# Iraq!



## babicma (8 Feb 2004)

Take a look at these flash presents..

Should have speakers..

1.  http://www.bushflash.com/occupied.html 

2.  http://www.bushflash.com/liberation.html 

3.  http://www.bushflash.com/antivic.html 

4.  http://www.ericblumrich.com/PD.html 

5.  http://www.bushflash.com/vets.html 

6.  http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html 

7.  http://www.bushflash.com/antiwar2.html 

Number 8 is about 911 INTERESTING!

8.  http://www.bushflash.com/buddy.html 

9.  http://www.bushflash.com/memorial.html 

10.  http://www.bushflash.com/topgun.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Feb 2004)

I could‘nt play the clips but I went to the webpage and this guy is the biggest idiot I‘ve read in a long time. However unlike some of my left-leaning compadres on this site I still believe he has the right to spout this garbage and not be censured by some judge in B.C.[heard THAT before?] This reminds me of a joke I heard yesterday, Whats the difference between a puppy and a liberal?  The puppy stops whining when he grows up.  :dontpanic:     CHEERS


----------



## Danny (8 Feb 2004)

Good slide shows that send a VERY powerful message, but keep a open mind remember these people want to get rid of Bush. 


A WARNING IS IN ORDER FOR #6 AND #7.


----------



## Korus (8 Feb 2004)

Depleted Uranium Factsheet from the WHO:

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/   

   http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/ 

Just something to counterweight the extremist propoganda.


----------



## Enzo (8 Feb 2004)

I‘ve seen some of these before, heard some of the arguments. There is an agenda, but I basically feel that it balances out quite a bit in regards to the propaganda which is served to the west on a daily basis. I don‘t go in for political rhetoric.

#10 is the one I enjoy. IMHO, I doubt that Bush was a good soldier and the guy did create quite an interesting record for himself during his time in the NG. There is a quote by someone I‘ve forgotten, but I concur with the sentiment. Those who decide to go to war should have experienced a war prior. Something along those lines. It‘s difficult to comprehend the ease that a man such as Bush can send others into harms way when he himself did his utmost to avoid combat. His test scores just make me laugh, remove his patronage and he‘d be finding himself in a completely different situation, but that‘s the system, and it could be worse. He wasn‘t the only chosen son to avoid the war, and many other conscientious objectors chose to flee the country which isn‘t necessarily better.

I prefer to believe that it‘s best to lead by example. That may not always be the most suitable choice, but it‘s a tenant I strive to follow. It doesn‘t work well for everyone. This should be a consideration in the evaluation of Bush and co.

History will be the judge of this period of time. There are arguments for and against the current activities of the Bush administration and its effects on the world. One thing is clear, there have been effects. Whether Libya decided to step in line due to the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan is a possible argument in favour. The occupation of Iraq will be contested for years to come, but whether it was about power in the middle east, oil, vengeance for Sept 11, or bringing Burger King to the region, is going to become an academic question.

As for the conspiracy theories, "did Bush have a hand in Sept. 11, etc..." place those on the pile with the others. Many books and movies will continue to provide entertainment for us in the years to come.

What matters is now, and as we are seeing at this time, there is a problem with western intelligence. It would be nice if communication channels were to open amongst many nations, without the emphasis on the paranoia and fear that has corrupted the administrational systems, and actually having the truth be told for a change, without censor or agenda. The population can handle that, they do not need to be handled.


----------



## SFontaine (8 Feb 2004)

How exactly do these people think the US should deal with the guerillas? They shouldn‘t conduct raids and drag them away for interrogation? They should let em kill American troops who are trying to rebuild Iraq? Seems kinda backwards to me.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Enzo:
> #10 is the one I enjoy. IMHO, I doubt that Bush was a good soldier and the guy did create quite an interesting record for himself during his time in the NG.


George W. Bush was the first reservist in history ever to go NES?  It says he found work, and then went to Harvard Business School.  How many lieutenants go NES from the Canadian reserves every year, when they find better jobs or school opportunities?

And if Canada was fighting an undeclared and unpopular war, and losing, would you be so quick to volunteer for overseas employment?   I respect those that did, but given the eventual outcome of the Vietnam War - and you now have guys like McNamara back in the spotlight admitting they knew at the time it was all wrong - isn‘t it a bit hard to get really pissy about those who found other options?  What good would George W. Bush have been had he got shot down over North Vietnam in 1970?  Can you imagine Al Gore at the helm on 9/11?



> Originally posted by Enzo:
> [qb]There is a quote by someone I‘ve forgotten, but I concur with the sentiment. Those who decide to go to war should have experienced a war prior. Something along those lines.  [/qb]


What, you mean like Gefreiter Adolf Hitler of the 16th Bavarian Infantry Regiment?  Who served on the Western Front almost continuously throughout the Great War, was wounded twice, and decorated twice for bravery, and by all accounts was a very good soldier (though not cut out for non-commissioned officer status)?

