# Ouch...



## loyalcana (12 Dec 2004)

Coulter: Canada is "lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent"; Carlson: "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras"

On November 30, as President Bush visited Canada to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in an effort to improve the two countries' strained relations, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter and CNN Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson ridiculed the United States' northern neighbor. On FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Coulter said that Canadians "better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." On CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Carlson stated: "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting"; he went on to say that instead of following politics, "the average Canadian is busy dogsledding." And on Crossfire, Carlson referred to the "limpid, flaccid nature of Canadian society."

Canada is the United States' largest trade partner. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. trade with Canada accounted for a cumulative $38.5 billion dollars in September 2004 alone. Further, as Bush noted in a December 1 speech in Halifax, Nova Scotia, "Canada has taken a series of critical steps to guard against the danger of terrorism." In its country profile of Canada, the U.S. State Department website notes: 

The bilateral relationship between the United States and Canada is perhaps the closest and most extensive in the world. It is reflected in the staggering volume of trade--the equivalent of over $1 billion a day in goods, services, and investment income--and people, more than 200 million a year crossing the U.S.-Canadian border. In fields ranging from law enforcement cooperation to environmental cooperation to free trade, the two countries have set the standard by which many other countries measure their own progress.

Below are excerpts from Coulter's and Carlson's Canada-bashing.

From the November 30 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes:

COULTER: Conservatives, as a general matter, take the position that you should not punish your friends and reward your enemies. And Canada has become trouble recently.

It's -- I suppose it's always, I might add, the worst Americans who end up going there. The Tories after the Revolutionary War, the Vietnam draft dodgers after Vietnam. And now after this election, you have the blue-state people moving up there.

[...]

COULTER: There is also something called, when you're allowed to exist on the same continent of the United States of America, protecting you with a nuclear shield around you, you're polite and you support us when we've been attacked on our own soil. They [Canada] violated that protocol.

[...]

COULTER: They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

[...]

COULTER: We could have taken them [Canada] over so easily.

[ALAN] COLMES: We could have taken them over? Is that what you want?

COULTER: Yes, but no. All I want is the western portion, the ski areas, the cowboys, and the right-wingers.

[...]

*COULTER: They don't even need to have an army, because they are protected, because they're on the same continent with the United States of America. If we were not the United States of America, Canada -- I mean, we're their trading partner. We keep their economy afloat.*

[...]

ELLIS HENICAN [Newsday columnist]: We share a lot of culture and a lot of interests. Why do we want to have to ridicule them and be deeply offended if they disagree with us?

COULTER: Because they speak French.

COLMES: There's something else I want to point out about the French. Is it's fashionable again on your side to denounce the French.

COULTER: We like the English-speaking Canadians.

From the November 30 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports:

CARLSON: Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting.

[...]

CARLSON: We exploit your [addressing Canadian Member of Parliament Carolyn Parrish] natural resources, that's true. But in the end, Canadians with ambition move to the United States. That has been sort of the trend for decades. It says something not very good about Canada. And I think it makes Canadians feel bad about themselves and I understand that.

[...]

CARLSON: Canada needs the United States. The United States does not need Canada. 

[...]

CARLSON: I think if Canada were responsible for its own security -- you would be invaded by Norway if it weren't for the United States.

[...]

CARLSON: [A]bsolutely the countries will remain allies and there will always be politicians who see it to their benefit to stomp on Bush dolls [referring to action taken by Parrish]. But no, I don't think the average Canadian feels -- the average Canadian is busy dogsledding.

[...]

PARRISH: No, there's not a lot of dogsledding. There's a lot of dog walking, my friend. Not a lot of dogsledding.

CARLSON: Welcome to our century.

From the November 30 edition of CNN's Crossfire:

CARLSON: Canada's essentially -- essentially a made-in-Taiwan version of the United States.

[...]

CARLSON: I'm surprised there was anybody left in Canada to attend the protests. I noticed that most sort of vigorous, ambitious Canadians, at least almost all comedians in Canada, come to the United States in the end. Doesn't that tell you something about the sort of limpid, flaccid nature of Canadian society, that people with ambition come here? What does that tell you about Canada?

â â€ A.Shttp://mediamatters.org/items/200412010011
Pretty stinging


----------



## mrosseker (12 Dec 2004)

Well, if they're going to be like that, we're just gonna take our ski-doos, jet-skis, velcro, smarties, Crispy Crunch, Coffee Crisp, Lacrosse, Hockey, Basketball, Baseball, Apple Pie, Telephones, Short-wave radios, Insulin, Penicillin AND Superman, and everything else we invented and were nice enough to let you Yankees say you invented, and go home. On our dog sleds.

Oh, and if we're not feeling too flaccid, we'll burn down your whitehouse again, too.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (12 Dec 2004)

Don't forget the antigravity suit, green ink, five-pin bowling, retractable beer carton handle, and gingerale...eh?


----------



## leopard11 (12 Dec 2004)

one word:






ok so it wasnt a word,


----------



## PARAMEDIC (12 Dec 2004)

Typical American Bubble Syndrome.

I do believe we need to send him a copy of world history and highlight the parts where we kicked their arse, also send him an information package about life in Canada, just in case his hillbilly mind was dreaming of us living in Igloos. While we are at it send a second copy to this guy.........





 darn forgot how to post pics. :-[

Lest we forget the AVRO Arrow which made Americans so intimidated that they had to sneak around to destroy it.( my opinion)

And if the thought ever comes to mind of rolling over and crushing us, they would get snapped real quick outta la la land with a sound reminder of the confederate days just in case that beating was wearing off.

But hey the Americans also need their version of Carolyn Parish.  Lets see if he catches any flak for his opinions.


BTW are they gonna have a re run on this anytime.


----------



## vangemeren (13 Dec 2004)

I used to be a big fan of Crossfire, but I just can't stand Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson, and all of the other right-wing nutty bars (A lot of left-wing weenies to, but they don't bother me as much) making comments, for the most part are based on ignorance.  It's a minority anyways, both countries have people that should play in traffic.


----------



## Alex252 (13 Dec 2004)

Cant forget, we made Basketball....wonder what the states would be like with no Basketball


----------



## jrhume (13 Dec 2004)

Consider the source, guys.  Consider the source.  As noted above, both countries have loudmouth types who don't seem to perform any function other than participating in the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle.

Personally, I'd like to see Coulter and that nutcase of yours -- Parrish? -- in a mud wrestling match.  It would be good for a laugh or two.

