Author Topic: Iran Super Thread- Merged  (Read 712562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 48Highlander

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,397
    • Applied Ballistics
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #75 on: January 25, 2005, 19:40:50 »
No, I'll denounce you for suggesting that such a quote applies in all circumstances.

Disagreeing with Iraq deffinitely doesn't put you on Sadams side, it puts you on the US side ;D

If you're talking about opposing the US led war in Iraq, then it all depends on your reasons.  You could be opposed to it because you don't think the US has any business doing anything outside it's own borders.  In that case you're an isolationist, and a fool.  Maybe you disagree with it because you think that the US was motivated by Oil.  In that case you're a conspiracy theorist, and still a fool.  Or maybe you're opposed to it because you beleive the US forces are doing more harm than Sadam ever did.  In that case, you're a revisionist, and STILL a fool.  And lastly, you could be opposed to it because you're biased against any US actions.  In which case you're a liberal, and the biggest fool of all :)

I don't know, maybe I skipped a possible motivation there, feel free to enlighten me on your beleifs.  Just try to avoid using quotes.  I find that those who can't think for themselves are most likely to quote the irrelevant statements of others.

Voltigeur

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #76 on: January 25, 2005, 19:44:34 »
I see your point Steve... don't worry about the quote, it's true even though it's coming from fatty Goering. You are right to say everything is not balck and white... In fact, the whole thing is more kind of a muddy gray than anything else but sometimes you got to take a side. Hell, I dont agrree with a lot of things that Bush is saying. A lot of people on Canada are screaming against the USA and their policy... They refuse to admit to the whole syaing... It's ugly but it's necessary! Why, I will tell you. Canada is a little sweetheart country. It's surrounded by three oceans and a big brother in the south to provide for everything. There has been no war and no major disaster on its soil for more than 300 years. People are fat and they enjoy more freedom than anywhere else in the world. In that way, They are ignorant cause they simply don't know why they have such nice standards of living... If it was not for the States, Canada would be the ***** of everybody. Yes, US foreign policy is questionable at some extent but as long as you have electricity, food, shelters and a future for your family and your children... dont scream at them too hard... The USA don't owe us anything, we owe them for everything.

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #77 on: January 25, 2005, 19:56:35 »
I didn't post it as proof. I do however feel that the information that I posted was far more compelling, researched, and believable than the "Wizard of Oz" posting simply that "there were NO links" on an internet forum....

True

And i never meant to for it to be taken as such.   A post is an opinion unless backed by a quote or other form of relevant material.   Correct? And all i gave was my opinion if i had hard evidence of these links i would have put them there.   The following are from USA today and the Washington Post in that order.

The prewar intelligence has been called into question both nationally and abroad because of the military's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Also, some evidence cited by the Bush administration has been discredited, including documents on supposed approaches to obtain uranium in Africa, which turned out to be forgeries.

At a news conference in Washington, Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said Friday the failure to find the weapons was a defeat for her government, which strongly supported the war.

"There is a pervasive concern when and how we will find them," Palacio said. But she said she was relaxed about the weapons search.

Republicans say there is little doubt the weapons existed and accuse Democrats of questioning the intelligence and its use for political reasons. They defeated three attempts by House Democrats this week to expand the weapons inquiries as part of an intelligence bill approved early Friday.

On Thursday, 24 House Democrats announced that would seek an independent commission to examine the Iraq intelligence. They say they want to know whether intelligence was inaccurate or whether the administration presented a distorted interpretation of the intelligence to make the case for war.

Democrats have also questioned whether the Bush administration overstated Iraqi links to al-Qaeda. A recently completed draft report by a U.N. terrorism committee on efforts to stop al-Qaeda operations does not mention Iraq. The committee has seen no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, said its chief investigator Michael Chandler.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Friday that the committee's mandate did not include examining Iraqi links to al-Qaeda. He said the committee lacked the expertise to assess any links.

In addition to the intelligence issue, Democrats and some Republicans have criticized President Bush for not speaking publicly of the long-term costs and U.S. troop commitments that will be needed in Iraq.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, urged Bush to ask for help policing Iraq from the NATO military alliance and its member states.

