killjoy

If one feels the casualties suffered by Canadians is bad now and we should pull out, let me please illustrate exactly what would happen. Pakistani Taliban with perhaps help from the INI would reclaim power. Their drive to turn Afghanistan into essentially a training/recruiting ground for terrorist organizations planned from influences in Pakistan would resume. The Taliban effort to install an Afghan version of the Hudood ordinance would continue, something the people there never wanted, the imprisonment of ‘their own people’ would continue and their war against the West would wage on, and we would be part of it. So we can suffer what we suffer now, or we can come back in ten years and everyone, (NATO, civilians Canadian or Afghan, Pakistani's - everyone), can suffer 10x as much, and maybe then people will finally understand that we are at war whether we want it or not. Having said that I'm very pleased that Poland has stepped up to the plate to send 900 additional troops. ( When will those "awful warmongers" the Polish, ever learn? )

It wasn't.

Probably since the idea that this is a rational contention is simply impossible and at most a reflection of a minor fringe .

Not at all: It's a statement of reality and more to the point, rationality. Closer to the truth you find it more convienent to dismiss rather than answer. Let's review: I said- Yep: http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001745.html http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?he...43-c665cfd91e72 I said- Are you going to try an contend that citizen for citizen the US is looked upon more favorably in the UK than Canada.? Yeah right. Guess you've never been there. Doesn't matter. It's plain to see that your entire contribution here is simplistic Trolling and arrogance, especially in light of your habit of insinuating you speak for a large group of Americans. Apparently even the Administration disagrees with you. Also your contention is what amounts to nothing more than 'tough-talk' since it assumes, arrogantly, that anyone cares what you think and you’re in absolutely no position of responsibility or power. What, exactly, is going to happen if we “insult America”? You going to kick our ass or something? Nothing that’s what. If you want boycott our lumber and kiss your 10% growth in forest good bye and add up to 25% construction costs, go ahead. We’ll sell to Japan. Go ahead: Turn of the power on the eastern seaboard. Go ahead and buy the 17% of your oil thirst from someone more ‘friendly’ (hahaha). The tough talk is coming from the guy who figures they can intimidate an opinion we are free to have. Hate to brake it to you but just because you may be an American doesn't mean you're not still a nobody. I mean it’s really ludicrous to contend what you do as though it was important as it gets eclipsed by the outright hate displayed by South America, the ME, the UK, Europe. Your contention is a joke and by proxy so are you. Take off the tinfoil hat. .

Um, yeah. Yer gonna have to translate that one to English sorry. Whatever. It's Wiki. Read some books on the subject, in fact read only ONE book on the subject and you'll see the entire episode has NOTHING to do with Canadians and further that Rape, Burn and Destroy was the mantra of British doctrine at this time. No what's funny is that it is historically plain and evident that 5000 British soldiers burned down Washington and that "Canadians" had nothing to do with it and yet Canadians today love to brag as though they had. "5000 British troops". "British Forces". Read it again over and over until it finally sinks in, k?

One of those myths that will just never die. 1. "Canadians", (a loose term since there was no 'Canada' in 1812), amounted to a small militia that went down as far as Baltimore and Fort McHenry (so we did have some role in their national anthem) and that's it. They went back home and it was rumored they stole a keg of beer along the way. 2. The RAPE of Washington involved almost 5000 British troops and over 100 corvettes. Question: Could we raise 5000 troops and 100 ships even today? 3. The sacking of Washington, the brutal killings and rapes that came from it and the useless vandalism of such a nice building, essentially the attempt to raze Washington was entirely a typical British burn-and-destroy 'tactic' they were known to employ throughout their war with the colonies. Why a Canadian would gain such pride from such a wanton attack on civilians and meaningless, utterly pointless, and ultimately tactically worthless destruction is something I will never understand, (unless of course it was because of simple ignorance). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

Welp. I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but you can stuff it. We're currently taking the most casualties per capita in Afghanistan. We're probably the only ones left who haven't completely turned our backs on you. You DARE be offended by a simple poll while our blood flows over Afghan soil? Go see what kind of insulting things your "best friend" the UK has to say about you then come back here and whine about us. The poll only mirrors what your own citizens say so why not just do yourself a favor, sit back down on your sitting-at-home-not-dodging-bullets fat yank behind and STFU? Or at least get some bloody perspective. One more reason we have to view yanks as the “Homer Simpson” of the global neighborhood.