What about George S. Patton, Jr., who fought in Mexico before WW I, then in the Great War, and finally as a division, corps and army commander in WW II, who advocated starting a war against the Soviet Union in mid 1945?

Douglas MacArthur commanded the 42nd Rainbow Division in the Great War, then was a theatre commander in the Pacific in WW II, and led a UN army in Korea.  He advocated an invasion of China and use of nuclear weapons north of the Yalu River.  

What about the US Secretary of Defence, Robert S. McNamara, who helped plan firebombing raids on Japan in 1945?  He was one of the brains behind the War in Vietnam.

Lyndon Johnson saw military service in the Second World War, and so did his predecessor, John F. Kennedy, who ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, and blockaded Cuba even at risk of starting a nuclear war.

Even if you could enforce "mandatory combat service" as a prerequisite to a leader declaring war, what do you honestly think it would change?

All of the men above served bravely, some like Adolf Hitler, Patton and MacArthur were highly decorated.  John F. Kennedy was remembered for his personal courage also.  Didn‘t seem to stop any of them from participating in brinksmanship, or feel any need not to use military might to achieve their goals.

Many of them killed people face to face, or at the very least experienced misery and saw friends die close up.  Patton shot two banditos in Mexico and put them on the hood of his car like game trophies!  

Here‘s another one - Harry S Truman served in the trenches of World War One - and in 1950 sent soldiers to fight and die in Korea.


----------



## Enzo (8 Feb 2004)

Mike - I said I agreed with the sentiment. Experience should be a factor, something for the individual to be able to draw upon. I‘m not endorsing (nor did I ever say anything about) Mandatory Combat Service. I will always support a volunteer army. As for the people you chose to use as a basis for your comparison, interesting first choice   

As for Bush volunteering for overseas duty or the popularity of the Vietnam War, etc... Come on, give me a break. I mean the man cannot account for his whereabouts for an entire year?? No military record has been provided to corroborate his time at the base in Alabama. This is in addition to other information that is simply offensive. Scoring 25% and still being allowed to be trained as a pilot? That just offends the pilot in me as I worked hard to become one.

 http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/national/s_177797.html 

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer 

With as spotty a record as he had while he was serving, its no wonder that his party wishes that the issue would go away. If daddy wasn‘t running interference for him, then he‘d be in a completely different position today. That‘s the way it goes though. I‘ve never been a fan of nepotism.

The thing is, I can separate these things. I have many opinions about the state of affairs these days, who doesn‘t. That‘s the fun of debating. Solely on the topic of Bush‘s past military record however, more information is forthcoming. The man is the President, he lives under a microscope. Let‘s see the documents Dubya. This is a question of credibility and honour, which is still something that should matter in this, the attention deficit age.

Just a though eh.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (8 Feb 2004)

Absolutely fantastic. Incredibly strong message about the less popular side of any war. No war can be fought without ugly brutal things happening. Otherwise we‘d be having them every second weekend. Never long enough to miss the NHL playoffs or the Superbowl though. They‘d finish just in time for the people to forget by the coming election. Why someone would probably even have one to get their dirty little hands on liquid assets (oil) to help balance out a 7 trillion, that‘s  US$7 000 000 000, deficit. Oh wait, uh I mean, uh...

Oh I see... you clever little man.


----------



## Slim (8 Feb 2004)

I watched all of those clips...

What a pack of b*ll**** artists!

The thing that really gets me going is that the average every day person doesn‘t know the difference and would probably feel like an insider buying into this garbage.

Enough said!

Slim


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (8 Feb 2004)

And as for what good would it have done Bush for possibly getting shot down over North Vietnam? Well, absolutly no good as far as I can see. But that never stopped hundreds of thousands of other American boys from going over, drafted or not. These same American boys were enjoying the same great privilege of  American citizenship as Dubya did but they felt duty bound to return the honour by serving their country. They may have possibly even knew it was a losing cause. 

I agree with the part that experience in war does not a great leader make.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Padraig OCinnead:
> [qb] And as for what good would it have done Bush for possibly getting shot down over North Vietnam? Well, absolutly no good as far as I can see. But that never stopped hundreds of thousands of other American boys from going over, drafted or not. These same American boys were enjoying the same great privilege of  American citizenship as Dubya did but they felt duty bound to return the honour by serving their country. They may have possibly even knew it was a losing cause.
> 
> I agree with the part that experience in war does not a great leader make. [/qb]


I have nothign but respect for Vietnam veterans and do place them in a higher category than the likes of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and all the talking heads today who talk about service.  But if they had all refused to go...just up and said no...sometimes I think the human species are far too sheeplike for their own good.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2004)

Well, thats a big load of garbage babicma.  Are you going to form an arguement with that stuff, or are you just going to force us to try and watch all of it without puking.


----------



## koalorka (9 Feb 2004)

Babicima what a steaming pile of bullshit. The author of those clips is a misinformed hippy-crunchy moron with no insight.


