report. "When they start talking about banning computer games and communication on computer bulletin boards, that's where they've crossed over into our domain" says Jones, speaking for Electronic Frontier Canada (EFC), a group dedicated to protecting rights and freedoms in cyberspace.

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Foreign_and_local/Canada/obscenity_ban_efc.statement

--------------------

O'Neill vs the RCMP

The Freedom of Expression Committee of the Book and Periodical Council is outraged at the raid by the RCMP on the home and office of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill. When police use such tactics against a writer, or there is a perception that authorities have taken questionable actions, it creates an environment that impedes freedom of expression.

"This not only affects the journalist in question," said Ron Brown, Chair of the Freedom of Expression Committee, "but sends a chilling message to all writers and publishers involved with producing or researching news stories. The sweeping powers of Canada's draconian anti-terrorism legislation, pushed through Parliament in response to September 11, 2001, must be reviewed immediately. The RCMP's search and seizure of a journalist's files is unacceptable."

http://www.freedomtoread.ca/news_and_opinions/pr20040123.asp

--------------------

January 22, 2004

Statement on Raids on Ottawa Citizen/Juliet O'Neill

PEN Canada condemns as outrageous the raids today conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the offices of the Ottawa Citizen and the home of reporter Juliet O'Neill.

"The ability of a reporter to protect his or her sources is at the core of a free and democratic society," said Chris Waddell, Chair of PEN Canada's National Affairs Committee.

"This action by the police must be reversed and all material taken must be immediately returned untouched to the newspaper and Ms O'Neill. The federal government must state clearly that it does not condone or sanction such intimidation tactics, apologize to Ms O'Neill and the Citizen and state clearly this will not happen again. Anything short of this is unacceptable."

This raid ? including the early morning one by 10 police officers at Ms O'Neill's home ? amounts to nothing more than blatant intimidation of journalists and news organizations in this country by the police and federal government authorities, states PEN Canada.

"It's a fishing expedition designed to turn up Ms. O'Neill's sources because the stories she has written on the federal government's role in the Maher Arar case have been deeply embarrassing to the federal government," added Waddell

http://www.freedomtoread.ca/news_and_opinions/pen_20040122.asp

--------------------

".......exposing the extent of censorship in Canada today, exploring its structures, and showing what it reveals about our political culture."

- Klaus Petersen, author of Interpreting Censorship in Canada

--------------------

There are now 4 categories for which books are prevented entry to Canada, and can be detained for indefinite periods of time at the border. When customs officials on duty at the border, or working with the Canadian government mail company, perceive that a book, magazine, or film, coming through the border could possibly be defined under one of the following four categories, the material is sent by a chain of command to the federal capital in Ottawa, where one individual has the final decision as to whether the book, magazine, or video in question will be allowed through the border.

The 4 categories are:

HATE LITERATURE: Any book that names a specific group as being responsible for something in history or in society that will promote animosity among other people towards that group. For example he said revisionists and neo-nazis say the Jews are responsible for promoting the Holocaust stories to obtain sympathy and money; this is therefore classified as Hate Literature.

OBSENITY: This is subject to arbitrary decisions by government officials. Most types of pornography from simple exposure of genitalia to violent and degrading sexual acts are seized at the border, and some are returned and some are not after decision are made by the one person in Ottawa.

SEDITION: If the material encourages people to break any criminal law, or human rights code of ethics, of Canada

TREASON: When material promotes the overthrow of the leaders of Canada. This is an outdated law as many people today publicly promote the overthrow of the government to their friends and co-workers.

When deciding whether a book would be included in one of the above 4 categories, the Customs officers have to consider such things as artistic merit and educational value.

A current list of confiscated books and an official definition of the above mentioned criteria is being prepared and distributed by the Canadian Department of Prohibited and Controlled Goods, Ms. Missie Marsden - Director, Ottawa, Canada Tel: 1 - 613 - 954 - 7049.

http://www.vho.org/censor/CAN.html

--------------------

Many Americans think Canada is cool. It's a great place to run away and avoid the draft, plus it has socialized medicine. And how could the birth place of SCTV be anything but hip? But Alas! It seems like the same folks who look down their noses at American Pop culture have a dirty little secret we don't often hear about. Canada has no free speech! It's true! The big so-called democracy regulates what people can and can't say! And the man who tested Canada's tolerance for free speech (a test they failed) was none other than Jack T. Chick!

One can't help but chuckle at how Canadians condemn the US boycott of Cuba, while they themselves don't even enjoy the basic democratic right of free speech! The irony is juicy indeed. They say Americans are silly for being scared about Castro, when they're scared of Chick! At least Castro had nukes. Chick, on the other hand, has never threatened their nation with anything more dangerous than comic books. (Get thee behind me Fredic Wertham!)

http://members.tripod.com/monsterwax/chicklaws.html

--------------------

Welcome to the Canadian Censorship Wing

Howard Stern is heard only in Montreal --and then only censored on tape delay.

Canada's most powerful tool against politically incorrect speech is its hate speech code, which prohibits any statement that is "likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age." Prosecutors are not required to show proof of malicious intent or actual harm to win convictions in hate speech cases, and courts in some jurisdictions have ruled that it does not matter whether the statements are truthful.

One person who has run afoul of the code is Hugh Owens, a Christian fundamentalist who took out a small display ad in the Saskatoon newspaper featuring a stick figure drawing of two men holding hands inside a circle with a slash through it--a statement of his disapproval of homosexuality. What made it worse, said the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, was that the graphic was accompanied by citations from the Biblical books of Leviticus, Romans and First Corinthians that, in some translations, call for sodomy to be punished by death by stoning. If a hearing officer agrees that this display violates the code, Owens could become the first modern-day Canadian punished by the government for citing the Bible.

http://members.tripod.com/monsterwax/canadacensors.html

--------------------

Health Canada's Censorship is Putting your Health at Risk

http://www.naturalhealthcoalition.ca/censorship_ad.pdf

--------------------

Canada?s Media Monopoly

One perspective is enough, says CanWest

By James Winter

Canadian Columnist censorship

John Miller, director of Ryerson's newspaper journalism program, told the Washington Post that CanWest newsrooms have become demoralized. "It is not so much the national editorial, but the fact that everyone has been sent the message they have to watch what they write," Miller said. "If it goes against what is perceived as the Asper line, then some stories aren?t going to get written, or some stories will be written and then they will be killed."