"I implore the president to kind of get over his feelings about the Europeans, and the French and the Germans in particular, and seek their assistance because I believe they are ready to assist. They need to be asked," Biden said.

In an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered," Secretary of State Colin Powell said "a large presence of troops" will be needed for months to stabilize the country, improve security and eliminate remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and his Baathist Party.

"I can't be more precise than that, because we don't know," he said.


And now the post

Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A01

In a nationally televised address last October in which he sought to rally congressional support for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, President Bush declared that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States by outlining what he said was evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with al Qaeda.

A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional sources who have read the report.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired intelligence panel last fall, asked the CIA for more information. (Ellen Ozier -- Reuters)   

We want to give you the opportunity to show firsthand what it is like to live and work in Iraq.
 
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which represented the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, contained cautionary language about Iraq's connections with al Qaeda and warnings about the reliability of conflicting reports by Iraqi defectors and captured al Qaeda members about the ties, the sources said.

"There has always been an internal argument within the intelligence community about the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," said a senior intelligence official, who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity. "The NIE had alternative views."

Similar questions have been raised about Bush's statement in his State of the Union address last January that the British had reported Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa, which the president used to back up his assertion that Iraq had a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. In that case, senior U.S. officials said, the CIA 10 months earlier sent a former senior American diplomat to visit Niger who reported that country's officials said they had not made any agreement to aid the sale of uranium to Iraq and indicated documents alleging that were forged. Details of that CIA Niger inquiry were not shared with the White House, although the agency succeeded in deleting that allegation from other administration statements.

Bush, in his speech in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, made his case that Iraq had ties with al Qaeda, by mentioning several items such as high-level contacts that "go back a decade." He said "we've learned" that Iraq trained al Qaeda members "in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Although the president offered essentially circumstantial evidence, his remarks contained none of the caveats about the reliability of this information as contained in the national intelligence document, sources said.

The presidential address crystallized the assertion that had been made by senior administration officials for months that the combination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and a terrorist organization, such as al Qaeda, committed to attacking the United States posed a grave and imminent threat. Within four days, the House and Senate overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution granting the president authority to go to war.

The handling of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda has come under increased scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with some leading Democrats charging that the administration exaggerated the case against Hussein by publicizing intelligence that supported its policy and keeping contradictory information under wraps. The House intelligence committee opened a closed-door review into the matter last week; its Senate counterpart is planning similar hearings. The Senate Armed Services Committee is also investigating the issue.

Bush has defended his handling of intelligence before the war, calling his critics "revisionist historians."

"The intelligence services of many nations concluded that he had illegal weapons, and the regime refused to provide evidence they had been destroyed," Bush said in his weekly radio address yesterday. He vowed to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

Questions about the reliability of the intelligence that Bush cited in his Cincinnati address were raised shortly after the speech by ranking Democrats on the Senate intelligence and armed services panel. They pressed the CIA to declassify more of the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate than a 28-page "white paper" on Iraq distributed on Capitol Hill on Oct. 4.

In one of the more notable statements made by the president, Bush said that "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," and added: "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

Bush did not indicate that the consensus of U.S. intelligence analysts was that Hussein would launch a terrorist attack against the United States only if he thought he could not stop the United States from invading Iraq. The intelligence report had said that the Iraqi president might decide to give chemical or biological agents to terrorists, such as al Qaeda, for use against the United States only as a "last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." And it said this would be an "extreme step" by Hussein.

These conclusions in the report were contained in a letter CIA Director George J. Tenet sent to Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then the chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, the day of Bush's speech.

While Bush also spoke of Iraq and al Qaeda having had "high-level contacts that go back a decade," the president did not say -- as the classified intelligence report asserted -- that the contacts occurred in the early 1990s, when Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader, was living in Sudan and his organization was in its infancy. At the time, the report said, bin Laden and Hussein were united primarily by their common hostility to the Saudi Arabian monarchy, according to sources. Bush also did not refer to the report's conclusion that those early contacts had not led to any known continuing high-level relationships between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, the sources said.