----------



## Richie (10 Feb 2004)

I agree that the folks who made these clips have an agenda, who doesn‘t? Having said that, I do have a problem with Republicans going ga-ga over Bush landing on an aircraft carrier knowing full well that the man pulled strings with his dad (a Congressman from Texas at the time) to jump the queue and get into the Texas Air NG. For a good article on this see: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

Bush worries me with things like the Patriot Act (I and II)...I really don‘t think he has much respect for the U.S. Constitution.

As far as the brutality of war goes, I am lucky enough to not have experienced it first hand. However, having heard of some of the things that Saddam & Sons did to their own people, I really think the Iraqis are better off with the Americans in charge.

Bottom line is that I support what the U.S. did in Iraq, but I think it was poorly planned as far as an exit strategy goes. Bush? I don‘t like him, never have, never will. The Republican Party deserves better!


Richie


----------



## Infanteer (10 Feb 2004)

It is nice to see someone who doesn‘t like Bush manage to give a decent enough answer.  Welcome to the site.


----------



## babicma (10 Feb 2004)

I‘m not trying to start an arguement. I just recieved this e-mail and I thought it was interesting and I remember like a week ago there was a discussion about Iraq.

I ABSOLUTELY oppose the Iraq operation and I thank God that Canadians are not there.

But, I thought that this e-mail would be interesting for people to see.

Sorry, My Bad!


----------



## Paul F (10 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by babicma:
> [qb]
> I ABSOLUTELY oppose the Iraq operation and I thank God that Canadians are not there.
> [/qb]


Why did you oppose an operation with goals of bringing freedom to a people oppressed for over 2 decades under a brutal regime like the one Saddam led? Thousands of people died under Saddam‘s regime, beaten to death, for foolish reasons like the fact that the Iraqi soccer team didn‘t win, or even more foolish, their homes being raided at night and them being taken away from their families, never to be seen again.

Sorry, but if you weren‘t behind the US mission to topple Saddam, you must have supported Saddam Hussien‘s brutal rule. Saddam refused to comply with the UN resolutions and the US decided to enforce the resolutions the rest of the world (aside from the Brits and the Poles) were unwilling to. Sure, people were killed and people were wounded, both civilians and soldiers, but I much rather a few thousand people dying now rather than allowing Hussien to stay in power for another decade and killing another million people, gassing and beating them to death.

Not wanting to bring peace and freedom to the Iraqi people just shows the selfishness many people in the Western world have.


----------



## Evan (10 Feb 2004)

i completly agree with u Paul F.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Feb 2004)

Some people just have no spine


----------



## koalorka (10 Feb 2004)

To all right-wing idealogical propaganda-eating chums, I present to you, "the man": 

 http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8096.html 

I am a conservative myself (believe it or not Infanteer) and I find it insulting that this guy is leader of the Republican party. So he is an "OK-guy", I support many of his policies but he just does not deserve to be Prez. especially in such diffcult times.

POLSKA GÃƒâ€œRÃ„â€ž!!


----------



## koalorka (10 Feb 2004)

Babicima, is that an Nikonov AN-94?


----------



## Infanteer (10 Feb 2004)

> I am a conservative myself (believe it or not Infanteer) and I find it insulting that this guy is leader of the Republican party. So he is an "OK-guy", I support many of his policies but he just does not deserve to be Prez. especially in such diffcult times.


Regardless of his personal shortcomings, I believe his administration is doing a good job in such difficult times, and thus support him as President of the United States.


----------



## Slim (10 Feb 2004)

> I ABSOLUTELY oppose the Iraq operation and I thank God that Canadians are not there.
> 
> But, I thought that this e-mail would be interesting for people to see. [/QB]


Why, in heavens name, do you oppose an operation that freed that many people from a thoroughly rotten regime that was killing them and toruring them by the thousands.

Or is this someone elses opinion your just passing along?


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (10 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Slim:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## koalorka (10 Feb 2004)

They could be doing a lot better. As a world superpower I would expect a lot more from the USA. 

They are also mishandling the Iraqi insurgency. Rumsfeld went cheap and is sending in Reserve and National Guard units to handle the real conflict that is just beginning to heat up. The war that ended in May, can hardly be called a war, it was a drive-thru to Baghdad with some isolated units putting-up resistince. The real fighting has just started. Same situation in Afghanistan, only Kabul and that airbase up north are under our control. President Karzai has been reduced to mayoral duties in the capital.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Feb 2004)

> I, personally, don‘t think that the U.S. had any right to invade Iraq, and that‘s my opinion. Not something that some peace-loving, tree-hugging hippy beatniks have shoved into my brain.


Why?  People come around the board and throw opinions around like they mean something.  I want to see some clear thought and support to back your statement up, or else your wasting bandwidth.  This is a discussion board, not a random opinion board.