Author and Southam columnist Lawrence Martin?s contract was not renewed in 2001, because of his criticism of Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien--a friend of Izzy Asper, who once led the Manitoba Liberal Party (Toronto Sun, 8/26/01).

Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington was critical of the Aspers and had his column pulled from the Windsor Star, a Southam paper, as a result. "I got a rather embarrassed call from the Windsor Star...saying they had been ordered to drop my column and not run [it] under any circumstances," Worthington told the Toronto Star (1/16/02).

Doug Cuthand, a First Nations columnist for the Regina Leader Post, wrote an essay in early January that was sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians in the West Bank, comparing them to Canada?s indigenous peoples. The Aspers, who are "well known for their unstinting support of Israel," according to the Toronto Star (1/12/02), had the column killed.

Stephen Kimber, a columnist for 15 years with the Halifax Daily News, quit in January after his column was killed by corporate headquarters. Kimber wrote in the column, which was eventually published in the Globe and Mail (1/7/02), that

CanWest?s owners, Winnipeg?s Asper family, which made its fortune in the television business, appear to consider their newspapers not only as profit centers and promotional vehicles for their television network but also as private, personal pulpits from which to express their views.

The Aspers support the federal Liberal Party. They're pro-Israel. They think rich people like themselves deserve tax breaks. They support privatizing health care delivery. And they believe their newspapers...should agree with them.

"I think that they could have gotten away with the ?national editorials? policy," Kimber told the Toronto Star (1/12/02). "But it?s clear now that what they really wanted to do was stifle other people's opinions."

Stephanie Domet, another freelance columnist for the Halifax Sunday Daily News, resigned a few days later after writing a column in support of Kimber for The Coast, a Halifax weekly, that was later posted on the CBC?s website (1/7/02).

The name of the game

Four reporters at CanWest?s Regina Leader Post were suspended for five days in early March, for talking to outside media, and another six were given letters of reprimand after they withdrew their bylines in protest over an incident of censorship at the newspaper. Management at the Leader Post had censored a story by reporter Michelle Lang about a speech critical of CanWest by the Toronto Star?s Haroon Siddiqui.

In March, the International Federation of Journalists accused CanWest of corporate censorship and victimizing journalists who are trying to defend professional standards. "If this had happened in Eastern Europe 15 years ago there would have been widespread protests from media owners and journalists' groups," the IFJ said in a press release March 14. "The issues today are no different--the fight for editorial freedom and protection from censorship."

In 1991, after acquiring a 20 percent stake in New Zealand's TV3, Izzy Asper gathered 200 employees of the station in the cafeteria and astounded them by asking a journalist, "You. What business do you think you're in?"

The journalist replied that "the business we're in is to make sure our audience gets the most carefully researched news and information possible." Asper asked the same questions of the drama and entertainment departments and got similar answers.

"You're all wrong," he told them. "You're in the business of selling soap."

James Winter is a professor of communication at the University of Windsor, Ontario, and the author of several books on the media

http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/canwest.html

--------------------

The Censorship of Canadian Children's Literature

many Canadian children's books are censored, not at the government level, but at the level of local schools and libraries. How can Canadians allow this to happen if many of us believe that the role of the true educator is to teach children to be free thinkers, not closed minded? Restricting children's literature puts a severe limitation on a child's right to read. Many local and school libraries' actions contradict the Canadian Library Association's Statement of Intellectual Freedom, which states that "all persons in Canada have the fundamental right, as embodied in the nations' Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual activity."1 What should be done to solve this problem? Before this question can be tackled, three other questions have to be answered. These questions involve the ways children's books are censored, the reasons why children's books are censored, and the actual effects that the challenged books have on children.

Robert Munsch, a children's author who is popular among children and censors, outlines three types of censorship in a letter to the Canadian Children's Literature Magazine. The first is government censorship, where writers or publishers are imprisoned or killed for their actions. The second type, as outlined by Munsch, is local schools and libraries censorship. In schools, censorship occurs whenever groups or individuals, attempt to prevent students from reading, hearing, or seeing something or someone because they believe that such exposure will be harmful to the students.2 A majority of censorship in Canada occurs at this level because the laws usually prevent censorship at higher levels, but parents expect the local libraries and schools to mirror their own values, and it is easy to succeed at censorship at this level because schools and local libraries are very vulnerable to politics and generally want to avoid problems........

......where writers or publishers are imprisoned or killed for their actions.

......where writers or publishers are imprisoned or killed for their actions.

......where writers or publishers are imprisoned or killed for their actions.

......where writers or publishers are imprisoned or killed for their actions.

http://www.canadiancontent.ca/issues/0699censor.html

--------------------

How bad is censorship in Canada?

Worse than you think.

CRIME COMICS

Section 163(1)(b) of Canada's Criminal Code states that "Every one commits an offence who makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution, or circulation, a crime comic."

More:

http://www.freedomparty.org/issupapr/ca_02.htm

That is the problem though. The White House and Pentagon have laid down very vague rules outlining that such information can't be used, and reporters obviously respect that, well MOST do.

The problem is, these same restrictions are being used very tightly and are being used to edit questionable actions that may change the general US support for the invasion that provide no security issues but merely show the negative atrocities of the damage done during a war.

Now from what I have researched this was VERY strong during the Vietnam war and the war in Iran, however even with them saying they have loosened the noose so to speak, they are still using a vague set of rule to control what reports are shown what photos are viewed etc.

Personally I don't think it's the governments bunsiness to diffuse what MAY change my feelings or decide what is appropriate to see and what isn't if my son or daughter is in a foreign land.

As foor breaching security measures or releasing information, it is clearly outlined in the free press guidelines that they are not to report on numbers of troops, names of troops, positions etc. that may endanger lives or breach operations.

During Vietnam this same documentation added that no negative reports on America were allowed at all. I am actually trying to find these docs again as I lost track of them this morning.