Jim


----------



## Horse_Soldier (13 Dec 2004)

I find Anne Coulter quite amusing, but to take her seriously on anything would be giving her nut-bar point of view too much credibility.  Just like Carolyn "They're all morons" Parrish  :blotto:


----------



## vangemeren (13 Dec 2004)

You're right Horse_Soldier, I think I remember her calling Senator McCarthy a "hero" on Crossfire awhile back. I also wonder if her being a blonde has anything to do with it?


----------



## Scott (13 Dec 2004)

Good point, Old Guy, arseholes and loudmouths know no nationality.


----------



## Franko (13 Dec 2004)

Ya beat me to it Old Guy.....

Every country has it's fair shair of idiots who get on TV.....

Most of those people mentioned above are extreemly right wing and have a tendancy to shoot off their mouth before they think. 

Thankfully they are not in a position to do the things they say.

Regards


----------



## armyrules (14 Dec 2004)

Alex252 said:
			
		

> Cant forget, we made Basketball....wonder what the states would be like with no Basketball


               That's true


----------



## foerestedwarrior (14 Dec 2004)

mrosseker said:
			
		

> Oh, and if we're not feeling too flaccid, we'll burn down your whitehouse again, too.



Just to be picky, we burned down the Green House. When I lived in BC, I had a kid move form california, and when we had a histroy class, he didnt beleive that the US had aever lost to Canada, they were tought that the war existed, but nothing more.


----------



## 48Highlander (14 Dec 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> Just to be picky, we burned down the Green House. When I lived in BC, I had a kid move form california, and when we had a histroy class, he didnt beleive that the US had aever lost to Canada, they were tought that the war existed, but nothing more.



Well if you REALLY want to be picky, we didn't burn down anything.  The brits did it.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (14 Dec 2004)

Avec canadian militia


----------



## Danjanou (14 Dec 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> Avec canadian militia



For the 456th time there were no, repeat no, Canadian units fencible or militia present at the burning of Washington, Brits only. The Canadian units were too busy overrruning Michigan Territory, capturing half of Maine, and sacking and burning Buffalo (again) that week. 8)

I really don't know if I would want to see Parrish and Coulter in a mud wrestling match, well maybe as a diet aid.


----------



## Scott (14 Dec 2004)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I really don't know if I would want to see Parrish and Coulter in a mud wrestling match, well maybe as a diet aid.



Only if the rules stated that to win one must hold their oponents head under the mud until the other had stopped moving. ;D


----------



## Heavenguard (15 Dec 2004)

PARAMEDIC said:
			
		

> BTW are they gonna have a re run on this anytime.



Haven't a clue, but you can watch it here: http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=1211


----------



## Danjanou (15 Dec 2004)

scott1nsh said:
			
		

> Only if the rules stated that to win one must hold their opponents head under the mud until the other had stopped moving. ;D



Ok Scott I like that but it still leaves us with one of them. Hmm I wonder if we could resurrect that quaint old Mayan/Aztec custom where the winning team was ceremoniously put to death after their victory?


----------



## Gouki (15 Dec 2004)

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18238

I wonder what those douchebags Coulter and Carlson would say about this comic.


----------



## 48Highlander (15 Dec 2004)

That's pretty ignorant....


----------



## mrosseker (16 Dec 2004)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> For the 456th time there were no, repeat no, Canadian units fencible or militia present at the burning of Washington, Brits only. The Canadian units were too busy overrruning Michigan Territory, capturing half of Maine, and sacking and burning Buffalo (again) that week. 8)



I apologize for the historical inaccuracy that started this whole thing, but does it really matter?  As a general rule, americans have no idea about anything that doesn't emphasize that they are the most powerful nation in the universe.

                                                                               :dontpanic:


----------



## PARAMEDIC (16 Dec 2004)

Dont want to start a shite fest..but 48th heres a good point .... technically we were still a british territory or under british rule  ;D so it can be argued that we still caused them greif.. what ya think??


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Dec 2004)

Well since we WERE under Brit rule, it would actually also be inaccurate to even state that "Canadian militia" took part in any of the fighting.  If you're aiming for accuracy here, they were Brittish militia who happened to be living on the North American continent   So, if you want to pursue that line of logic, "we" didn't do anything in 1812.


----------



## SHARP WO (17 Dec 2004)

And lets not forget the fenian raids and that there were units made up of locals, Hamilton Niagara and York Militia and 2 units specifically the Lincolns and the Welland Regiments and also Butler's Rangers.

Just remeber we have Rick Mercer making fun of Americans.

SHARP WO


----------



## foerestedwarrior (17 Dec 2004)

SHARP WO said:
			
		

> Just remeber we have Rick Mercer making fun of Americans.




The most important part eh??


----------



## armyrules (20 Dec 2004)

Heh Heh Rcik Mercer a funny man.


----------



## Slim (20 Dec 2004)

OK Guys (and gals)

I don't believe that threads like this are what we're all about here. Lately there has been an element that is trying to run down the States and G Bush at any cost. Its not the sort of thing that a responsible site for military and ex-military members need to have or post. All it does is make us look like we're playing into whatever crap these two (in the original post #1) were going on about. Its stupid and a waste of time.

Furthermore we have a number of U.S. Servicemen, past and present, who frequent this site and are most welcome. How do you think they feel when all of our closet anti-American members and their buddies start putting this crap up.

Time to rethink those posts!

Slim


----------



## Scott (21 Dec 2004)

scott1nsh said:
			
		

> Good point, Old Guy, arseholes and loudmouths know no nationality.



Hate quoting myself but it does reinforce Slim's very good point.


----------



## atticus (22 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Well since we WERE under Brit rule, it would actually also be inaccurate to even state that "Canadian militia" took part in any of the fighting.   If you're aiming for accuracy here, they were Brittish militia who happened to be living on the North American continent    So, if you want to pursue that line of logic, "we" didn't do anything in 1812.



I just want to say that many of the British living in Canada, among others, considered themselves to be Canadians at the time, so even though we weren't a country yet, there were still many Canadians. 

And another thing on some Americans not knowing much because of messed up teaching, on a visit to the US, I had a chance to see an American text book, there was a map of North America in it and the map was showing the US to be much larger north to south than Canada (from Alert to the US border). It also showed Mexico to be much smaller.