> They are also mishandling the Iraqi insurgency. Rumsfeld went cheap and is sending in Reserve and National Guard units to handle the real conflict that is just beginning to heat up. The war that ended in May, can hardly be called a war, it was a drive-thru to Baghdad with some isolated units putting-up resistince. The real fighting has just started. Same situation in Afghanistan, only Kabul and that airbase up north are under our control. President Karzai has been reduced to mayoral duties in the capital.


Fair enough, although remember that the main effort in Afghanistan for the US has always been in the south.  There never was an "occupation" on the level of Iraq.


----------



## babicma (11 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by FUBAR:
> [qb] Babicima, is that an Nikonov AN-94? [/qb]


Nope, its a brand new Zastava Arms NATO calibre 5.56 M-21 Assault Rifle from Serbia and Montenegro


----------



## babicma (11 Feb 2004)

Just like America went into Vietnam to "protect" the democratic rights and freedoms of the S. Viet. who never wanted to fight for it themselves and never wanted the Americans.

Why didnt the Iraqis get rid of Sadaam themselves??

What they are too backward to do it?

America America 

Gonna save the world!

BULLSHIT!

Canada should be loyal to their allies but when you got allies like the States whos led by an Idiot hmmm

Screw that Canada has its own foreign policy and if you think Iraq is worth a Canadian soldiers life then you all have problems.

Who cares...

They live in their home (Iraq) just like I live in mine (Canada) if they have problems let them solve it themselves. 

Canada should first look at its own problems before stickin their noses in some sand dune in the middle of now where.

Like I said before, If you guys fall for this US crap about "bringing democracy and freedom" by bombing the S*** out of some country then join the US Army or UK Marines and go fight.

Have a blast!

Cheers!

OH CANADA I STAND ON GUARD FOR THEE! (and no one else for that matter!)


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2004)

> All I know is that people like to eat this "freedom" crap up!


Big talk from some guy hiding on a reserve boat.



> "We‘re fighting for freedom" my ***. GI Joe is going over there to "steal" and protect someone elses oil and land. GI Joe and his allies are not in Iraq to give "freedom" to the people of Iraq.


Like it or note, we are GI Joe‘s ally...maybe your in the wrong business.



> Iraq is a muslim nation they dont want Western "democracy" and whoever thinks that I personally think is a friggin moron.


I‘m glad you think that.  However, your still just a pansy hiding on a boat in Hamilton.




> But when I see something wrong going on I look at it from a logical standpoint. Thats what I was trained to do!! Not follow blindly the words and lies that todays MASS MEDIA (read: Propaganda) spews out everyday to brainwash idiots who think freedom and protecting democracy and their country is by going into someone elses home and testing their weapons there.


So what is your logical standpoint, the world revolves around Hamilton and anyone who doesn‘t live their is **** out of luck?


----------



## babicma (11 Feb 2004)

[No message]


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2004)

> Canada should be loyal to their allies but when you got allies like the States whos led by an Idiot hmmm
> 
> Screw that Canada has its own foreign policy and if you think Iraq is worth a Canadian soldiers life then you all have problems.


You obviously have no understanding of foreign affairs, history, or geopolitics.

Thanks for the rant.  Go work on your boat, dork.


----------



## babicma (11 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


MHM!

Thats why you have a degree in History/Poli Sci!

Cheers!


----------



## Enzo (11 Feb 2004)

Babicma - I don‘t know if either you or Infanteer have a papered education in either of those disciplines; however, I am currently working towards both myself and I concur with his response to your rant.

I may not like Dubya.
I may feel that individual rights have rescinded a tad in the US since 9/11.
I may feel concerned at the idea of any fundamentalist mentality having a bit of power in the White House as I am a strong supporter of a separate church and state.
I may not agree with the reasons provided for invading Iraq yet feel that the removal of Hussein from power is a good thing.
I may feel that due to their ideological differences I have a hard time believing the Al Queda - Iraq connection without hard evidence to support it and would prefer to see pressure applied to Saudi connections as well, etc...
I may be appreciative that Chretien stood by his convictions against invading Iraq due to that same lack of evidence, even though I cannot stand the man and I am glad to see him gone, especially as the CF is approaching crisis due to the Liberals past approaches to the CF‘s situation.

Etc...

You see how this works, each of these points I have discussed in the past, supported by research or opinion both subject to question due to the nature of the forum and rightly so. To feel so strongly about your convictions is admirable, at least you‘re making yourself heard and taking a stand, but you need to be open to rebuttal. Expecting that, you should have some evidence to support your position and then the debates can begin.

Don‘t leave yourself open to attack, and yet if it happens, do not allow emotion and passion to rule your thoughts, for at that point, you‘ll be in a poor position.

Cheers...

PS

It‘s 0500, that made sense when I wrote it, but I think I went on a bit too long to make my point.