I found a website dedicated to helping children understand the Constitution. It is PBS Teachers endorsed and offer a VERY nonbiased opinion and simeply details the Constitution.
The Constitutional Rights Foundation- Educating tomorrows citizens
http://www.crf-usa.org

They have a piece all about US media restrictions:
http://tinyurl.com/2bnrw

If you still have questions or concerns, you can ask your teacher or click here to bitch and call them liars: http://www.crf-usa.org/email.html

After viewing Max's post, its REALLY scary whats going in Canada. You would be shocked at how much information is being banned in Canada as opposed to the US. When I tell you the White House doesn't even come close to what Canada's government is doing...its like NIGHT AND DAY.

I really feel sorry for you and the rest of the Canadians. I see now that you truly don't understand how much your government censors your stations.

Quick question, how many DIFFERENT channels are there in Canada? and how many companies own them? Like in England, all I hear is BBC, BBC. So I get the impression that England has only one channel and or COMPANY that owns all the channels, is that true? If so is that true in Canada as well with CBC (Canadian Broadcasting, if I am not mistaken)?

In USA, there are many DIFFERENT companies that own different channels. Time Warner, News Corp, Viacom, Sony Media, Disney etc..So for example, Time Warner owns CNN, Disney owns ABC (I believe), Viacom owns MTV among others etc. So we truly get A LOT OF other channels besides the regular local channels.

http://www.newscorp.com/index2.html owns like 20 channels for example.

"But the government censoring "news" and books and what generally goes on TV, no way."

First of all I haven't said a single word about the government censoring TV or books. Although I believe a few years back schools were banning Huck Finn because of it's racist references.

I have VERY explicitly explained that I an referring to freedom of press in wartime situations, specifically Iraq and Iran, however is a very commonly known that this has been in effect since WWII. You are correct in saying it is a restriction due to security concerns and for the most part reporters will abide by such laws just out of common sense, remember MOST reporters do not favour war, as if anyone possibly could say they FAVOUR war.

What I am saying is that reporters have been denied reports due to security issues that in no way breach these measures. The freedom of press as laid out by the Pentagon issues VERY vague instructions to the effect of 'no indication of troops positions or numbers, armour etc.' this of course would go without saying although SOME have pushed the limits.

Reporters around the world including MANY from America say they are stifled by this set of rules as it is so vague it can be applied to anything and allows the US to dictate what citizens would favour and what they won't.

http://www.crf-usa.org/Iraqwar_html/iraqwar_press.html

well tiny URL is busy and I think the link broke but you know how to fix it. as i said to garion,
"If you still have questions or concerns, you can ask your teacher or click here to bitch and call them liars:" http://www.crf-usa.org/email.html

It was me, Max, who made the posting about the marriage of an Australian girl to Prince Frederick of Denmark. And it was the British monarchy upon which you commented with distain.

Is your head so far up your ultra-right wing American ass that you can't even remember
which monarchy you commmented on?

Well it was the BRITISH MONARCHY, mate, and without the very large number of British troops who supported the USA in the illegal, botched-up invasion of Iraq, you wouldn't have stood a snowflake's chance in hell of what passes for "winning" the war.

Are you SO ARRROGANT that you have no respect for the allies who have fought alongside Americans in various skirmishes?

Just as GWB had received false information about WMD, so had Tony Blair and England is in a much more threatened position than America even if just demographically. He never sold the idea as WMD for long though, several thousand exiled Iraqi's that were living in the UK had written him a letter stating that they would be so ever grateful if the UK was to help Liberate the people of Iraq from Saddam.

This ocupled with the MUCH more realistic possibility of an attack from Saddam on England was enough to pull together UK support.

However, they were mainly operating only as specialforces and covert teams to infiltrate specific targets KNOWN as offensive. In the process they stumbled on mass graves, formed from previous wars utilizing WMD (not from gassing Iraq's like a Nazi death camp), this was even more fodder for America to justify it, as you must remember THAT big discovery.

So yes Tony may have been mislead the same way as Bush,I seem to remember him publicly saying so on TV one night but very evasively so as not to implicate GWB, who was at that time adamant about not discussing false information and evaded all questions with the typical 'our people are investigating' BS.

So leave some room under this for Max to call me a liar and Garion to tell me to leave him alone before he starts to cry and tell me I am not allowed to buy shoes anymore because I don't like the current US administration.

:-) I wonder what others they have? THis one doesn't work. :-P

Why do you people think someone is being "suppository" or "arselicker" if they support the US? I don't get it, I thought we were allies and friends. Is it possible that since you have your own interests which don't coincide with America's interests that you feel that away about someone?

Thats entirely justifed. I support your stance and respect your opinions. Just tell me one thing, when those 2 planes hit the WTC, did you dance in the streets and blamed America first?

But I must disagree on the assertion that the US couldn't have won it on their own. They probably could have, and would have, but the thing that mystifies me so much is why they thought that the Iraqi people - all the fragmented factions of them, would just happily accept western democracy.

I was warning for months before the invasion that to invade and remove Saddam Hussein would invite factional battles that would go for some years - until another strong man arrived to shoot the opposition. In a previous post on this forum I even mentioned it, and got howled down.

I just can't work out how the greatest nation on the face of the planet didn't work that one out, given the political, religious and factional situation in Iraq at the time.

Remember that Saddam Hussein used to shoot anyone that opposed him?? What are the US troops having to do in Iraq now?? Much the same. That is how Iraq is.

It is with sadness that I see the rabid warrior sentiments coming forth from some of these people. I hope it is not representative of the whole of US society, for if it is, we are surely doomed as a species.

I think it is time for dinner. I shall eat it and enjoy it before someone decides to nuke Adelaide because we forgot to fly the Stars and Stripes on July 4th, given that if it is US Independence Day, the whole world should celebrate it.

Alan

.
You said, " (The) Australian media is pretty non-partisan and reasonably objective."

Remember the discussions we had when I proved that the SMH printed fabrications and mistruths? You even conceded that I was right in calling them on one such case. Shall I dig up the discussion and post a link? Geesh, Julian, are you really so arrogant as to not remember the details of that past discussion?