The president said some al Qaeda leaders had fled Afghanistan to Iraq and referred to one "very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." It was a reference to Abu Mussab Zarqawi, a Jordanian. U.S. intelligence already had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member but the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents, the sources said.

As for Bush's claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and use of poisons and deadly gases, sources with knowledge of the classified intelligence estimate said the report's conclusion was that this had not been satisfactorily confirmed.

"We've learned," Bush said in his speech, "that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." But the president did not mention that when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had referred the previous month to such training, she had said the source was al Qaeda captives.

The CIA briefed congressional committees about the National Intelligence Estimate but did not deliver the classified version until the evening of Oct. 1, just before a Senate intelligence committee hearing the next day, congressional sources said. At that closed-door session, several senators raised questions about qualifying statements made in the report, which was circulated only among senior national security officials.

On Oct. 4, three days before the president's speech, at the urging of members of Congress, the CIA released its declassified excerpts from the intelligence report as a "white paper" on Iraq's weapons programs and al Qaeda links. The members wanted a public document to which they could refer during floor debates on the Iraq war resolution.

The white paper did contain passages that hinted at the intelligence community's lack of certitude about Iraq's weapons programs and al Qaeda ties, but it omitted some qualifiers contained in the classified version. It also did not include qualifiers made at the Oct. 2 hearing by an unidentified senior intelligence official who, during his testimony, challenged some of the administration's public statements on Iraq.

"Senator Graham felt that they declassified only things that supported their position and left classified what did not support that policy," said Bob Filippone, Graham's deputy chief of staff. Graham, now a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposed the war resolution.

When the white paper appeared, Graham and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), an intelligence panel member and at that time chairman of the Armed Services Committee, asked to have additional portions of the intelligence estimate as well as portions of the testimony at the Oct. 2 hearing made public.

On the day of Bush's speech, Tenet sent a letter to Graham with some of the additional information. The letter drew attention because it seemed to contradict Bush's statements that Hussein would give weapons to al Qaeda.

Tenet released a statement on Oct. 8 that said, "There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by the president in his speech." He went on to say, however, that the chance that the Iraqi leader would turn weapons over to al Qaeda was "low, in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses" weapons of mass destruction.

On Oct. 9, the CIA sent a letter to Graham and Levin informing them that no additional portions of the intelligence report would be made public.
There is a little of what i found. As far as the connection to Al Qaeda was concerend.   I don't know if i call it proof but it is better then "opinion in post by OZ"    ;D

It is about image i agree why do you think the press gets to ride with the army now?   To that same statement, though the US is the biggest kid on the block no doubt or argument right?   Do you not think that having that kind of power does not come with some sort of responsiblitiy deserved or not or wanted or not it does.   

And of course they are an easy target, it is like playing king of the hill, the one on top has to work very hard to stay there cause everybody is gunning for them.



Voltigeur i hope you do not think i am on the side of Iran.   I am not.

MagieNoire

Sure it can, the concept of total war allows for it.   The death toll and colllateral damage to the main island alone would have far exceeded that of the two nuclear weapons droped on them.   

It is nice to see that this fourm is not all verbal squabiling.
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline Steve

  • Mentally hilarious
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 583
  • No claim for you!
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #78 on: January 25, 2005, 20:10:40 »
No, I'll denounce you for suggesting that such a quote applies in all circumstances.

Funny, I don't recall saying that the quote applied in all circumstances. I thought it was quite clear that I was using that quote in this instance.

Disagreeing with Iraq deffinitely doesn't put you on Sadams side, it puts you on the US side ;D

I'm not on the US side, or any side. Is your manner of thinking so confined and narrow so that everyone must be on a certain "side" Cake and pie may be evenly divided but things are not so simple in real life.