----------



## 48Highlander (22 Dec 2004)

atticus said:
			
		

> I just want to say that many of the British living in Canada, among others, considered themselves to be Canadians at the time, so even though we weren't a country yet, there were still many Canadians.
> 
> And another thing on some Americans not knowing much because of messed up teaching, on a visit to the US, I had a chance to see an American text book, there was a map of North America in it and the map was showing the US to be much larger north to south than Canada (from Alert to the US border). It also showed Mexico to be much smaller.



    You sure you didn't just dream that up?  Yes, our education system is better than the American system, but c'mon, let's not be silly here.  I'll bet you're also convinced that Bush was reading that book upside-down, right?


----------



## atticus (22 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> You sure you didn't just dream that up?   Yes, our education system is better than the American system, but c'mon, let's not be silly here.   I'll bet you're also convinced that Bush was reading that book upside-down, right?



I really, really didn't dream that up. I was very surprised to see it that way! I also wasn't really reading anything out of the book so maybe there is a story as to why it was like that. 

Whats that about Bush reading a book upside-down? I don't think all Americans are stupid, just the ones that seem to get onto tv somehow.


----------



## 48Highlander (22 Dec 2004)

Bah.  A lot of my friends and relatives tend to be very left-wing-hippy-tree-huging-liberal so I'm constantly getting pictures of George Bush with an upside-down book, or looking through binoculars with the lens-caps on.  Just dumb pictures either taken out of context or photoshopped.  Anyway I don't know where you saw that map but I can guarantee you that the American education system doesn't teach their students that Canada is part of the US.  Maybe it was a gag-book, or maybe just the map itself was a joke or what have you.  It's not what's being taught to US students though.


----------



## atticus (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Bah.   A lot of my friends and relatives tend to be very left-wing-hippy-tree-huging-liberal so I'm constantly getting pictures of George Bush with an upside-down book, or looking through binoculars with the lens-caps on.   Just dumb pictures either taken out of context or photoshopped.   Anyway I don't know where you saw that map but I can guarantee you that the American education system doesn't teach their students that Canada is part of the US.   Maybe it was a gag-book, or maybe just the map itself was a joke or what have you.   It's not what's being taught to US students though.



oh, I seen that picture with Bush with the lens caps on the binoculars. I think you misunderstood me about that text book; I mean that it showed that the US was larger north to south than Canada, not that Canada was a part of the US.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

atticus said:
			
		

> oh, I seen that picture with Bush with the lens caps on the binoculars. I think you misunderstood me about that text book; I mean that it showed that the US was larger north to south than Canada, not that Canada was a part of the US.



   Oh.  Actually, as far as I know, that's normal.  Due to the merkator projection or some such.  It's the reason Africa looks almost the same size as Canada on the map when in fact it should be twice as big.  Don't quote me on that though, maybe someone else here knows exactly how it works.


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Dec 2004)

Old Guy said:
			
		

> Consider the source, guys.   Consider the source.   As noted above, both countries have loudmouth types who don't seem to perform any function other than participating in the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle.
> 
> Jim



How true Jim,  and Canadians in general are not going to knock a whole country south of the 49th just because of a few idiots spewing shyte on international television.

I have many American friends, and I have always enjoyed myself while in the USA.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## FredDaHead (24 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Bah.   A lot of my friends and relatives tend to be very left-wing-hippy-tree-huging-liberal so I'm constantly getting pictures of George Bush



In my experience, it's not the tree-hugging liberals that are a problem with US-bashing. It's the "I'm a left-winger 'cause it makes me look cool and rebellious."

I had a few left-wing-hippy-tree-hugging-liberals wish me luck with the army (which the I-wanna-be-cool-left-wingers don't do) and also, some of them actually defend the US from out-of-context attacks, like when someone bashes the US over something without knowing what they're talking about. "Real" left-wing people are well-educated in what they protest, and usually try to tell you "this is wrong because of such-and-such reasons" whereas "fake" left-wing people just go "THIS IS SO AWEFUL MAN, LIKE.. IT'S JUST WRONG!"

Just for the record, Rick Mercer is one of the most awesome people ever to be on the CBC. (not like it's hard or anything.. who else do they have besides Peter Mansbridge? Don Cherry?)

As to the original topic... I think the left and the right are both equally stupid: they both make broad generalisations, they both ignore what the other side has to say, and they both lie when the facts aren't in their interest. They also both make up facts, spin information, and generally run around talking out of their behinds. Neither side is completely right or completely wrong. (I consider myself a centrist, as I'm on different sides depending on the issues.)

But what was said on CNN was definately out of line... Oh well, I'm going to bed now.


----------



## armyrules (7 Jan 2005)

goo point slim I just thought that Rick Mercer is a funny man in general. I have no qualms with the States and G-Bush I think that they are all fine people


----------



## Slim (7 Jan 2005)

Thanks Armyrules for that comment.

You know there's nothing wrong with having a legitimate beef with a person or country. But as was mentioned earlier, many of these "lefty's" just bash things (not just the US) just because its cool and the chick (or guys) they want to sleep with happen to hold that particular viewpoint.

I think they look kind of silly when doing stuff like that...It would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous!

Slim


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jan 2005)

In my opinion Anne Coulter is no better then Michael Moore, both idiots from the end-of-the-spectrum who are talking the talk (and not much else).

I second the notion of watching her and Parrish mudwrestle.


----------



## Slim (7 Jan 2005)

> I second the notion of watching her and Parrish mudwrestle.



We could bill it as "see the battle of the political piggies as they try and stick their opinions to each other...with mud!"Lol

Slim


----------



## rhourd (7 Jan 2005)

I must say when I first read the initial post I was pissed but, I'm glad to say that I had a good laugh with the first few replies. Seriously though, I want to know where those loud mouths (and our own) get the stupid ideas that they do? I mean, we did smoke them in the war of 1812 but, who cares. We've had our tiffs in the past but we all got along. I have been hearing more and more resentment on the behalf of the American people after we refused to send troops to Iraq. What did we ever do to them. We've supported them many times before. Why are they getting all catty over this war? Sadly to say I will never be able to understand politicians OR political annalists for that matter. It seems that more and more people now a days have a lot to say but don't really have the kahunas to back it up. Sure, Canadians and Americans alike live in free societies where we can say what ever we like and not get shot in the streets but, what ever happened to a little common Curtisy to keep you opinions to yourself or at least not be so rude when you voice them. I try to keep an open mind on most issues but, people like Coulter are giving Americans an ever worse name. oh well, it's all over my head any way. I just want to know this though....CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?