----------



## Gambler (11 Feb 2004)

Infanteer,
He‘s a kid, and we all know trying to convince him is like banging your head against a wall. Canada is the world‘s backseat driver. We think we have all the answers but don‘t have the balls to do anything ourselves. It‘s always, the americans should have done this, the UN should have done that, I would have done this, etc. Ignorant people like him have no idea how the world works, but never fail to offer their misguided opinions anyway, and screw those who don‘t agree they must be warmongering fascists. Like a whining little brat, you either ignore him, or put him over your knee.


----------



## babicma (11 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Look at this "rebuttal by INFANTeer.

Enzo! You‘re telling me that I‘m the one that should not let my feelings get in the way and should be able to support myself in case of a rebuttal.

hehehe


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2004)

Hey, if you want to throw up a pointless rant and label me a moron, I‘ll be happy to send one back across the bow.

Point is, I‘ve argued on numerous occasions on theis board on why I stand behind OIF, and you just wander on and spout a pissy rant.

Put up or shut up, until then go play sailor.


----------



## babicma (11 Feb 2004)

MHM


----------



## meni0n (11 Feb 2004)

Well, thinking that nothing else matters except you is very narrow minded of you babicma. You say Canada has its own foreign policy. True but what have the military doing for the last 25-30 years? Going out to other countries to either keep or enforce the peace. And also help our allies. If you recall Canada has participated in the 1st Gulf war so you can‘t really debate that we never did anything like the 2nd Gulf war. Just because the Iraqis couldn‘t get saddam out doesn‘t mean they liked him and could get him out anytime.

Just because you don‘t agree with what the US gov is doing doesn‘t mean that you should slam their military. They are guys just like you or me that are there to do their job. What‘d they teach you at basic, think only of yourself and the **** with everyone else?


----------



## babicma (11 Feb 2004)

Just because you don‘t agree with what the US gov is doing doesn‘t mean that you should slam their military. They are guys just like you or me that are there to do their job. What‘d they teach you at basic, think only of yourself and the **** with everyone else? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Thats right I dont agree with their policy on Iraq and where did I slam the US military??

In no way or form did I slam or discredit the armed forces of the US!

I just feel that peoples lives are being lost and more are put in danger for NO REASON!

I really dont care about Iraq and who runs the place. Just like I dont care who runs Vietnam!

During the 60‘s and 70‘s Americans died in Vietnam... For what reason??

Just like Iraq, Why are so many men and women from the states and our allies dying?? For who, for what?

If the states really wanted to stop terrorism, just like they wanted to stop drugs, why didnt they aim all their energy at catching Osama, stop it in Bosnia stop it in Kosovo stop it in Palestine with the Muslims there who have terrorist training camps and have been terrorist havens since the early 1990‘s?? 

I just dont fall for US propaganda!

As the US soldiers in Iraq and coming from Iraq what they think about it!!! 

 http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Head_Lines/family_of_soldier_.htm 

 http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Head_Lines/brit_troops_slam_yanks.htm 

 http://ontario.indymedia.ca/twiki/bin/view/Archives/ImcOntario14935


----------



## Evan (11 Feb 2004)

"Why didnt the Iraqis get rid of Saddam themselves??"

ever heard of the kurds, they tried, thousands of them were killed by nerve agents during there uprising, woman children, the works.


----------



## Korus (11 Feb 2004)

> I just dont fall for US propaganda!


But you do fall for the anti-US propoganda?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2004)

> I really dont care about Iraq and who runs the place. Just like I dont care who runs Vietnam!
> 
> During the 60‘s and 70‘s Americans died in Vietnam... For what reason??
> 
> Just like Iraq, Why are so many men and women from the states and our allies dying?? For who, for what?


Sooo, following your logic:

"I really don‘t care about Nazi Germany and who runs the place!"

Intervention has its place.



> If the states really wanted to stop terrorism, just like they wanted to stop drugs, why didnt they aim all their energy at catching Osama, stop it in Bosnia stop it in Kosovo stop it in Palestine with the Muslims there who have terrorist training camps and have been terrorist havens since the early 1990‘s??


What are you saying, the United States doesn‘t want to stop terrorism?



> I just dont fall for US propaganda!


No, but you obviously fall for someone elses.



> As the US soldiers in Iraq and coming from Iraq what they think about it!!!


I‘d be happy to introduce you to soldiers returning from the sandbox for their second or third time.  I‘m sure they would love to hear what you have to say.

Wait, Major Baker has been their twice.  Ask him.


----------



## Yllw_Ninja (12 Feb 2004)

Dubya Speak.com 

Check this site out...tis pretty good stuff on here *nods*

but my opinion with iraq is the reason changed...i mean if they wanted to go in and remove the murderous tyrant...they should have just said that instead of "Were going in for his WMD" perhaps though if we wanted to get murderous tyrants...we should go after Bush for murdering the English language *points to above link for proof* and after we get Bush we can go after Jean Chretien just to make things fair


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2004)

> As for all of the rediculous garbage that was posted...talk is cheap! It is always easier to critique someones actions than it is to justify your own or lack therof


Hooah sir.