As luck would have it I just had a similar discussion with a very good friend's husband just two days ago when I got a surprise (I talk to his wife all the time, but him its a rarity and that's an understatement) call from him (works in Pearl Harbor, HI) and he is with the SEAL teams stationed there. He actually called about setting up his home network, but anyway...

The point we got to after talking about the middle east situation and the emotions of the current political climate is that (his words, not mine) "tom, trust me on this the public is blessed for not knowing what really goes on".

I basically told him that I don't honestly feel the public could fully, 100% handle or understand what the military really does -- I'm not talking about the stuff in the newspaper or on the 11pm newscasts, I'm talking of the un-reported stuff. Its hard to fathom, honestly, what these guys do and why they do it. Frankly, I don't think we as the public (and I mean the public of the WORLD not just the US public) really *NEED* to know what really goes on, I don't think it would really serve a purpose for good. It would make people hate more, because out of ignorance breeds contempt, etc. The military, particularly special forces are not about the glory on movies or in books. Its an often cold, heartless, (even boring I hear), job that drives many to breakdown emotionally and physically. I have to say it drives me a little mad, and take note I'm not accusing anyone on this board - this is a general statement, when everyday citizens in their nice homes, in their nice towns, living their nice lives have the nerve to moan and complain and speak down on government military operations or the military directly (which I think is even worse). I don't know maybe my great friendship with folks in current military clouds my thoughts a bit, but it pisses me off to think how everyone who complains so much don't realize the pain, the fear, the horror of what our guys go through in war.

As for the government covering things up...I'm on the fence a little -- look you can't (and they SHOULD NOT) report EVERYTHING..if people are crying they should well I think that's just dumb. The public has the right to know to the extent it serves a purpose for the good, beyond that the public's right to know just gives me a bad rash.

But there's no reason to be actively ignorant.

Yes the CBC (Canadian Broadcorping Castration)is a heap o crappo, not too many people watch CBC except for National news, weather etc. But it is VERY rarely relied on as a source of non-biased information. The difference between others and Americans, we admit things are awry and speak out against them, you seem to think the US government is all roses and candy kisses.

I don't CLAIM that US WAR REPORTING BY THE SO CALLED FREE PRESS is censored, AMERICA and THE PENTAGON says it not me sir, just open your friggin eyes and see for yourself. It's no mysetry and it CERTAINLY isn't MY idea, it is a fact that American war reporting has been censored since World War II. I will no longer contest a FACT if you are simply too stupid to see it for yourself evem whe pinted out slearly by your OWN government. I BUSH came out on air and told you all he had lied like a rug for four years I suppose you STILL wouldn't believe it as you have been programed to believe America has never done any wrong, like a typical blind follower. Other countries all have been wrong and you will be the first to point this out, however nobody contests it, we KNOW all governments are corrupt. the problem that people DON'T like about America is that you all feel that you are forever correct, never made a mistake and wouldn't believe your government is corrupt if they told you themselves, THIS is why people call you arrogant. Never been wrong, always righteous always out to help everyone BUT yourselves, BULLS**T! Utter and complete hogwash, YOU are the only opeople who actually believe this for a single second, and you even defend it against PROOF, what a maroon, get some help, if you were even PSRTIALLY observant you could see this but you refuse to, therefore people call you blind followers, get it yet?
Too stupid to know better?

as for yuor Comglomerate analogy, it just shows how completely out of touch you really are.

Of COURSE Disney, Viacom etc have been around for years, they were kept separated by laws:
"a rule that bars owning TV stations that collectively reach more than 35% of the 106.7 million U.S. television homes."
this would indicate a MEDIA monopoly that is supposed to be deregulated to provide fair competition in the US market.

"Disney's ABC, Viacom's CBS, News Corp.'s Fox and General Electric's NBC want the 35% cap raised ? or killed ? so they can buy more stations."

The FCC has raised the onweship caps on these comglomerates from 35% to a whopping 45%, that means the BIG FOUR (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC) TV networks would have access to 45% coverage of the US TV channels, removing competitioj from smaller networks, (is that how capitalism has made it easier for the small players to become rich and prosperous like the others?) This is capitalism and monopolization gone bad in a BIG way (still with me here?). So the rich get richer and the poor don't have any hope, "land of the free', "equal opportunity" and all that rubbish you guys believe in.

As both Republican and Democratic suuporters spoke out against the action, Georgie Bush decided the following: "The Bush administration said on July 22, 2003 that it would consider vetoing a large spending bill in the House of Representatives if it reimposed media-ownership caps that were recently relaxed by the Federal Communications Commission. Bush is shown with FCC Chairman Michael Powell during a White House event June 27. Photo by Larry "

As for the TV advertising from the campaigns:
"While the two (campaigns)slug it out, a victor has emerged. "Broadcasters," says Sanford Bernstein media analyst Tom Wolzien. In just 90 days, TV stations raked in $85 million-nearly a million dollars a day."

A MILLION DOLLARS A DAY OF PAID INCOME BY THE CANDIDATES. WHO'S BETTER INTERESTS DO THESE STATIONS HAVE IN MIND?! YOURS? Think again it even if it hurts the brain.

So what part of what the President said DON'T you ebelieve, what part of this ownership cap do you NOT understand, what part of ANYTHING do you actually understand?

try again, you couldn't be more wrong.

Next time, try searching for the answers yourself instead of making yourself look even dumber by arguing a fact.

So here's the PROOF: (Don't bother posting back if you don't understand it, it is simple fact, not stories FACT, (that means it is confirmed truth).

Absolutely NOT. You make absolutely NO sense whatsover.

How about we send Garion to go to war and be killed by US friendly fire?

That is a $5,300.00 fine not a $53,000.00 fine.

DAMN!

When I said SMART bombs in Baghdad it should have been Afghanistan.

This infatuation can be equated to 'LOVE IS BLIND?'

have to do with ANYTHING? Who said anything about blaming the US for the 9/11 attacks? I certainly didn't. Were you bullied as a child?

I agree that he IS probably bullied as a child, that's why he's here each day. He sits in the school library and unleashes his misunderstandings about America and the world while dragging your good name throuh the mud.