----------



## JasonH (8 Jan 2005)

Old Guy said:
			
		

> Consider the source, guys.  Consider the source.  *As noted above, both countries have loudmouth types who don't seem to perform any function other than participating in the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle.*
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see Coulter and that nutcase of yours -- Parrish? -- in a mud wrestling match.  It would be good for a laugh or two.
> 
> Jim



I say introduce the :rofl: smiley


----------



## Leviathan (8 Jan 2005)

Young_Gun said:
			
		

> Why are they getting all catty over this war?



Simple answer:

They wish they had more allies involved in Iraq that could share the blame.

Nothing makes you feels better about yourself after a realizing a severe mistake you made than dragging other people down with you.


----------



## Slim (8 Jan 2005)

> Nothing makes you feels better about yourself after a realizing a severe mistake you made than dragging other people down with you.



So, trying to free people from the rule of a dictator who, along with his sons, has raped, tortured and killed innocent people for years, is a mistake?! And lets not forget thoughs weapons of mass-distruction that the SAS found during the first gulph war while they were hunting scud missles.

Glad to see you have such a clear picture of what's going on in the world. The United States did a courageous thing...Kindly don't run down someone for doing something that you know nothing about.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## rhourd (9 Jan 2005)

Where as Saddam needed to be usurped from his "throne" of power i think that the American government is going about it all the wrong way. Although removing Saddam from power and finding weapons of mass distruction are both noble causes I can't help but feel that the US is getting into yet another Vietnam war. I support the ideas of getting rid of the weapons and getting rid of saddam but, who's to say that the American gov't isn't just trying to impose western ideas? If I may be as bold to make a comparison, the American army rolled over Iraq in a few days. They blew by most of saddam's forces feeling that they were not a threat. It should be noted that Hitler (and bush is not like Hitler but...) rolled over Europe with his Blitzkrieg. Maybe Bush's advisers just wanted to try a tactic that worked for another army but, if I may be as bold to say that I think the fact that both American and German armies have now done this Lighting fast attack is kind of weird. Is it possibly that there is some connection? I know, it's a crazy thought but, it's just something wild to ponder.

P.S. I apologize in advance if I offended any one out there.


----------



## 48Highlander (9 Jan 2005)

Young_Gun said:
			
		

> Where as Saddam needed to be usurped from his "throne" of power i think that the American government is going about it all the wrong way. Although removing Saddam from power and finding weapons of mass distruction are both noble causes I can't help but feel that the US is getting into yet another Vietnam war. I support the ideas of getting rid of the weapons and getting rid of saddam but, who's to say that the American gov't isn't just trying to impose western ideas? If I may be as bold to make a comparison, the American army rolled over Iraq in a few days. They blew by most of saddam's forces feeling that they were not a threat. It should be noted that Hitler (and bush is not like Hitler but...) rolled over Europe with his Blitzkrieg. Maybe Bush's advisers just wanted to try a tactic that worked for another army but, if I may be as bold to say that I think the fact that both American and German armies have now done this Lighting fast attack is kind of weird. Is it possibly that there is some connection? I know, it's a crazy thought but, it's just something wild to ponder.
> 
> P.S. I apologize in advance if I offended any one out there.



    Yeah I totaly see where you're going with this.  You know, both Hitler and Bush had a dog too.  There's GOTTA be some sort of connection when they have so much in common!


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2005)

Oh yeah!

Did they talk to theirs like Mackenzie King did?

GW


----------



## Slim (9 Jan 2005)

> I can't help but feel that the US is getting into yet another Vietnam war.



The only thing that the U.S. is trying to impose on Iraq is FREEDOM FOR ITS PEOPLE! And yes its going to be a long hard road! Thats why we have soldiers...To do the hard things!

The quality of a good person is not giving up when the going gets tough, despite all the self-doubt and the other people that constantly second-guess and run him/her down.

If I was living under a tin-pot dictator then sure as hell I would want someone to come and rescue me and my family.

The only people who are causing the troubles there are a bunch of power-hungry fanatics trying to return the country to a state of medievilism, and those stupid enough to believe all the crap they spew.

And those who believe the crap are NOT LIMITED TO IRAQ!!

Slim


----------



## rhourd (10 Jan 2005)

OK so Hitler had a dog. it makes no never mind. My point is that I see the United states government as sometimes getting involved in conflicts where there right or motives to be present in such conflicts is not there. I'll make a point to state that the U.S. is NOT the only country to do this. No need for the pot to call the kettle black right? But why does the American gov't want to be so involved? Yes, the people of Iraq have mostly benefited from the help of the U.S. but, look at the cons of the situation. American soldiers dead, towns and villages bombed all to hell, population displaced, government virtually non-existant and so on. I understand that collateral damage is a fact of war but, come on, are you to say that the U.S. is in the right when ever they decide to intervein and march on a country? Don't get me wrong though. I was more than satisfied when the U.S. Army captured Saddam. It was about time that his BS was put to an end. I just can see the situation escalating into something that the American Government can't handle, again.


----------



## Slim (10 Jan 2005)

Young_Gun said:
			
		

> OK so Hitler had a dog. it makes no never mind. My point is that I see the United states government as sometimes getting involved in conflicts where there right or motives to be present in such conflicts is not there.



Like WW2   right...After all Germany didn't actually attack the U.S.   :




> Why does the American gov't want to be so involved? Yes, the people of Iraq have mostly benefited from the help of the U.S. but, look at the cons of the situation. American soldiers dead, towns and villages bombed all to hell, population displaced, government virtually non-existant and so on. I understand that collateral damage is a fact of war but, come on, are you to say that the U.S. is in the right when ever they decide to intervein and march on a country? Don't get me wrong though. I was more than satisfied when the U.S. Army captured Saddam. It was about time that his BS was put to an end. I just can see the situation escalating into something that the American Government can't handle, again.



If the U.S. had walked away from Iraq afterthey had caught Saddam then I guarantee my next 6 paychecks that there would be another tin-pot dictator well on his way to power in that country right now! And the U.S. would have an even bigger problem on its hands than the civil war that they are currently facing.

They would also be broadcasting the message to the world that the U.S. doesn't care about anyone but its self! Then all the left-leaning wacko's WOULD be right in their estimation of our southern neighbours.

You can't just wage a war and then walk away from a country when you're done...WW2 was started because the first world war allies did exactly that to Germany, giving the rise of a militaristic dictator a practically forgone conclusion! 