You're right, it is completely different. Since it's using a complete hypothesis what she actually said is completely meaningless. They could get raped. They could win a million dollars too. They could get married to one. Or they could've been killed already by Saddam -- that's a meaningless hypothesis as well. Just sayin'. .

EDIT: Actually I'm wrong on these numbers: The real number is 32 out of a population of 100000. Much different but still compelling. Forgive me but I don't really see how you can. You say it's the tip of the iceberg. Ok: Well there are, per year, 90000 forcible rapes (under the same conditions where many women don't want to report it) for every 100000 bulk population (not all young men -- everyone--- including people who couldn't do it if they tried). We are comparing this to 100000+ males roaming the streets of Baghdad. How many rapes have occurred? 1? 3? 10? Are you suggesting that these 'alleged' rapes are the tip of an iceberg that comprises 90000+ rapes by US armed forces personnel and we just don't hear about it? 90000 women who dont want to report it? 90000 incidents that went 'un-noticed'? Seriously: think about that. The numbers are hard to argue with even if you do factor in assumed unknowns like an Iraqi woman's resistance to reporting it -- which I don't really buy. I think you might have a point if it was Iraqi to Iraqi but when it's 'American Satanist Occupiers' I would think that would change the conditions more than a little. Either way, like I say, a couple of 'alleged' incidents do not indicate the tip of the iceberg for 90000 more 'alleged rapes' unless you're really reaching. In no way do I put this information out to try and excuse these 'alleged' actions. Far from it. All I'm trying to show is that if it did happen it didn't happen 'because they were soldiers' or because 'Soldiers rape Iraqi women for nothing more than living'. It's a demographic issue and a command and control issue. Without looking at the numbers we have no way of judging the why's or the what's about this situation but it seems flawed to me to assume it's anything more than a case of what will happen when you have 100000 young men on the streets whether it's here or there. I contend that if these guys are guilty that they would've just as likely raped at home as anywhere else. .

There are nearly 100000 troops in Iraq. How many rapes committed? For every population base in the USA of 100000 there are nearly 90000 rapes per year. This makes for a rate of 32% for every 100000 people. http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/20.../section-5.html Cindy doesn't say that there are American soldiers accused of rape, she says "Iraqis Get Raped By Our Soldiers Just For Living" which is a purposefully erroneous statement. The truth is that the forced rape 'rate' of American forces is a few 'alleged' incidents, made practically microscopic when compared to the standard rate found in society. .

Kandahar's nice that time of year. Mecca even nicer. I hear it can get to 50 in the shade, easy. Is anyone really that surprised? That's the youth today: Respect is a dirty word; Threats and talking smack are prized like they were trophies; Senseless violence against the innocent for no reason beyond in the doing; Pretentious mimicking of their parents 'roles' during the sixties (hippies, anti-war, anti-everything); Gang worship; Rock star worship. A whole generation of little snotty brats that never really grew up because society isolated those whose parents got divorced or were single, and then the parents either spoiled them or competed over them, convincing them they are all there is, ever was, or ever will be. IMO, a rebel without a cause is pathetic irony. .

I was going to disagree with this one if it weren't for the word 'decides'. To decide would imply planning, conscious determination and purpose and there's next to none of that. Never the less I would argue that they manage detrimental influence over what we perceive about the world around us with the Frankenstein-collection of details and opinion they tell us is reality. .

She's got most of us beat. That's a lotta yakking. .

Charles Anthony Likely because those forum names and everything having to do with thes posts are part of the up coming trial and therefore witheld. Much like all the other evidence. If they just let the names out and didn't seize any of the records then someone could just go tamper with those entries, no? Just sayin', .