----------



## babicma (12 Feb 2004)

Hitler also had his war on terrorism.

Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag (Parliament) building by a deranged Dutchman to declare a "war on terrorism," establish his legitimacy as a leader (even though he hadn‘t won a majority in the previous election). 

 "You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion as "a sign from God," he called it "to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors," a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their "evil" deeds in their religion. 


Two weeks later, the first prison for terrorists was built in Oranianberg, holding the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the nation‘s flag was everywhere, even printed in newspapers suitable for display. 


Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the Germanys now-popular leader had pushed through legislation, in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it, that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people‘s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism. 

 To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack on the Reichstag building was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. 

 Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. Instead of referring to Germany by its name, he began to refer to it as The Fatherland. As hoped, people‘s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. 

 Within a year of the terrorist attack, Hitler‘s advisors determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, including those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist sympathizers. He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the Fatherland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single powerful leader. 

 Most Canadians and Americans remember his Office of Fatherland Security, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and Schutzstaffel, simply by its most famous agency‘s initials: the SS. 

 And, perhaps most important, he invited his supporters in industry into the halls of government to help build his new detention camps, his new military, and his new empire which was to herald a thousand years of peace. Industry and government worked hand-in-glove, in a new type of pseudo-democracy first proposed by Mussolini and sustained by war.


----------



## babicma (12 Feb 2004)

This is gonna be my last post on this topic, God willing nothing comes up!

But all I want to clear up is that I hate it when people of any armed forces, especially Canada, go to a war lead by people who have never seen war but send other peoples fathers, sons, daughters to go fight a war that is in the interest of big business and their own pockets, and not because of some bullshit reason that has been taken from the likes of Nazi Germany!

Chickenhawks:
Chickenhawk Headquarters

Chickenhawk  n.  A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person's youth.

Name: George W. Bush (R-TX)
Born: 1946
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Bio: Daddys Daddy buddy buddy with Hitler, Daddy buddy buddy with OBL 
 http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=5817&lang=en 
Notes: You know when a guy walks away from a National Guard obligation during wartime and gets away with it, he must come from "a good family." Not that his daddy had anything to do with his getting a Guard slot in the first place - oh, no ... 

Name: Richard "****" Cheney (R-WY)
Born: 1942
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer, American/Allies soldiers  http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PRT.jsp?articleid=6008 
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Says he had "other priorities." You bet he had other priorities. Imagine how early in life you must begin scheming to get away with what this guy has. He was too busy thinking about Halliburton to go fight Charlie. 


Name: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Born: 1950 ±
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: I. Lewis â Å“Scooterâ ? Libby is **** Cheney's Chief of Staff. He's had a string of no-doubt well-paying government jobs in State and Defense. He's also practiced law. In fact, he was Marc Rich's lawyer for years. Yes â â€ the Marc Rich whose pardon from President Clinton was excoriated by so many high and mighty Republicans. Maybe if Scooter had been a better lawyer, his client wouldn't have needed that pardon. Speaking of legal questions, â Å“Scooterâ ? is alleged by some to have traded energy stocks while helping his buddy **** Cheney cook up a new energy policy in secret. He's also suspected of having inserted the bogus â Å“Niger yellowcakeâ ? reference into the President's State of the Union address. As if all that weren't enough, he's also a top suspect in the outing of CIA operative Valeria Plame. Clearly â Å“Scooterâ ? is a ballsy kind of guy, so it's a complete mystery to us why, when he graduated from Phillips Andover in 1968, he didn't enlist in the Marines or go Airborne instead of going to Yale. 


Name: Karl Rove
Born: 1950
Employer: Baal
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: This little cherub was born on Christmas Day, 1950. Karl â Å“Bush's Brainâ ? Rove ran George W.'s campaign, right down to the tiny detail of deciding Bush was going to run. The hardest part was convincing a horde of Republican skeptics that it could be done. 

He is said to have said of his boss, he's "the kind of candidate and officeholder political hacks like me wait a lifetime to be associated with."

Now Karl's Senior White House advisor. If he really is â Å“Bush's Brain,â ? and if the fondest wishes of former US Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV come true, one fine day Karl will be â Å“frogmarched out of the White House in mandcuffs.â ?

Will history record that event as â Å“Bush's Lobotomy?â ?


Name: Donald "The Don" Rumsfeld
Born: 1932
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Korea
Bio: During his period as Reagan‘s Special Envoy to the Middle East, Rumsfeld was the main conduit for crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein, then fighting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld 
Notes: When the shooting started in Korea Rummy here was either 18, or about to turn 18. Not to worry for him, though â â€ he spent the war at Princeton, wearing a ROTC uniform. Once the war was over he flew jets for the Navy for a few years. Defenders of Rumsfeld will say he's no chickenhawk â â€ he served, and it's not his fault the war ended before he got his commission. To which others answer, â Å“plenty of farmers and mechanics and kids just out of high school served. Anyone as full of whatever that stuffing in him is, could have tried out for a battlefield commission.â ? 