We have to stick by the Iraqi people and demonstraight that we won't abandon them to some warlike a$$h@le who likes to rape, poison and murder anyone he can get his hands on!

By the way, about Iraq, this widespread ignorant and uninformed attitude that seems to hold sway thoughout the nation is the reason that the liberal party is in power in Canada and the CF is practically non-existant!


----------



## Blakey (10 Jan 2005)

Not trying to hijack the thread but the 1812 thing got me intrigued. ;D
I found this on the web, I guess the British read a different history book that Canadians and Americans....? i dunno :
Anyone?


----------



## atticus (11 Jan 2005)

Blakey said:
			
		

> Not trying to hijack the thread but the 1812 thing got me intrigued. ;D
> I found this on the web, I guess the British read a different history book that Canadians and Americans....? i dunno :
> Anyone?



Sorry, what the link???


----------



## Blakey (11 Jan 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> Sorry, what the link???



oops sorry  :-[
http://www.aug24.co.uk/Rowles/why.html


----------



## Danjanou (11 Jan 2005)

Nice link. Actually in addition to pilfering the President's wine the Brits actually scoffed down the entire victory dinner laid out in anticipation of the returning US Militia Generals after they repelled the invading Redcoats. Then they torched the place.

Nice to see consistency in the world, Even the Brits get it wrong though, there were no Canadians in this campaign.


----------



## atticus (11 Jan 2005)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Nice to see consistency in the world, Even the Brits get it wrong though, there were no Canadians in this campaign.



Weren't the Canadians at the time busy taking a different state? But also, couldn't there have been Canadians serving with the Brits, after all, we were a British colony.


----------



## Danjanou (12 Jan 2005)

There is a slim possibility that someone born in Canada or the various colonies here if you want to be accurate was serving in some of the units that were in that campaign, most likely as an officer. There is evidence to suggest some of the officers may have been former US colonists who having lost all years earlier joined the Army. Odds are though it's unlikely as the units involved were shipped directly from Europe most having fought in Spain prior. 

Transportation wasn't as good then, so I can't see a local joining a unit in England, maybe one on garrison duty here, but not across the ocean.

And yeah our troops were busy torching Buffalo (again) around that time  ;D


----------



## GreatbigC (13 Jan 2005)

One of my favourite quotes

 "In my time we have gone from JFK to George W. Bush, from RFK to Al Gore.  If this keeps up, in 12 years I believe we will be voting for plants"
  

Just thought it was kinda funny


----------



## Leviathan (5 Feb 2005)

I was a little late getting back to this... But here I am. :boring:

"So, trying to free people from the rule of a dictator who, along with his sons, has raped, tortured and killed innocent people for years, is a mistake?! And lets not forget thoughs weapons of mass-distruction that the SAS found during the first gulph war while they were hunting scud missles."~Slim

Sadam and his son's have acctually raped people? And there is proof of this? 
Or was he just in controll of a government which fostered an invironment that allowed such terrible acts to take place.
Which IS A VERY BAD THING! (Don't get me wrong...)
But if by your estimation Sadam is guilty of rape, Then Bush is just as guilty of abusing Iraqi prisoners of War...
*cough Cough*
Both sound rather stupid to me.

Sadam was NOT a good person, beleive me, but what the American's are doing is NOT right, and I stand proudly by my goverment's decision against aiding our neighbors.



			
				Slim said:
			
		

> ...If the U.S. had walked away from Iraq afterthey had caught Saddam then I guarantee my next 6 paychecks that there would be another tin-pot dictator well on his way to power in that country right now! And the U.S. would have an even bigger problem on its hands than the civil war that they are currently facing...
> 
> ...You can't just wage a war and then walk away from a country when you're done...WW2 was started because the first world war allies did exactly that to Germany, giving the rise of a militaristic dictator a practically forgone conclusion!...
> 
> By the way, about Iraq, this widespread ignorant and uninformed attitude that seems to hold sway thoughout the nation is the reason that the liberal party is in power in Canada and the CF is practically non-existant!



The problem the US is facing right now IS THE PRODUCT OF THEIR ACTIONS IN THE FIRST GULF WAR!
It was then that they DID walk away without finishing what they started, and now here we are.
The US Government had a much more solid reason to get rid of Saddam back then, but they didn't.
They got what they wanted,(Oil from Kuwait) and left.

Now they have to spin tales of NON-EXHISTANT WMD in order to justify the completeion of a task they started over a decade ago.
I do honestly hope that Bush finishes what he starts now, cause the only thing that could be more wrong than what he is doing now is if he walked away too soon.

During the so called "Shock and Awe" campain, i sometimes wonder if anyone other than the journalists safe withing the collums of tanks rolling toward Bhagdad really felt Awe OR Shock.
What did the average Iraqi citizen feel?
My guess is that they felt fear... 
Complete and utter terror even.
The last time I looked, a person who used violent actions to invoke fear as a method forwarding a political agenda of some description was called a TERRORIST.
(Well... Something to think about at least. ???)

BTW... I hope you are not against a little "Education" yourself. 
Being that I am possibly a victim of a "widespread ignorant and uninformed attitude" I feel somewhat humble in offering up the following correction.

Hitler came into power as a product of TOO MUCH Foreign intervention, NOT a lack thereof.
It was greed and corruption on the part of the WWI Allies that caused the invironment that allowed Hitler to come into power on the platform he did.
Even by modern estimation, the processes that were undertaken to create the basic, sound principles of the Treaty of Verseilles were utterly rife with corruption and greed.
THIS was the source of Hitlers primary greivance and was the single largest factor which allowed him to attain power.

For detailed information on his motives, I highly recommmend hearing it from Hitler himself,
If you can get your hands on his book "Mein Kampf" I highly reccomend you read it to escape the category YOU YOURSELF adressed as "widespread ignorant and uninformed attitude." :

Now before you call me a neo-nazi, (I can hear it coming...) please realise that Hitler is MUCH higher on my list of corrupt world leaders than Mr. Bush.

Well I think that about wraps it up.
At least untill i receive Slim's rebuttal... or apology... (riiiiight... :)


----------



## FredDaHead (5 Feb 2005)

Leviathan said:
			
		

> Now before you call me a neo-nazi, (I can hear it coming...) please realise that Hitler is MUCH higher on my list of corrupt world leaders than Mr. Bush.



Meaning you respect Hitler more, or meaning he's worst than Bush? Kind of ambiguous there, y'know.