If you're talking about opposing the US led war in Iraq, then it all depends on your reasons.   You could be opposed to it because you don't think the US has any business doing anything outside it's own borders.   In that case you're an isolationist, and a fool.   Maybe you disagree with it because you think that the US was motivated by Oil.   In that case you're a conspiracy theorist, and still a fool.   Or maybe you're opposed to it because you beleive the US forces are doing more harm than Sadam ever did.   In that case, you're a revisionist, and STILL a fool.   And lastly, you could be opposed to it because you're biased against any US actions.   In which case you're a liberal, and the biggest fool of all :)

Well, isn't that convenient that any manner of said thinking makes me automatically a fool? Maybe I think someone may be a fool for not thinking it's about oil? Maybe I could say you're a fool for believing that democracy will take hold in Iraq? I don't think any of these things but it's quite easy to simply go around calling everyone a fool for thinking the way they do.

On top of that, why should anyone care if you think they are a fool? You have your own beliefs and reasons for believing them, why call someone a fool for not sharing that view? Is it because you're an ultra right wing nutjob? If so, you're a fool. Is it because you are a Republican and anyone that talks down about the US hates America and freedom? If so, you're a bigger fool. Perhaps you are an evil communist who wants everyone to tow the party line? If so you are the biggest fool of all :)

See, anyone can pull this infantile method of attack.

I don't know, maybe I skipped a possible motivation there, feel free to enlighten me on your beleifs.   Just try to avoid using quotes.   I find that those who can't think for themselves are most likely to quote the irrelevant statements of others.

Or it just may be that I found his quote better able to sum up what I am feeling/thinking better than I could express it. And by the way, it was hardly irrelevent.

As for my own beliefs; you know what they are? Nothing. I consider this whole Iraq debacle just another American war. I don't like it, and I don't particularly believe in it or like George Bush. And that is it. Sure I follow the news and recent developments because I am curious about world events, but aside from what I stated, I don't give it anymore thought than that. I have better things to do than waste my time with politics and Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative/etc bull****.
I fell off the jungle gym.. and when I woke up, I was in Petawawa..

CivU

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #79 on: January 25, 2005, 20:13:24 »
"Maybe you disagree with it because you think that the US was motivated by Oil.  In that case you're a conspiracy theorist, and still a fool."

Wait a few years.  The only fool will be the person who thinks the War in Iraq had nothing to do with oil.

Voltigeur

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2005, 20:14:42 »
LOL I love that quote by the regretted General George S. Patton... It says a lot about the kind of man he was... a pure and steeled soldier. Well, this is a deep topic and I took a kind interest to read your newspaper references. Personnaly, what I retain from Irak and the whole US foreign policy in the Middle East is the following :

Of course there were no WMD
It's not to free Iraki from Saddam (They supported Saddam for a long time and they give a damn about atrocities)
Oil is one of the main reason
The main reason is   to extent to shere of influence of the USA, politically, militarilly and economically in the Middle East.
Oil is one of the major factor because it's going to be a scare resource in less than 50 years
China is on its way to become a superpower... the move in the middle East is linked to that just like this missile shield we are talking about...
The US are talking about Irak, Iran and North Korea... its just a way to talk to China saying : "I'm still running the show"
To sum, the whole show is about economic competition... Freedom is always the perfect cover
Iraki are not more important to the US than Sudanese, or other dying people are. They care about the geostrategic position and the resources.
Am I going to blame them... No! In Roman times, I would have been with Rome and today Im with the US... Who knows, maybe someday we are going to be those people that the chinese are sorry for on TV...LOL



Offline Steve

  • Mentally hilarious
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 583
  • No claim for you!
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #81 on: January 25, 2005, 20:18:49 »
Voltigeur you are clearly a leftist liberal fool. Why don't you just run up and hug Osama, you freedom hating terrorist.

(joking btw).
I fell off the jungle gym.. and when I woke up, I was in Petawawa..

CivU

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #82 on: January 25, 2005, 20:20:51 »
"In Roman times, I would have been with Rome and today Im with the US"

The world is a difference place almost two thousands years later.   You can be a Canadian and not be with the US and not fear being conquered in an epic battle on the plains of Saskatchewan.   Siding with someone out of either fear of their power or an inferiority complex is a poor methodology for deriving a position on anything.   If you were surrounded by ten enemy soldiers would you merely cave and side with them out of the sheer domination they held over the situation?