  Name: Paul Wolfowitz
Born: 1943
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Deputy Secretary for Defense - yet another Bush administration man in the Pentagon who has no idea what it‘s like to wear a uniform. He got a BA at Cornell in 1965. Maybe if we‘d had a guy as bright as he thinks he is in Vietnam, it would have turned out differently.


----------



## babicma (12 Feb 2004)

P.S. 

S_Baker God Bless you and all the men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq I‘m on your side and by the side of every fighting man and women!


----------



## koalorka (12 Feb 2004)

Nice defence Babicima. That whole USA - 1930‘s Germany analogy kind of scares me.


----------



## Enzo (13 Feb 2004)

Y‘see Babicma, that wasn‘t so hard eh. I‘m assuming you‘re going to have some rebuttal‘s coming your way. Especially for the comparison‘s of Bush to Hitler, no way around that. I look forward to that discourse, it should be educational. I hope that whoever goes after you does it with facts and rationale to balance your statements.

Nice improvement dude.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2004)

I‘m not even going to attempt to argue with a blockhead who shows the level of his ignorance by comparing the GOP to a band of brown shirted thugs (guess you can do that from the sweet comfort of Hamilton).  I‘ll save that for my betters, if they feel the need to sort him out.

Here‘s a video that addresses this view quite well though....


Bush - Hitler Comparison


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2004)

> As hoped, people‘s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands.


or...



> They live in their home (Iraq) just like I live in mine (Canada) if they have problems let them solve it themselves.
> Canada should first look at its own problems before stickin their noses in some sand dune in the middle of now where.
> ----
> Cheers!
> OH CANADA I STAND ON GUARD FOR THEE! (and no one else for that matter!)


Which is it babicma?


----------



## Richie (13 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] I‘m on a roll....
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, actually, I have seen and read the above mentioned documents and have the utmost respect for them and that‘s why I‘m concerned. I was not lecturing anyone, just giving a personal opinion. Please don‘t argue by "seizing the moral high ground" that‘s just childish, simply state your argument. Mine goes somewhat as follows:

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thing to be seized."

Section 213 of the Patriot Act is entitled "AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT", it‘s worded in a very vague manner but the gist of it is that no warrant is required to be immediately served if "the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result". This leaves the door wide open for any court to use any reason to okay search and seizure without a warrant (just how is "an adverse result" defined?).

Search and seizure without a warrant, doesn‘t sound very constitutional to me! Isn‘t this abuse of power precisely what your forefathers fought against? The Patriot Act may have been introduced with good intentions, but it is _not_ in the best long term interests of American citizens.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2004)

If your not a terrorist piece of ****, what do you have to worry about?


----------



## Yllw_Ninja (13 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] If your not a terrorist piece of ****, what do you have to worry about? [/qb]


Friendly Fire incidents?


----------



## Richie (13 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] If your not a terrorist piece of ****, what do you have to worry about? [/qb]


I have nothing to hide, if that‘s what you mean. I just believe that there are certain rights which all Anglo-Saxon societies are founded on, going back hundreds of years in English history, and that those rights should not be swept aside so easily.
I see Islam as a vicious cult and I am sure that the West will defeat the terrorists in the end; let‘s just make sure we don‘t defeat ourselves in the process.

Richie


----------



## nULL (13 Feb 2004)

You see Islam as a vicious cult? So, are these "terrorists" that the west will defeat be guilty of just that? Practising their religion? 

Sure, whatever your opinion is. My opinion is that it‘s idiotic statements like that that make Canadians treat the military as something less-than-serious.


----------



## winchable (13 Feb 2004)

Well Richie, I was raised in a Muslim family, so I am rather offended by you describing that religion as a vicious cult.

But rather then going off on a rant, I suppose I should give you a chance to tell us all why you think Islam is "A vicious cult".


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Feb 2004)

Wow what an incredibly dumb thing to say. I will leave it at that. On to what I was going to post before I saw that last comment.  Their are many people out there who seem to believe the Bush admin, suddenly changed the reason they invaded Iraq after the fact.  It is my belief and opinion that they did not. The Bush Admin from the onset said they were going in to get WMD and very quietly to liberate the people of Iraq.  As time went on, and fewer people were buying the WMD argument, they (the BAdmin) start emphasizing the liberation part of thier argument.  Pretty much right after Powell speaking with the Security Council they started doing this more often. My take is planners and behind the scene people were doubting there Intell or something to that affect.  If you want proof watch footage from all the press conferance‘s being held right up to the "shock and awe" campaign. At that point they were stating "We are going in to remove the WMD AND liberate the people".  They did not decieve us, we just have selective hearing.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2004)

> I see Islam as a vicious cult


Opps, stepped on your d**k there, didn‘t ya.

I agree with nULL and Che; you‘ve commited the number one bad act...painting with a broad brush.  I was deployed to a Muslim country for 6 months and I can tell you that your statement is silly.  