No wonder he gets his lunch money taken each day, I wouldn't have let a kid in my school get away with it either.

"So here's the PROOF: (Don't bother posting back if you don't understand it, it is simple fact, not stories FACT, (that means it is confirmed truth)."

WOW if the last sentence doesn't prove you are an idiot, I dunno what will.

Well guess what O Mighty LYING OZ, you are a moron. By the same logic that you used, ITS A FACT THAT YOU ARE A MORON.

You come from a country that has a government owned station, and after seeing the links that Max provided, You have the nerve to tell me that the White House is censoring our news. I STATED IT BEFORE, The channels here WILL NOT show any graphic pictures (not that someone can't go on the Internet and look them up). I will admit that, but everything else is reported here.

In a previous post I asked you to tell me which reports, which posts, which pictures were censored from being shown here. You had nothing to show for it, NOT ONE F*KING THING. Yet you are coming up on this show and posting that EVERYTHING you say as a FACT. Are you kidding me? You arrogant pri*k! You have some nerve criticizing US when all I see is you live in a country which has less freedoms than us.

We were attacked, and we responded. Its a shame that Bush wasn't more aggressive that was my point.

We were attacked, we showed incredible restraint in not losing our cool and emotions. Are you really that stupid?? No, I want to see people get blown up so in the future they won't attack me or my family, or my country. Its either them or US. How can you be so fu*king dumb??

Its amazing how much you lie and spin and STATE everything as FACT. No proofs, or nothing. You are watching Canadian TV which is HEAVILY censored by the Canadian government, I see polls that say America is "evil" not the terrorists, I see Canadians blaming America FIRST for 9/11, are you kidding me??

Are you stupid or something?? Why don't you ever blame the terrorists??

"Why don't they just teach HISTORY in the US instead of AMERICAN history??"

Maybe cause its being taught in America?? They do teach world history. I never disputed that we didn't help each other during WWII. Its amazing to see aholes like you blame America first for 9/11. Why aren't you going on the terrorists's or Arabic boards/websites and screaming at them for attacking AMERICA?

Where the hell did/do you go to school that teaches yuo such crap.

Te issue here is not my agreeing that Canadian politics are warped, I have no argument to that.

Th eissue is that you INSIST that you are not having reports and photos censored before hitting America but that are shown worlide where not restricted. Do images of war actualy offend you? Does a picture of Brad in the 81st laying in a gutter with a dog licking his entrails avctually offend you? How so? You are all for America going to war, how would you not invite these images, that you have supported, from being shown durin gyour dinnertime? This is the reality of war, you can bury your head in the sand all you like but this is a reality. Don't want to see Timmy with his legs blown off as he screams for his mother? Then don't support a 'kin war you fool!

"Better send all YOUR kids to die JUST IN CASE someone, somewhere, sometime MAY have the possibility to harm MY family." very patriotic of you, save your own and F**k the rest of Americans.
I am sure your fellow American patriots are just tickled with glee to have a fellow citizen such as you, you sir are an absolute embarrassment to your country, you epitomize what has caused so much unrest and disdain toward America, YOU are the cause of America's threats 100%. I am sure there are HOARDS of americans who see this in you and really don't appreciate you calling yourself American. yet you toddle along thinking you are a true patriot that is protecting his country, if so then go to war. Is there a reason you aren't fighting for your righteous cause? Don't have a drivers licence yet perhaps?

WHY ISN'T GARION AT WAR ???

Whatever next, Garion make up your friggin mind. you were either attacked by Saddam, under threat of attack by Saddam or wanted to Liberate Iraq.

Well how about none of the above, what a child!

I must be dumb, I never saw Saddam attack yoo, I never knew he was even capable of launching intercontinental missiles that he didn't even possess the technology to launch.

And who exactly was it that attacked you, Saddam?
Then why did you go and TRY to stop the Taliban, that are actually just as strong and set against america as before.

What did the Iran conflict solve? Nothing?

Why would an Australian actually bother to make a Pro-Bush comment, there are enough of those already, perhaps they see a different story, one that the US thinks will turn people against Bush, and that's why they are against Bush while you aren't??

I know as a fact that several of our Australian peers each support different candidates for Australia, they are far from in lockstep. They are however able to understand that they have different views and expectations and don't expect the other to accept their views. So in essence I would say the contrary, they are not in lock-step but accept a difference in opinion as they realize neither government hold all the answers.

Are you referring to the AlQaeda terrorist whilch you already miserably failed to stop or the Saddam terrorists that supposedly had some advanced technology they were unaware of that enabled them to attack America?

Until you understand it you simply canot provide and educated reply, perhaps that's why you don't uinderstand a word anyone says unless it's YAY AMERICA!

I told you the media here will not (OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIED) will not show those graphic pictures. They even restrained from showing the beheadings.

Go ahead, I asked you MULTIPLE TIMES to show me the pictures and stuff. No, we in America understand the realities of WAR. But out of respect for the dead and their families they will not show those pictures. What don't you understand about that you scumbag?

What do you mean I blame 911 on america. and seeing as you are so educated, perhaps you could explain who it was in Iraq that you claim attcked you. If it was the possibility of attack, can tou then provide comcusive information as to what with or HOW to get that payload to America?

See just as your president has instilled fear into you, you STILL believe he was right. Yet most supporters of the war/Republicans will agre that you weren't threatened the way you claim you were. The problem I see is that you as many other do, lump Iraqians and Iraqis into the same group, they are middle eastern, brown people, camel jockeys or whatever you choose. That is like saying Canadians and Americans are the same. Anyone with any sanity would be quick to tell you that Canadians are much more globally accepted than Americans are, I know this first hand.

yet if YOU were in Iraq, you would lumber canadians in with Americans. Thank God Saddam's henchmen had more brains than you do.

You think we are going to wait around for the next 9/11 to happen??. NOOOOO!! WE ARE NOT! So if we feel a rogue nation is a threat to us, we will go and topple their government and rebuild, PERIOD. End of story. Will that stop the terrorists?? I dunno, but guess what, We are not taking that chance of 9/11 happening again. And your opinion and the opinion of the world means shi*t. So guess what pal...tell your communist canadian friends to go f*ck themselves. We are not going to ask the permission of the world to defend ourselves..get that through your head.