By the way, where does/did Saddam, Kim Jung-Il and the like stand on your list?


----------



## Slim (6 Feb 2005)

Leviathan said:
			
		

> But if by your estimation Sadam is guilty of rape, Then Bush is just as guilty of abusing Iraqi prisoners of War...
> *cough Cough*
> Both sound rather stupid to me.


The "prisoners of war" you're defending so passionately are not, in fact, entitled to any of the rights a prisoner of war would expect because they are not PW's, they are un-uniformed insurgents (Guerrillas) who have taken up arms against   a uniformed military. In the Geneva convention this makes them fair game. And yes there have been statements made by the authorities of Saddam and family sexually abusing members of the countries populace.



> Sadam was NOT a good person, beleive me, but what the American's are doing is NOT right, and I stand proudly by my goverment's decision against aiding our neighbors.



Obviously you are a military and strategic genius and don't need to hear any advice from the rest of us...who have actually served in our respective nation's armed forces, and not sat around tossing out advice and blame from the sidelines.



> The problem the US is facing right now IS THE PRODUCT OF THEIR ACTIONS IN THE FIRST GULF WAR!
> It was then that they DID walk away without finishing what they started, and now here we are.
> The US Government had a much more solid reason to get rid of Saddam back then, but they didn't.
> They got what they wanted,(Oil from Kuwait) and left.



 They also didn't get the support to complete the war and do what should have been done during the first war. So then-president Bush called a halt to the hostilities in order to co operate with the rest of the coalition. Also I didn't hear any of the other Arab countries whining about the U.S. presence in the Gulf then...Could it be that they're using the U.S. for their own ends (Sarcasm!) 



> Now they have to spin tales of NON-EXHISTANT WMD in order to justify the completeion of a task they started over a decade ago.



As I recall the vote is still out on that issue...Do you know something that the rest of us don't? Also if the only thing that you're using to look for WMD is a satillite then I can fool you into thinking that my country has them with a few 45 gallon drums sporting the appropriate markings...



> I do honestly hope that Bush finishes what he starts now, cause the only thing that could be more wrong than what he is doing now is if he walked away too soon.



The only way that he won't is if weak-minded sissies like you force him to stop through complaining about what the U.S. does no matter what their actions are. I think that the recent vote in Iraq is plenty of proof that the U.S. did the right thing.



> During the so called "Shock and Awe" campain, i sometimes wonder if anyone other than the journalists safe withing the collums of tanks rolling toward Bhagdad really felt Awe OR Shock.
> What did the average Iraqi citizen feel?
> My guess is that they felt fear...
> Complete and utter terror even.
> ...



I wonder how they felt for the decades that Saddam and Co. were in power? Happy perhaps...NOT! During the invasion the U.S went out of its way and often put the lives of its own soldiers at risk to avoid hurting the civilian population of Iraq or avoiding destroying critical infrastructure.



> Hitler came into power as a product of TOO MUCH Foreign intervention, NOT a lack thereof.
> It was greed and corruption on the part of the WWI Allies that caused the invironment that allowed Hitler to come into power on the platform he did.
> Even by modern estimation, the processes that were undertaken to create the basic, sound principles of the Treaty of Verseilles were utterly rife with corruption and greed.
> THIS was the source of Hitlers primary greivance and was the single largest factor which allowed him to attain power.



If you recall the world had never had an industrialized world war before and could not possibly understand on a global scale how the Treaty of Versailles could effect future events. However I do think that your argument is a cop-out. He did rebuild Germany but no one told him to start killing Jews, Poles and any other race he didn't like...Did any of those races make the Germans sign the Treaty of Versailles?! No...I don't think so!



> Well I think that about wraps it up.
> At least untill i receive Slim's rebuttal... or apology... (riiiiight... :)



The thing that I can't stand about people like you is that you automatically assume that we are responsible for all of the ills that the world suffers, and that we're bad and exploit the lesser countries to our own ends. 

I'm here to tell you that you are far off base. If that were the case then most of the Middle East would be   either a nuclear waste parking lot by now or invaded and under the rule of the west...Which it isn't. The U.S. looks out for its own interests...Sure who wouldn't. But you don't see other countries coming to the aid of so many poor nations do you! How about the French, they're selling guns to anyone who will buy them (including Africa and the Middle East)...I don't see you whining about that!

You are a 19 year old kid who is in love with the naive idea that the big bad west is responsible for all of the woes in the world. I would love to see what you would have to say if you were living under one of those regimes that the U.S. toppled so that you and your ungrateful family could be free and live in peace without the threat of kidnap, torture, your sisters and wives raped and everything else that existed under the Saddam regime.

Grow up before you shoot your mouth off next time. And what, in Heaven's name, made you think that I owe you an opology?!

Slim

P.S. Spellcheck would also be a good idea!


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2005)

Leviathan said:
			
		

> During the so called "Shock and Awe" campain, i sometimes wonder if anyone other than the journalists safe withing the collums of tanks rolling toward Bhagdad really felt Awe OR Shock.
> What did the average Iraqi citizen feel?



I don't know, but probably well enough to throng to the streets of Baghdad and cheer the US Forces and to topple down monuments of Saddam's regime and hit him with their shoes.

I'm trying to read your posts, but I feel I've read it all before....because I have.  Another youth preaching the proper morality of international relations and the reality of the world from his comfy suburban couch.  Spare us the "lesson" - we've heard it before.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2005)

Leviathan said:
			
		

> The problem the US is facing right now IS THE PRODUCT OF THEIR ACTIONS IN THE FIRST GULF WAR!
> It was then that they DID walk away without finishing what they started, and now here we are.
> The US Government had a much more solid reason to get rid of Saddam back then, but they didn't.
> They got what they wanted,(Oil from Kuwait) and left.



This would be true only if the US had not had a "MANDATE" to free Kuwait only.  They had no mandate to go into Iraq and defeat the government of Saddam Hussain.  If you want to speculate on history do so, but don't state them as facts.

As for Oil, I do believe the largest oil interests in that part of the globe are owned by Petro Fina, a large French Oil company.  I beilieve that Russia also has large oil interests there too.  Interesting, no!

GW


----------



## Leviathan (6 Feb 2005)

"Grow up before you shoot your mouth off next time. And what, in Heaven's name, made you think that I owe you an *opology?!*

Slim

*P.S. Spellcheck would also be a good idea*!"~Slim

Uuuh... Sure thing Slim...
I'll get right on that... :blotto:
I'm humoured by the fact that there is only TWO WORDS between you last spelling error and your self-righteous admonishment of my own spelling.
Maybe we can sign up for the same spell-check class? 
As for the apology... Starting with your spelling comment would be a good start.