I am assuming that from the intelligence of your posts that this is not what you intended to say, so I‘ll let you restate your thought.


----------



## Richie (13 Feb 2004)

Yes, I did put both feet into my mouth and I apologize, especially to Che. I wrote that post in a hurry and left out the word "radical": i.e. I consider _radical_ Islam a vicious cult. I believe that organizations such as al-Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc fit the criteria of cults. They brainwash young people into strapping bombs on themselves and committing suicide/homicide. I understand that the vast majority of Muslim people would just as soon live and let live; I have had Muslim friends (mostly Iranians back in university) and we got along just fine. However, I stand by my statement that _radical_ Islamic groups are cults and they _are_ vicious.
I guess I should double check my posts from now on...

Richie


----------



## winchable (14 Feb 2004)

Quite alright brother post on, post on.

We all have our mistypes;

Edited to remove off-topic rant.


----------



## SFontaine (14 Feb 2004)

I tend to stay out of these kind of things but I just can‘t right bout now..

A lot of you guys are pretty stupid. You think President Bush is some sort of monster who drinks oil out of the skulls of Iraqi children.. I mean how dumb can you be? Let‘s look at this logically. Do you think President Bush and his team sat in the Oval Office one day and said "Okay here‘s what we‘re going to do, we‘re going to lie and manipulate things so it looks like Iraq has tons of Weapons and when nothing is found we‘ll hope to god they don‘t ask any questions".
No. Of course not. That‘s stupid.

If there‘s anything this man is guilty of it‘s trying to protect his country. On September 11th his country was attacked and 3000 innocent American men and women were killed by a few Muslim extremists with box cutters who really hated the US. If a small group of extremists can murder 3000 how much damage do you think a country that hates the US and has the ability to make WMDs (and has in the past) could do?
By removing Saddam Hussein the President succesfully took away a major potential threat, WMDs or not. Now people will think twice before the **** with the US, harbor terrorists or try to build WMDs. Look at Libya.


----------



## SFontaine (14 Feb 2004)

Double post I apologize.


----------



## Richie (14 Feb 2004)

Thank you for accepting my apology Che, that was very gracious of you and I know you will make your military comrades proud     As for me, from now on I‘ll use the "preview post" button a bit more often...   

Re my statement about radical Muslim groups: there was a story a while back about the Black Widows, young women from Chechnya who act as suicide bombers in attacks on targets in Russia. One Black Widow decided not to follow through and gave herself up to the Russians. She is now afraid for her life because she says the group she was involved with will get at her even in a Russian prison. This young woman sounds very much like any confused, vulnerable individual who has broken free from a cult and begun to think for themselves.

Link to this story.


----------



## Richie (14 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by SFontaine:
> [qb]  Look at Libya. [/qb]


I think Quaddafi was motivated by two factors:

1.) He wants American and British oil companies back in his country to pump up the economy (pun intended)

2.) He‘s afraid of Muslim extremists who view him as having become soft on Israel...he‘s turning to the West for protection...


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Feb 2004)

Thank you, SFontaine - another voice of reason from the left coast


----------



## SFontaine (14 Feb 2004)

Heh good to see I‘m not alone.
Seems so many people these days go with what‘s popular (Anti-Americanism, Anti-Bush) and don‘t look at facts and good ol fashioned common sense.


----------



## koalorka (14 Feb 2004)

Actually on this forum being pro-Bush seem far more popular. Anyone that raises critisiscm is openly discriminated.


----------



## Enzo (15 Feb 2004)

SF, facts? We‘re still waiting for them, otherwise it‘s conjecture. I like to think for myself, not be told what to think. The problem is, I‘m uncertain as to what information to trust. I wonder why that is eh?


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Feb 2004)

> Anyone that raises critisiscm is openly discriminated.


I am curious as to how you‘ve been discriminated against...


----------



## koalorka (15 Feb 2004)

They set my trailer on fire.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Feb 2004)

We do that to all the new people


----------



## koalorka (15 Feb 2004)

Um..I found this "educational" clip on president Bush, but I‘m not going to be the popularity queen for posting it. Enjoy.

 http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm


----------



## winchable (15 Feb 2004)

Can anyone tell me what differences a Democrat president would make?


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Feb 2004)

Actually, I found that pretty funny.

Certainly puts the "anti-Bush" side‘s argument into a logically presented perspective. When all else fails - that‘s what they resort to. I‘d be curious to see similar ads, generated by the "other" side....


----------



## SFontaine (15 Feb 2004)

Wow that flash video really changed my mind.. I mean it presented facts and evidence so well and had a real political message.


----------



## koalorka (15 Feb 2004)

Ya see fellas, overwhelming evidence that Bush has to go..  

That part about the wet sock made me laugh.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Feb 2004)

Well, that caught me off gaurd.  After wiping the tears from my eyes from laughing so hard, I watched it again...


----------