Voltigeur

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #83 on: January 25, 2005, 20:21:34 »
LOL Steve... Damn, if I am a leftist liberal, I wonder what you are... maybe green party

Offline 48Highlander

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,397
    • Applied Ballistics
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #84 on: January 25, 2005, 20:23:41 »
As for my own beliefs; you know what they are? Nothing. I consider this whole Iraq debacle just another American war. I don't like it, and I don't particularly believe in it or like George Bush. And that is it. Sure I follow the news and recent developments because I am curious about world events, but aside from what I stated, I don't give it anymore thought than that. I have better things to do than waste my time with politics and Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative/etc bull****.

That tells me all I need to know.  You're not opposed to the war because of any logical reasoning, you're opposed to it because it's "just another American war".  So how can you expect me not to think of you as a fool?

Offline Carcharodon Carcharias

  • Drawing the crabs from Downunder :) WTF is TWL?
  • Banned
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 28,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,224
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #85 on: January 25, 2005, 20:28:12 »
What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.   :skull:

What about the attrocities the Japanese committed against Allied PoWs? Australian, American, British and even Canadians. This also included civilian 'citizens'   including men, women and young children.

What about the insane brutal treatment of the Chinese and Koreans under Japanese rule, not forgetting the other Asian nations taken during their 'empire' expansion.

Even today the Japanese government fails to even acknowledge or even unofficially say 'sorry' for what they had done not so long ago.

Shame on them. So before you go smearing shyte on what your great nation accomplished to end a nasty and brutal World War, you had better take a long look at what Japan had done prior to the 6th and 9th of August 1945 even going back to the 1930s with their invasion of Manchuria.

At least the German government acknowledges their tarnished Nazi past, and has publically apologised time and time again. Now thats a humble and gallant thing to do, and something to be admired, and the first steps in the long process of forgivness.

Wes

« Last Edit: January 25, 2005, 20:35:18 by Wesley H. Allen, CD »
"You've never lived until you've almost died; as for our freedom, for those of us who have fought for it, life has a flavour the protected will never know." - Anonymous

Voltigeur

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #86 on: January 25, 2005, 20:29:38 »
CiviU, my man... the world isn't so different than two thousand years ago... technology has improved all right but the deep human principles and vlaues are the same... Their is a lot of parallels you can make with the US and the Roman empire... Just pay attention to details and read between the lines... It's pretty the same ball game. All the US want is to maintain its superpower and economic control to PRESERVE THE WAY OF LIFE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. All the Roman empire did starting around 150 AD was to maintain its border and economic control to PRESERVE THE WAY OF LIFE OF ROMAN PEOPLE. And to answer your question, since I'm now a cop and a former Infantryman, you should know that I won't switch side out of fear... I am more American than Canadian in my way of thinking... it's just the way it is and I personnaly think it will be the time soon for a North American Federation... doyou really think that 30 milions canadians should stand up to 240 millions American when they speak the same language and share the same values... well almost the same values right Moose!


CivU

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #87 on: January 25, 2005, 20:31:16 »
Stating that Canadians and Americans share the same values is a gross misunderstanding of the nation we live in.

Offline 48Highlander

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,397
    • Applied Ballistics
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #88 on: January 25, 2005, 20:35:28 »
Stating that Canadians and Americans share the same values is a gross misunderstanding of the nation we live in.

The only difference between us and the yanks is that we're more socialist, and we accept the monarchy.   Otherwise we may as well be part of the US.

If your opinion differs, you may wish to qualify it with some examples.

Offline Steve

  • Mentally hilarious
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 583
  • No claim for you!
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #89 on: January 25, 2005, 20:38:06 »
That tells me all I need to know.   You're not opposed to the war because of any logical reasoning, you're opposed to it because it's "just another American war".   So how can you expect me not to think of you as a fool?