"Obviously you are a military and strategic genius and don't need to hear any advice from the rest of us...who have actually served in our respective nation's armed forces, and not sat around tossing out advice and blame from the sidelines."~Slim

I don't need to be a "military and strategic genius" to figure out basic morality, or what I do or don't agree with.
If I didn't want to hear your opinions, I wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes... That's right... I actually have the courage to MATURELY listen to opposing viewpoints.
And your military service makes you a "military and strategic genius?â ? 
Why thank you Mr. Patton. 

"the "prisoners of war" you're defending so passionately are not, in fact, entitled to any of the rights a prisoner of war would expect because they are not PW's, they are un-uniformed insurgents (Guerrillas) who have taken up arms against   a uniformed military. In the Geneva convention this makes them fair game. And yes there have been statements made by the authorities of Saddam and family sexually abusing members of the countries populace."~Slim

Oh please let me have heard you wrong... 

I don't give a darn about the Geneva convention if it is as hollow as you make it sound. 
I find it DISGUSTING that you apparently find the prisoner abuses justified merely because the militia of a third world country is without uniforms. 
NOBODY has the right to treat another human-being like that. 
Even the venerable Mr. Bush agrees with me on that topic. 
Also, If you could help me find those reports which you address, I would be much obliged, I have been looking for hours now.

"Also I didn't hear any of the other Arab countries whining about the U.S. presence in the Gulf then...Could it be that they're using the U.S. for their own ends (Sarcasm!)"~Slim

Of course they were playing both sides, I never said I agreed with Arabs any more than I agreed with Americans.
I'm sure there were many angry Arabs at the time, maybe they have more spine this time around? 
Or would you rather than they cut off more heads of Westerners in the first Gulf War? :-
The reality is that they were unprepared to put up the same degree of resistance that you see on the news today.
This increased "whiningâ ? should be all the more proof that this incursion into Iraq is of LESS justified to MORE people than the last Gulf War.

"As I recall the vote is still out on that issue...Do you know something that the rest of us don't? Also if the only thing that you're using to look for WMD is a satillite then I can fool you into thinking that my country has them with a few 45 gallon drums sporting the appropriate markings..."~Slim

Ummm. He rolled a whole darn army into the country to look for WMD's... 
That is considerably different than a satellite (not satillite) or two. :

"Duelfer's report to Congress, which officials say he is finishing and will be published by the end of June, said deposed Iraqi dictator <b>Saddam Hussein had the intent but not the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.</b>â ?~http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines05/0112-01.htm

Plenty of countries have the intent, but not the capacity to make WMD's. I don't see Americans too worried about those. 
Other dictators have committed atrocities that make Saddam's regime look like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, and the American's take no action. ???
There are bigger and badder threats out there that the Americans nearly ignore for some reason.
But don't worry; I'm sure Oil isn't the ONLY reason... :

"The only way that he won't is if weak-minded sissies like you force him to stop through complaining about what the U.S. does no matter what their actions are. I think that the recent vote in Iraq is plenty of proof that the U.S. did the right thing...

...You are a 19 year old kid who is in love with the naive idea that the big bad west is responsible for all of the woes in the world...

...Grow up before you shoot your mouth off next time. And what, in Heaven's name, made you think that I owe you an opology?!â ?~Slim

I resent your insult, but will ignore it for the moment. :-
(oh... Im sure your gonna have fun with this... :) Errr... I'm not 19... 
Not quite sure why I put that in my profile. 
Probably a good reason at the time.
Thanks for pointing it out though! Anyways... 
Back to the topic.
I find the fact that I am stating AND justifying my beliefs publicly makes me quite the opposite of "weak-minded.â ?
If I was "weak mindedâ ? I would be GOING ALONG with the majority on these forums, NOT standing out.
And the fact I can do so without calling other people childish names makes me MATURE as well as strong-minded.
I grew up a long time ago Slim, but I don't recall ever being in the place you come from now, EVEN at my most immature moments.
Please return for a civilised discussion at you earliest convenience, until then, I guess I will have to endure your taunts. :boring:

In the past, the people who regarded Democracy, (even the watered down version we have now), as a workable idea were regarded as NaÃƒÂ¯ve as well.
Without "NaÃƒÂ¯veâ ? people like me, there would be no progress and we would all live in a brutal feudal state of violent, short, painful lives.
Kinda like Iraq actually....
You can thank me later for saving you from such a fate.

"If you recall the world had never had an industrialized world war before and could not possibly understand on a global scale how the Treaty of Versailles could effect future events. However I do think that your argument is a cop-out. He did rebuild Germany but no one told him to start killing Jews, Poles and any other race he didn't like...Did any of those races make the Germans sign the Treaty of Versailles?! No...I don't think so!â ?~Slim

Slim... READ THE darn BOOK I RECOMMENDED!   
It would help you see his perspective, instead of trying to infer his opinion and mentality through you Right-wing viewpoint. 
This is also completely difference topic than this thread which I only addressed because you attempted to draw a terribly distorted analogy (a "cop-outâ ? in itself) from it in you earlier posts.
The Treaty of Versailles, AS I ALLREADY HAVE SAID, was only responsible for allowing Hitler to attain power, and NOT responsible for   the atrocities that he perpetrated.     :

And I don't think you give our past politicians enough credit in the intelligence category.
There were plenty of people even IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE TREATY ITSELF that knew the principles of the Treaty were the foundation for future problems.
SEE <b>"JUST-PEACEâ ?</b> below... ;D


"The thing that I can't stand about people like you is that you automatically assume that we are responsible for all of the ills that the world suffers, and that we're bad and exploit the lesser countries to our own ends.â ?~Slim

I think perhaps YOU are content to paint everyone who has a differing viewpoint with the same brush, however this is NOT something I am prepared to do. 
And I don't agree with anyone, whether they share my views or not, who IS content to do so. :-

Just because I disagree with the American actions in Iraq, does not mean I regard them as the spawn of Satan.
Americans have done great thing for humanity in the past, and I am sure that they will do great things in the future.
If you would like an example which ties into your WWII analogy, then here you are.
If I go way back to my high-school Social, I recall that it was the American delegation at the Versailles Conference that recommended a principle of "just-peace,â ? which allowed for a just settlement of responsibilities without taking unfair advantage of defeated Germany. 
Had the American recommendation been followed, it is highly unlikely that Hitler would have ever attained power. 