Canadians are cowardly pacifists like most of the world. If China wanted to invade Canada, they would be planning an attack against the US, not Canada. WHY? Because we PROTECT CANADA.

Ungrateful dirtbag, understand that before you blame USA. But after 9/11 did you go on the messageboards of Arabs/Muslims/terrorists and yell and scream at them?? DID YOU? or did you automatically assumed it was OUR fault and came directly here to spew your vile hatred??

Having courtesy to the dead and refusing to show information are two entirely different things, as has been said many times, this is NOT just about having respect for th dead. That is bein gused as an exuse to block reports and pictures the US government deems unsuitable for public viewing, if it's unsuitable then perhaps americans should be subjected to the same horror the rest of teh world sees.

First read this: http://tinyurl.com/26hdp

then view this: http://tinyurl.com/26hdp

This (America's WMD and the message they send to these overseas countries they expect support from: http://tinyurl.com/jzsk

This (lots of goodies and vids for you there): http://tinyurl.com/2mngw

This: http://tinyurl.com/yqkz3 (don't forget to check page 2)

And finally some catoons to lighten the sunken mood: http://tinyurl.com/2vcc6

if you still need access to further stories and pictures not included in the US news, let me know.

I can guarantee tha yor opinion is definitely NOT the popular opinion in the USA. NOBODY defends your claims of attaching out of fear. What are you scared of anyway? I thought you could just eliminate any country you chose in a heartbeat, perhaps that's what you should have done instead of killin gso many americans over it. Just how many more Americans must die for you to feel justified about 911.

"Canadians are cowardly pacifists like most of the world. If China wanted to invade Canada, they would be planning an attack against the US, not Canada. WHY? Because we PROTECT CANADA."

When have you ever you protected Canada? Was it when they entered WWII and fought beside England for a couple of years before you came to save them? I don't think so.

Was it when they pissed off the Taliban and were targeted ? Nope.

We don't create enemies the way you do, we fight beside you and your military relies on Canada's military, I can show you the US sources to confirm that if needed, but it is most likely a waste of time unless your mom is home to read it to you.

So lease mt Garion the faithful protector/coward who can't go fight himself, who is it that YOU have saved canada from?

As far as I can see, we kicked your army out of Canada in the 1800's when you tried to take Charlemaign (sp?), The British burned down the WhiteHouse, BinLaden destroyed your World trade center and wreaked havok in America, Iraqi's are still under constant attack from insurgents, you ran screaming from Vietnam. Just who have you so successfully defeatded and saved Garion, who?

who's the coward? Who needs protection? Like I said, you have been fed so much propaganda over you few years of life you actually believe all the Super power hype.

It was a massive set of demanded videos in Canada, but soon everyone was bored by its redundancy.

Yes the Helicopter Kills agaisnt what was said to be Iraqi's planting a bomb and later verified as Iraqi Farmers as work. Either way, what a cowardly way to fight a war. Kinda like hunting a rabbit with a gun instead of home-made snares.

It is pure cowardice that people actually see as heroism, your point is VERY valid, mush of this pain and suffering would be cheered on by some, unfrotunately America's loudest voices.

http://www.sparkpage.com/#b

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/

http://www.glennbeck.com/traggic/traggic.htm

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/wtcjumpers.html

http://memri.org/video/ (watch the Muslim Woman's magazine and watch what they teach a 3 year old girl).

http://www.truthusa.com/911.html

http://www.rock103.com/warpics/

http://attacked911.tripod.com/

Go ahead I dare you to see these.

As far as I can see, we kicked your army out of Canada in the 1800's when you tried to take Charlemaign (sp?), The British burned down the WhiteHouse, BinLaden destroyed your World trade center and wreaked havok in America, Iraqi's are still under constant attack from insurgents, you ran screaming from Vietnam. Just who have you so successfully defeatded and saved Garion, who?

You sound happy this happened to America. You dirty Fuck head. I knew it. If I didn't know it before I knew it. The headline itself says it, you sound happy that this attack on 9/11 happened.

YOU F*CK HEAD. You sound happy that this happened. I KNEW IT. I knew it. You didn't display your joy as the palistinians did, but you are finally revealed as a scumbag that you are.

What you have done, probably by mistake, is confirmed my statements that the US censors its war media.

First off, I had no idea people wer actually killed during 911, thanks for making yuor completely irrelevant point (THIS IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR INVADING IRAQ, THE TALIBAN ATTACKED YOU ON 911). How many time are you actually going to change you story and clam a new reason for attacking Iraq? 5, 10, 15? There is no sound and solid justification, just ideas, that's the whole problem that half your country and most of the world is contesting, are you possibly so arrogant yourself that you would not see this and perhaps start to question it?

As for all the photos of happy Iraqi's this is exactly my point when sayign all you see is the candy coated side of Iraq. MANY just as anal and slow as yourself have shown these pivtures here, just as Canadian and world news around the globe has also. the difference is, we also see the other side that I am sure you haven't looked at in the mere minutes it took you to respond with the Sesame Street version.

Nobody has ever said that Iraqi's are not better off withotu Saddam, what are you actually trying to get across here?

You have denied OVER and OVER again that your nedia censors these horros of war, you claim to se more accurate news and reports than any one elsedoes, which is enough to hurt the ribs it's so insane,so why do YOU have all teh pretty happy pictures in te US media and other see those PLUS the ugly destructive ones?

In closing, why are you using bigger bombs to kill Iraqi citizens in order to prevent an attack that you deem would be would be completely inhumane?

You are a farking loser mate, at least keep up with the times if you are going to attempt to contest everything someone says. I have seen some nutters here, some mroe volatile and mush more war hungry than your meager self, yet you simply take the cake for nonsensical bull that makes absolutely no point whatsoever, you are like a search engine that returns info on prostate cancer when you search for car prices.

Completely and utter irrelevant and not even close to making a point.

You should just stop.. He's obviously a few Bradys short of a bunch..