As far as the bombastic opening post to this thread: whatever. To the subject at hand: Argus, I was so glad you posted that link and it's so relevant that it should be posted again: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home i love the comments made to this story - 100 non-believers struggling with the new reality they are facing: 'These people really are out to lunch. They really do want to kill us just for that sake alone. All the excuses I ever made for them about foreign intervention in their countries and US support of Israel really doesn't mean a thing to them. They really were just going along with those stories all this time. They really don't care. They think i should suffer and die for the simple reason I exist in the first place!' Says it all right there: "We don't follow your laws. We follow God's laws*". Look at this beautiful country. No way is it perfect but look at all the completely innocent people who are considered scum and worthless by these "people", NOT BECAUSE we are engaged in "an illegal USA-butt-kissing war", but for the simplistic reason that we do not belong to their religion so we are worse than animals to them. These people apparently hate 'multiculturalism' far more than anyone I've seen come here to complain about it. To them there are no other cultures but theirs. No other religions. No other laws. All is excused under their cult-like pretensions to worship. Your child; You mother; Anyone you ever loved --- even if they are muslim--- are dogs to these 'people'. *Which of course means you make it up as you go along"

Never saw it. .

I don't hate the USA. I just wish I could turn their volume down. They're noisy neighbours. 1/3 of your cheque taken off every time. 7-15% on every purchase. Then the end of the year, if you've finally got that promotion and another $10-20k anl., you can start to calculate what you really owe. Just a neighbourly warning. Canada; It's beautiful. It's expensive. .

lol. Yeah whatever BHS. You're so innocent. So civilized. So victimized. I was so cruel. So barbaric. The things I said to you...tsk tsk...how can I ever live with myself? I get the feeling you're one of those guys you mouths off in a bar till someone clocks him and then he wonders what he did. "Again"? Who said you did? Perhaps you have a comprehension problem as well as a weak understanding of English. I think it's obvious I never claimed you brought Couter up, I pointed out how I made one post about her based on the opening post of the thread. Maybe you did think you were making a joke, as far as I'm concerned you were being a pissy snot. It wasn't one throw away joke reference. You kept on and on about it: "Oh well you maybe dont hate her but you cetainly dislike her...." "Define dislike. That's a relative statment." "No it's not. There's no such thing as a relative statment. Here's a dictionary to prove it" -- lol. And it goes on and on from there. Yeah. You're so innocent. So above it all. Lets agree to ignore each other then. You can have the last word. .

Yes and you were wrong and you had absolutely no good reason to think I hate her. On top of that you were a pompous tart about it. Yay! You both hate Ann Coulter. Good for you. Moving on... The phrase "Canadians never went to Vietnam" is incorrect because it implies that no one with Canadian citizenship joined the American armed forces for the express purpose of going to Vietnam. This is probably not what Coulter meant, but stating pointedly that Canadians did not go to Vietnam is factually off the mark. I had every right to reply about Ann Coulter because the initial post was half based on it: I took exception to this, not because I'm a "liberal" (lol) but because she's always uttered the stupidest things, this was one of them. It's really quite bizarre that you and Sharkman need to immediately jump on me for "bringing her up" and "being obsessed with her" and "Hating her". I pointed out quite effectively with the help of an actual interview quote from gc why she's the sort of person who just loathes the facts and realities....kind of like you and sharkie-pooh. I was well in my right to say what I said the way I said it, and well within the topic of the initial post. Don't wanna hear about Ann? Don't bring her up. Don't say she was right when it's clear she simply forgotten to take her medication. So again: Tough. Eat it. Go run to the nearest moderator. Have a little cry. Try to save face. Maybe you and sharkie-baby just STFU next time? You’ll receive a bill for the English lesson. Have a nice day. .