"Meaning you respect Hitler more, or meaning he's worst than Bush? Kind of ambiguous there, y'know.
By the way, where does/did Saddam, Kim Jung-Il and the like stand on your list?"~Fredrick

I apologise for the ambiguity, let me clarify. :-[
Saddam, Kim Jung-Li, Hitler and Osama are all worse human-beings IMHO than Bush.
The difference is: Bush does things I don't agree with, and I DON'T hate him for it.
The others do things that sicken me, and I do find myself hating them.
^That clear up any ambiguity?^ 


"I don't know, but probably well enough to throng to the streets of Baghdad and cheer the US Forces and to topple down monuments of Saddam's regime and hit him with their shoes.
I'm trying to read your posts, but I feel I've read it all before....because I have.   Another youth preaching the proper morality of international relations and the reality of the world from his comfy suburban couch.   Spare us the "lesson" - we've heard it before."~Infanteer

Yup... The same people who would cheer and burn the American flag if it was Saddam's troops in the tanks with guns. 

I too grow weary of the same old arguments, and would be quite content to keep my opinions more to myself.
But if the topic DOES come up, then I see no reason to keep my opinions to myself if there exhists such a discussion.
So if YOU are tired I suggest you either don't read posts like this, or keep your opinion on the matter to yourself and I will do the same.
I am uncomfortable with the thought of shutting up merely because you find the opposite opinion more agreeable and amusing. :-

"This would be true only if the US had not had a "MANDATE" to free Kuwait only.   They had no mandate to go into Iraq and defeat the government of Saddam Hussain.   If you want to speculate on history do so, but don't state them as facts.

As for Oil, I do believe the largest oil interests in that part of the globe are owned by Petro Fina, a large French Oil company.   I beilieve that Russia also has large oil interests there too.   Interesting, no!â ?~Wallace

You are correct Wallace.
It IS sad that the most powerful nation on our planet bases its mandates on Oil reserves and not liberation of people from a corrupt dictator. :-

I also was only addressing America as it was the TOPIC of this thread.
To address every corrupt government or corporation would be an exhausting endeavour indeed. :boring:

Well... This has been fun. And I invite more CIVIL discussion.
I also thank those, including Slim, who have the patience to read my entire.... Ummm... Manifesto.   

I mean it from the bottom of my heart when I say that you are all well worth the time and effort.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Feb 2005)

Leviathan, your post would be more easily digested with proper use of the quote function in order to help separate your comments from those to which you are responding.

Thank you.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2005)

:boring:


----------



## Leviathan (6 Feb 2005)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> Leviathan, your post would be more easily digested with proper use of the quote function in order to help separate your comments from those to which you are responding.
> 
> Thank you.



Ahh... Thank you for the pointer... I'll make use of it in the future.
I did my best to correct that post in the meantime as well.

Don't worry Infanteer, this topic is important enough <b>to me</b> that I would likely read any length post in order to understand others better.
I'm sure that some other feel the same way.
I does sadden me, however, that YOU do not.
Particularily since you are a member of the staff.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2005)

Leviathan said:
			
		

> â Å“This would be true only if the US had not had a "MANDATE" to free Kuwait only.   They had no mandate to go into Iraq and defeat the government of Saddam Hussain.   If you want to speculate on history do so, but don't state them as facts.
> 
> As for Oil, I do believe the largest oil interests in that part of the globe are owned by Petro Fina, a large French Oil company.   I believe that Russia also has large oil interests there too.   Interesting, no!â ?~Wallace
> 
> ...



Well, I see from your comment that you are going through life with blinders on.   You accuse the Americans of being there only for OIL.   This is a total cope out.   Once again I will say it is European, namely the French, who have the OIL interests in Iraq, not the US.   

The First Gulf War, that you think the Americans should have gone all the way into Iraq, was limited by the Mandate set for their actions.   Without a doubt, you would be using the same arguments for any actions in Iraq taken by them then, as you do for their actions today.   You are using fuzzy logic, to try and win an argument which keeps getting shredded to pieces by facts put forth by others.   If you don't accept them, as I see is the case, your debate is sensless.   (No matter what you may think, the sky is Blue.)

GW


----------



## Slim (7 Feb 2005)

Yawn...Alright Mr Dexter-who-is-not-19-anymore, maybe ARMY.CA is the newest source of argument in your world since the bullies stopped hassling you for your lunch money. But, to us, you are just another in a long line of self-important whiners who know better than all the rest.

 I, for one, don't want to spend the time and energy pounding my head against a brick wall (or brain in your case). Scream about the nasty U.S. and conspiracy theories till you turn blue for all I care...

Slim

P.S. If you say you're not 19 after posting it on your profile I believe that you have violated the user agreement here, which is not tollerated.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Feb 2005)

Not to mention your credibility :


----------



## Franko (7 Feb 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> The "prisoners of war" you're defending so passionately are not, in fact, entitled to any of the rights a prisoner of war would expect because they are not PW's, they are un-uniformed insurgents (Guerrillas) who have taken up arms against   a uniformed military. In the Geneva convention this makes them fair game. And yes there have been statements made by the authorities of Saddam and family sexually abusing members of the countries populace.



That pretty much is the jist Slim.....the Geneva Convention is there to ensure the safety, welfare, and health of PWs. As for insurgents (non uniformed combatants)..... it's a matter of implying the GC on their behalf when they are in detention. 

That being said, they could just as well be shipped off to Guitmo, for safekeeping.   



> Obviously you are a military and strategic genius and don't need to hear any advice from the rest of us...who have actually served in our respective nation's armed forces, and not sat around tossing out advice and blame from the sidelines.



Now now Slim, he's not even done basic, exercises, been on tours, etc.....let him speak.      :

Regards


----------



## Franko (7 Feb 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not to mention your credibility :



I'm sure he/she will rectify that shortly.   

Regards


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Feb 2005)

What happened to that unwritten rule where upon when someone uses the words hitler and or nazis in an argument, the thread gets closed? I've always been a  big fan of that.


----------



## Franko (8 Feb 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> What happened to that unwritten rule where upon when someone uses the words hitler and or nazis in an argument, the thread gets closed? I've always been a   big fan of that.



You'd have to ask that now wouldn't you?   ;D

Regards


----------