I "SOUND HAPPY" uhhhh, I think you are READING words, how can you therefore assume a certain tone is taken in their USE? I thinks that may be a large part of your problem here, you take offense to words and automatically add a voice, age and experience will show you better.

But way to discount and retort, great comeback!

I stated a fact, does that mean all your newspapers and reporters are happy too?

My point being that yuo come across as if you actually believe you are winning and defeating all the time, as if that is actually achieving anything, but in essence MANY of yuor military skirmishes have either been defeats or attacks you were possibly able to but didn't prevent, no matter how much intelligence and military might you have, yuo are still as vulnerable as the next guy. Makes it all worthwhile though, yuo sacrifice a quality education so your country can buy bigger bombs, so when they get their ass kicked they can carpet bomb the bastards.

the mentality scares me, as well as all the others who have evaded continuing to discuss your insane ideas.

It's almost like a rash, you don't want to scratch but it's just SOOOO damn irritating.

You see, this guy ACTUALLY believes what he says!

He really does buy it, WMD, no Liberation, no saving our asses, no saving Canada, no...

What a nutter, I have had a friend over for a while and he is simply livid that people like him think these things, he is far less tolerant of such craop than I am, for me it just passed time as I waited for network alarms to spring me into action.

I know maecuff and I am getting tiored of him. I have even tried to offer him some facts to help educate himself based on america nonbias viewpoints and explanations, I think everyone deserves a chance to understand andsee the sides, he has probably been flooded with this propaganda by peers and even his parents, thus needs toopen his eyes and try to understand the world for once. his ideas are simply toxic anc cancerous to the country, heaven forbid he has children one day and passes this on to them.

People such as Garion actually help me to respct Max, until he resorts to mere name calling but for the most part he is educated even if we have different values.

but thanks, I think i'm done here, sorry if yuo felt compelled to read it all, kinda like passing a bad accident and rubberknecking to get a look at the dead people whether you want to or not.

Have a great day, thanks for breaking the thread and I'll find a Yuk for ya this Friday, I was away last week so I missed it.
:-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/19/wput19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/06/19/ixportal.html

Listen dude, you are a very biased and a staunch anti-american and I, well I think you a are a plain asshole. Hey nothing wrong with that, everything is relative right? You probably think I am an asshole as well.

Now having said that, lets get a few things straight and start from the top. Just hear me out, ok?

America was attacked on 9/11. 3000 people died, innocent civilians mind you, who really had nothing to do with the middle eastern policy that pissed off Osama Bin Laden. But he figured it was entirely justifiable to attack and kill citizens.

So Bush with the help of our allies (England, France, Germany, Australia, India, Japan, Canada and anyone else I failed to mention) ousts the Taliban regime and instills a Democratic government in Afghanistan (whether that will hold, time will only tell).

But where you fail to understand is America and its people came to a conclusion LEAD by this administration that WE as a country are not going to wait till another 9/11 to happen. We will go and attack ANY rogue country that we feel presents an imminent threat to us. At that point the administration felt that Saddam was an imminent threat (in his pursuit of WMD) to us and must be removed. England, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Spain, Italy, and with US leading, waged a war on Iraq. Saddam was ousted, we built an interim government, and hopefully provided a better future in the process (only time will tell). Is our job complete or finished? No and noone here is disputing that. We will stay there and wait till its finished.

Now what problem do you see in what we did?

Hey Garion, it is a good thing I am an Australian, and secure enough in myself to allow someone to call me a moron. If I was a Garion, you would be reduced to radioactive glass by now.

Well, if you don't get my inference about missiles and reinforcing of power, then I am not about to elaborate, not here anyway. Perhaps over a quiet beer in a peaceful country pub.

If you need assistance to work it out, just think of the shape of a missile, then run on from there. Maybe find your local missile - you no doubt have plenty there - sit astride it and ponder for a while.

Why not visit Adelaide - before the Garions nuke it. You could travel this great land, meet wonderful people, and kill them!

Alan

...than the discussion I have been taking part in ("Non US Citizens, who would you vote for?")!!! I have also been in a debate with Max on political issues. It has been quite a civil discussion so far between me and Max - with me anti the current US govt and Max pro - it seems. Max - this is what I'm talking about!!!! Look at the views expressed here ("typically American" - arrogant etc etc). Your president is not helping to turn these stereotypes around!! Well done to Bush if you think he's doing well with domestic affairs but you really have no idea what we see internationally. FYI - http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1554453,00.html
This is a South African website - I like the title of the article.

...than the discussion I have been taking part in ("Non US Citizens, who would you vote for?")!!! I have also been in a debate with Max on political issues. It has been quite a civil discussion so far between me and Max - with me anti the current US govt and Max pro - it seems. Max - this is what I'm talking about!!!! Look at the views expressed here ("typically American" - arrogant etc etc). Your president is not helping to turn these stereotypes around!! Well done to Bush if you think he's doing well with domestic affairs but you really have no idea what we see internationally. FYI - http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1554453,00.html
This is a South African website - I like the title of the article.

.
The use of "that that" has always confused me. It's seldom used, but I do see it from time to time. President Lincoln even used a "double that" in his Gettysburgh Address. I must say, however, that I try to find alternative wording when that circumstance arises, but sometimes it's rather difficult to quickly come up with different wording, as was the case in the above message. (I could have, but didn't really want to make the effort.) But it makes me wonder if it is indeed correct grammar. Any thoughts?

To me its ok to critique whats going on in another country, as long as you try and stay open and balanced. Many of the sources you had were strongly biased(but from differing ends of the spectrum). I criticise my own country as well.

In 1970, we had a couple of political kidnappings conducted by a terrorist group supporting Quebec independance. The Prime Minister(liberal) invoked the War Measures Act, which gives the Canadian government extraordinary powers of arrest without counsel or trial - similar to Guantanamo Bay. Some police chiefs from outside Quebec used it to round up all their troublemakers - hippies, draft dodgers, low level drug dealers, and just toss them in jail until the act was revoked. At the time we were all scared - there had been some bombings previously, and one of the two kidnapped men, a Quebec cabinet minister was killed. But subsequently when time passed and I studied political science, I came to believe that it was a blatant abuse of power. I needed time though to get to that perspective.