So you point me to a dictionary. Marvellous. It's not even a good one. You got me. A dictionary is nice BHS, but that doesn’t teach you how to use the English language. If that were true they'd just hand out the dictionary in high school English courses and walk out of the room. I can tell you haven't even really thought about what you say here, probably because you have your panties in a twist and it's cutting off the air to your brain: Oh really? Wrong. English is a language that requires connotation and intuition to achieve understanding of the words one uses in relative context of how they are being used. Simple definitions don’t do that. Example: I have a red pencil-box. Do I have a pencil-box that is red? Or do I have a pencil-box I only use to keep my red pencils in? Without connotation you don't know and the dictionary won't tell you. If I say I love my Wife and I love French Fries one needs to be able to understand the relative connotation or they would believe I love both equally. A word like love, dislike, bad, good, big, small these have definitive meanings yes, but undefined usage. While you have that dictionary handy maybe you should look up connotation: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/connotation "connotation (what you must know in order to determine the reference of an expression) # The act or process of connoting. 1. An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success. 2. The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning." Which will lead us to intension: 1. The state or quality of being intense; intensity. 2. The act of becoming intense or more intense; intensification. 3. Logic. The sum of the attributes contained in a term. All of the above are not simply words you can use in a sentence but descriptions of language usage. In this case the idea that you need intuition or a relative bearing to understand how someone is using a word and to what degree. Finally just in case: Relative: # Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of the suburbs. # Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute. When you say you love your wife or you love French fries one needs to understand the connotation, intention and relativity of the word 'love' in it's relation to either French Fries or your wife. I notice you dodged the question about if you say you love French Fries and you love your wife. I guess that means there is no relative difference between how much you love either. I guess you love them like you love rainbows, your children and the way you love the smell of leather binding on a book. Yep, the dictionary will tell us precisely how much you love them. Whatever BHS. You win smart-ass...and I did just"deal with it." "I was going to be 'more adult' than you but I'm not..." lol. .

+1 .

Right back at you asshole. Gonna strike a match like you did and you might get burnt. You sit there and act all innocent with all your gibberish about “ad hominem attacks” as though you were above it, but there is no denying this all started with your cheap shot. You’re like the guy who picks a fight at the bar and then complains because the guy he pissed off is “so violent”, just because he didn’t stop hitting when you figured he should, or that the insults you were throwing his way shouldn’t have warranted a fight at all. When you start something you don’t get to determine when it stops….so, how do they say in Ontario? Oh yeah: “Fuck you”. You can go ahead and whine on and on about MY attacks and MY continuation of this, but here you are --- carrying on after it's long over --- another one of your tits for my tat. Go ahead and pretend you're better I don't really care. You're as bad as the other goof who claims I'm obsessed with Ann because I'm arguing with you about crap besides her....continually using my 7 posts as proof I'm obsessed, meanwhile the dork has about 80 posts dedicated to defending her on another thread....lol.....it's so obvious he's in love with her. Shit. Is there even one honest person here besides me? I was out of this. You came back to start it up. BTW : Exactly what where the 'arguing skills' you were showing off? Man, little whiney crybaby pinheads like you really piss me off. You shouldn't be posting here at all if you're going to start crap then cry about it. Oh, and this: Answer this question: If you love french fries and you love your wife, do you love them equally? I never said it requires another statement, I said it is inherently a relative statement, and you're just trying as hard as your little brain can to find a way to not understand these basics I know you already know. Read the statement again without being such a tit and sooner or later you're going to know exactly what I mean. There is no argument here. I’m right; you’re wrong and not even making sense. That’s all there is to it. It's the plain dynamics of English. If you don't understand then go ask an English teacher. Words like that are value judgments which use the context to determine their relativity. These words like "dislike", and "hate" are indeed relative terms. I'm not going to argue the point; it's like arguing that the sky is in a general 'up' direction. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word ‘relative’? I'd really like to see you post back here pretending to not understand the relative difference between the two meanings of the word 'love' in that sentance. .

I agree with Augusts view. I would also add he was in 'regular' seats instead of a luxury sky box like Cretchien used when he showed up at games. .

zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .

[EDIT] - Fixed the links. 'Scuse me.[/EDIT] I need to break this down. Be patient. I disagree - severely. It began almost as soon as he came into power but that's too far back for our purposes. For us it began with Kuwait and hasn't really ever stopped. There has only ever been a cease-fire with conditions set out by the U.N, which he continually tested or broke. He continually frustrated U.N attempts to search for all kind of materials and arms as per conditions of the cease-fire. -> Like that and like this...And it goes on and on from there. In a nutshell: This war hasn't ended and it's entirely his doing from Kuwait on. I don't know the geopolitical slang for "A royal pain in the ass", but it translates to basically a committed presence on the part of the original allies until he get out of there. I would be remiss in not mentioning the Kurds.. By the end of Clinton’s admin (here's a guy that knows how to keep a war out of the papers -bravo), it was clear this was only ever going to end one way. No matter the next administration this was costing too much and this dog had to be put down now or $1000B from now. I disagree. Sure "its'" about oil because oil is Iraq's only lifeblood. However the invasions, in ever-military irony, were about limiting conflict in the region. We will never know to what extent if failed or succeeded. Hear me out: There is no mistake. Hussein is clearly as we see today, now and always a complete delusional, homicidal, maniac. Lets just examine that bombastic statement for a moment. Hussein gets into office in 1979 and pretty immediately looks to expand his "kingdom": link The ensuing war between Iraq and Iran drains each nation of it's males, devastated both nations main import oil, (not just for the customer but the seller), and just so happened to leave Saddam owing Kuwait $14B for their backing in his incredibly incompetent war -- this could be summed up nicely in the Gulf War, with his moronic spreading out of his armoured units, "entrenched" out in the middle nowhere, soon to become airpower target practice more than actual defence. The Iran/Iraq war ended about 1988. This gave him a whole 2(?) years to recuperate the best he could before sabre-rattling again against the very people who backed him in the first war. Having finally talked his way out of the Gulf War and keeping his country any half-assed responsible, semi-sane leader (read Kadafi) could've made nice and built an economy and maybe his country would have a chance to survive, but no. He's gotta keep playing the games I pointed out earlier. There was no choice. This isn't a global neighbourhood. It's a prison. We can't escape each other and as the mobsters would say, "He HAD to go". That's the only way it could end and there is ABSOLUTELY no way anyone here can reasonably suggest that it would be 'likely' that Saddam would’ve not gone to war again causing far more death so long as USA and the UK didn’t spend all their time with him on a leash. You have to re-evaluate that. That is Western arrogance. They are not the only super power. They are perhaps the 'superest'-super power but yes, China or Russia can apparently do what they will and invade whom they like and sell arms wherever, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. They both have thousands of ICBMs. We’re done. As to your point about the death and carnage, I reiterate about the carnage that would, (historically proven), happen again to more than 200000 or whatever that awful number is today: It could be 1M+ today if the West ignored Hussein entirely. In Rwanda, UN forces would've only needed a battalion more hull strength, and to perhaps shoot-to kill a dozen? a thousand? In the end they would've been able to open a free route for refugees or security for safe zones. The army wasn't interested in stopping them or helping them. IT was only the mob that had to be stopped. As sure as I'm breathing all that death could've been prevented if only we'd be willing to kill some...but that's not how history would write it. Those 500000-800000 dead would be hypothetical, laughed and looked down upon by the anti-war cliché who would claim that was ill justification for shooting 500 mobsters dead. Don't even start. Yes but not the way I believe you think it does. One does not drive the other. Wars happen because one side refuses to negotiate. Regardless of the circumstances fair or otherwise that is why wars start. You read what I linked you too and decide if Hussein was not give a chance to negotiate, to change his tactics, to compromise and then we can start talking about the damage done by two countries many seem to expect to pay to keep him out of the news. Business follows war like stink on shit. But it's not the shit. I believe we should also re-evaluate our perception of oil producing nations and the hype of how dependant the West is supposed to be on Iraqi oil. Especially in terms of the last 8 years. Tops suppliers of US Crude oil Oil reserves Total petroleum imports If it was 'all about oil' why not invade Mexico or even easier, Canada? This logic is always missed: The Iraqi people are dependent on Iraqi oil. Iraq today could’ve been won without Au Garib. Abu Garib started the wave that brings us what we see today. .