I have my own reasons - none of which I will ever care to explain to you. I don't care the slightest if you think I am a fool. The feeling is mutual, but it doesn't matter whatsoever.

I'm through discussing this with you.
I fell off the jungle gym.. and when I woke up, I was in Petawawa..

Voltigeur

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2005, 20:40:19 »
Well CIviU, thats your opinion and I respect it... However, you are the first who will bring your kids to McDonald, go to see an Hollywood movie and have a family life just like the normal American way... You will want to have a big car and a big house just like the American way and send your kids in a good school so they can have a good life just like the American way... You think canadian are special... that they are diferent and so on and so on... Damn, have you ever been in the States or talked to some moderate republican or open democrat... you would see there is difference in your way of thinking except the moose head in the back of your head. Its pretty much the same. Don't you forget that you all descend from the same ancestors. Most people in Canada are just the rest of some loyalists who fled the American Revolution... Mother Elizabeth don't give a damn about you since a long time ago so you should look south and take a good look at your Uncle Sam... I'm sure you'll find family traits.



To be or Not to be - WS

Voltigeur

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #91 on: January 25, 2005, 20:44:22 »
Thanks 48Highlanders... always nice to have some Scotts warriors on my side

Voltigeur

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #92 on: January 25, 2005, 20:47:19 »
Anyway, lets just sell Canada top the States so I can finally join the few, the good, THE MARINES
Semper Fi

CivU

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #93 on: January 25, 2005, 20:54:04 »
Well if you want to compare American and Canadian values, look at the positions taken by numerous American states prior to the past election in voting against same sex marriage rights.  Presently seven provinces and one territory endorse these rights for same sex couples. 

CivU

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #94 on: January 25, 2005, 20:55:39 »
"Mother Elizabeth don't give a darn about you since a long time ago so you should look south and take a good look at your Uncle Sam"

I don't remember that as part of my Canadian Forces swearing in ceremony.  Must have missed that passage...

Offline Steve

  • Mentally hilarious
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 583
  • No claim for you!
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #95 on: January 25, 2005, 20:56:26 »
Unfortunately I've contributed to this .. but this thread is getting pretty far from what it was meant to be .. I was really enjoynig hearing the debate about the US and Iran and such before ... all this happened. So does anyone else have anymore to say about Iran..?
I fell off the jungle gym.. and when I woke up, I was in Petawawa..

Voltigeur

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #96 on: January 25, 2005, 21:00:48 »
Let Iran with Iranians, Irak with Irakis but let the Americans invade Canada. LOL

Offline 48Highlander

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,397
    • Applied Ballistics
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #97 on: January 25, 2005, 21:06:18 »
Well if you want to compare American and Canadian values, look at the positions taken by numerous American states prior to the past election in voting against same sex marriage rights.   Presently seven provinces and one territory endorse these rights for same sex couples.  


But what percentage of the people actually support it?

Canada:
Opposed:   44%
In favour:   53%

US:
Opposed:   55%
In favour:   30%

An 11% difference in opposition really isn't anything to get overly excited about.   The main difference is that only 3% of Canadians don't bother having or voicing an opinion as opposed to 23% of Americans.

How about looking at US opinions on gay "civil unions"?   Same concept, different name:

Opposed:   51%
In favour:   46%

Let's try not to make the Americans out to be homophobic hicks, eh?

Offline muskrat89

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 25,947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,471
    • Desert Rat
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #98 on: January 25, 2005, 21:12:23 »
Quote
Let's try not to make the Americans out to be homophobic hicks, eh?

Especially since some of us Canadians have lived here for a dozen or more years, and can speak from experience, as opposed to something we've heard or read somewhere...   ::)
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

CivU

  • Guest
Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
« Reply #99 on: January 26, 2005, 00:27:02 »
"Especially since some of us Canadians have lived here for a dozen or more years, and can speak from experience, as opposed to something we've heard or read somewhere..."

What is this referring to?  I've lived in Canada more than a dozen years.  And last time I checked, reading up on things was hardly a negative means of informing yourself...