I don't believe everything the US government does is wrong, though some do. I think there are some fundemental flaws in US foreign policy, particularly in the middle east, which have contributed to the ill feelings in the arab community. That does not justify the use of terror in any way. But it helps explain it.

I think its helpful to understand the Canadian US relationship. One former prime minister described Canada as the mouse sleeping beside the elephant, a good analogy.

We are your biggest trading partner by far - I remember a stat from many years ago (80s) that the Province of Ontario did more business with the US than the country of Japan.

We are the biggest investor in the US. We own the most US real estate held by another country.

We have been co-operating in NORAD since the cold war began. We hold joint exercises all the time. We work hard at making sure our forces can work with yours. The commander of the 101st airborne in Afghanistan had tears in his eyes when he said goodbye to the Canadian forces(which left and came back last year).

We are as close as two countries can possibly be. But Canada is often ignored, sidelined, criticised, and attacked by Americans, especially those in Congress and the White House. And given our special relationship, we are greatly affected when America makes sharp changes in course or direction.

So you may understand that Canadians are sensitive. That doesn't excuse rudeness, but it may help explain it. Don't feel insulted Oz but an "average" Canadian is happy to be Canadian and not American, but is too polite to be rude about it.

James

With all due respect, I certainly think that these are your own words, thought and feelings and for that I applaud you. Very logically and thoughfully presented, kudos for the post.

What you seem to have missd, probably from not being here when these "discussions" started, is that I have NEVER at anytime said that this war is not necessary.
Saddam is an evil dictator, he is poison to the people of Iraq and enyone ele in the world he decides to pick on. He needed to be removed, the people (after the dust settles, no pun intended) wil be better off in the long run, HOPEFULLY they can retain a democracy.

So while you may think I am striongly oppsed to you invading Iraq I am actually NOT opposed to the resolution at all.

My ONLY beef with this whole invasion from the onset is that GWB was mislead and acted spontaneously to that information even against the will of you allied forces. This caused America to go into ths conflict without the support they required to effectively execute operations with the absolute lowest risk of casualties. Many lies would have not been wasted had GWB not acted on his own.

Now, the allied countries that were asked to eneter were not all adamantly opposed to invading Iraq and removing Saddam, MANY Europeans are under a MUCH greater threat from Saddam than the US ever was/is and they are prepared to act accordingly.

The JUSTIFICATION for the invasion, as you have echoed MANY times including nin your last post, was to save you all from an "imminent" threat. Now Max has been quite clear in sayig that GWB NEVER said you were at risk of an "IMMINENT" threat. yet I protest as this may not have been said in those exact words, GWB DID imply that and THAT's how people such as yourself have felt a need to support this invasion, 'WMD' 'America is next' and all that, wheras England was actually under a far greater threat than the USA, Saddam had neither the technology nor the logistics to attack America with his substandard missiles, that barely stack up against those that the USA possesses that actually COULD ompose an attack Iraq.

Allies were doubtful of the 'INTELLIGENCE' GWB rovided via the CIA's own questionable informants in Iraq. The general concensus was that the UN WAS being very effective in its searches as they had uncovered unused warheads not WMD that could reach America, and were being allowed to further investigate, I believe they asked for a few weeks to finish inspections, they WERE WORKING.

GWB refused to let them finish and acted with a knee jerk reaction by instilling fear into an already scared american public (911 is not quickly forgotten and leaves a great deal of fear in people). He USED this fear to motivate support for a premature invasion and American soldiers suffered because of it, THIS I don't agree with, from my viewpoint GWB is responsible for your lives and he abused his power and your brave soldiers were sent to die prematurley. I know every side actually loses in war, but your casualties could have been lower had you been receieving proper recon and other allied special forces to help properly execute missions, not to downplay your own abilities.

When the WMD 'scare' was questioned and later proven to be inaccurate information given by informants with ulterior motives, the focus was INSTANTLY changed to LIBERATION of Iraq, which was a completely new (although justified) angle.

Now if THIS was given as a reason fro invasion to begin with, I sincerely doubt as many people in the US would have supoprted their families being sent to war to 'save' another Middle Eastern country so soon after seeing the results in Iran, where Bin Laden wasn't yet captured and AlQaeda are still strong and opposed to america.

So I see the whole WMD issue as a misleading attempt to SCARE Americans into action.

If he had waited a few weeks for the UN to finish, even if they came up empty handed, and THEN propsed his case to the Allies as being to LIberate Iraq from Saddam and instill a new democracy, then I would have fully supoprted all th allied countries, including Canada enternig this conflict in an attempt to combat terrorism.

Unfortunately, it was done hastily and against the wishes of those who have always stood by you and supported america, to then see americans foulmouthing these allies for not also jumping the gun just leaves a bad taste in EVERYONE's mouth as it is just not cool.

Perhaps you will be able to understand now that I don't DISLIKE AMERICA, or it's people, I dislike the actions of the present government. Now I will also not say that Kerry would do better or Gore for that matter, I have very little interest in US or ANY politics for that matter, but since this is of a GLOBAL concern, nt just your own, I have taken some time to see both sides of the issue and GWB's is not the pretty one at all.

Therefore in conclusion, America isn't wrong, but I feel GWB is and those who followed him without questioning him leave me baffled as everyone saw the negative except American;s who were fed fear and revenge on a plate so soon after Taliban destrpyed the WTC.

Footnote: You provided links to all the 911 rvenge sites and yes I saw them, and YES they are chilling, as chlling as it was to have a conference interrupted that morning to show, via sattelite, the horrors happening in New York. I watched the people jump from the WTC on the Canadian news and the gore as they landed, that may have suitably been omitted from US channels. i KNOW people who were directly effected by it.

I am not condoning the WTC atacks, but that has NOTHING even remotely related to the reasons given for invading Iraq.

Hope you can now see where my focus is ad believe me it isn't supporting attacks on your country in any way shape or form. Nro do I deny you the right to defend yourself and oppose those that may harm you, this was just jumping the gun unjustly in my view.

can we then sit this aside and agree that we are in different places and although we see the same conclusion we just don't agree on the justification and haste involved?