KrustyKidd

We will see. Something that is forgotten is that this terrorism has been brewing for decades and is long from being over. It may be further decades before we will know if he was right or wrong. As for his culpability, it seems that previous Presidents missed the mark as well, as did all the beureaucrats in office over the last ten or so years. He seems to have satisfied the investigators on the commission, never of course the left. As for the Post War Situation, hindsight is 20/20. I still see no severe problems.

Ideally, Got that right. Although usually politicly opposed, you, August and I share a mutual concern for the process BD. Consider this short editorial I wrote for my website, the last para particularly; PEMBROKE INTERACTIVE.CA

First off, he is briefed by people who are supposed to know what they are talking about. If they are not up to speed on events or happenings within their own depts one can hardly blame Bush. Dumb as you like to think he is, even the best President could not have avoided this happening. Second, the main reason why he never came right out and said that he was sorry that it had happened or something similar is that with all the Kerry BS going on it would have been used out of context and provided fodder for ad after ad. Nararator: What about foreign policy? Bush Soundbite: 'I'm sorry' Nararator: What about the economy? Bush Soundbite: 'I'm sorry' Instead, he explained what was going on. He didn't trip up. He had nothing to trip up, he just said it like it was. The truth is an easy script to follow. Speaking of economy, did you happen to notice that the questions asked were all pretty much answered in his monologue and if they wern't, were answered by Bush in another question? And what is really amazing is that none were on the economy. Not one!

I mourn for people that are so anti government that it clouds their vision of everything. Kerry for example, has no clear defined plan for Iraq except to somehow get UN help (after France and Germany have said they will not co-operate, subsequently canning any possible mandates from the UN) and get Bush out of office. He has followers who also are equally enlightened with a severe plan shortage for this issue. They follow Chomsky like his words mean everything when all he is trying to do is to get people to try and see things from another perspective. His words are by no means an authoritive and final decision, and carry an anti conservative thinking message. He used football in this little example, why not movies? Why not the bar scene? Why not picnics, celebrations and such? Simple, he wanted to equate this sport with the Gladiator Arena, it sent a message of governmental control of some sinister kind. As I said before, I like the guy, he should be manditory reading for anybody posting on a serious forum but, is hardly correct in all things. You will note, if you read more of him that he mixes in facts, good solid facts with ommisions that leave the uneduacated and closeminded with no other focal point but big bad US Government. None of his utterences are unbiased, even though he might come off as such, wish he could be as such. It seems that even he, who probably knows more of the workings of the international world cannot rise above pettiness. As I said before, it would be interesting to have him do a few works on the French, Russians, Germans and the Middle East as a whole with equal zeal to his US bad-all the way books.

LOL. And if we sat around and baked cakes he would blame the icing makers for diverting attention from the actions of the Neferious Government? The way he says the paragraph is as if it is an INTENTIONAL doing, not simply a thing that happened by chance. Like I said, tin foil hats.

Do you support our Troops?

Yep, it sure is. Ho hum. Here we go again. I wanted to avoid this as it is lengthy. What legal justification do you think the had to US recontinue the Gulf War after Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement, as laid out in UN resolution 687,686 and 678? Here, I'll save you the searching for the UN Resolution; On 27 Jan, Blix reported all sorts of stuff still being discovered in Iraq. I HAVE LISTED HIS REPORT IN FULL, AND IN SUMMARY BELOWThey were cooperating he said, 'an encouraging sign' but nowhere near the spirit of the orders they had signed the ceasefire with. For a country that was supposed to be free of 'WMD and all quipment, related material and resources' (including dual purpose stuff) thery sure had a lot that was 'discovered' rather than 'turned in.' Seems that this all adds up to a cease fire that was broken by Iraq. Or should I say, never fullly complied with. Therefore, member states (USA, France, Britain and whoever else including Syria, SA and all) cooperating with the government of Kuwait, acting under res 678 para2 "all subsequent resolutions" can simply resume military action. BLIX'S REPORT On 27 Jan, Blix reported all sorts of stuff still being discovered in Iraq. They were cooperating he said, 'an encouraging sign' but nowhere near the spirit of the orders they had signed the ceasefire with. For a country that was supposed to be free of 'WMD and all quipment, related material and resources' (including dual purpose stuff) thery sure had a lot that was 'discovered' rather than 'turned in.' To summarize the summary: Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? Somewhere in the amount of 2 million pounds of it, enough to fill three or four semi trailers. Hmmm that would mean deception and not cooperating with inspectors right? Hmmm, that would mean WMD if dropped in one of the warheads they had right? Hmmm, scince then Blix has discovered these have a range of more than 600 miles. This would mean prohibitted weapons right? Hmmm, scince then they have discovered scientists with crates of 'take home work' documents in their homes. One even had parts for a freakin particle separator in his garden as 'take nhome work' for crying out loud! Remember now, Iraq was not permitted to have any WMD, material, equipment or dual purpose material or equipment. Clearly, Blix found much of that and Kay has found more as well. No smoking gun per say but enough to easily justify the legalities and Saddam's intent to carry on with his programe of aquiring WMDs. There is also this little article I came across from THE GUARDIAN In it,

duplicate post.

duplicate post

People, the point I was making by quoting Chomsky was that sports has been around long before Bush etc. If anybody can tell me that the Aborigionals who played Lacross did it to placate the masses while they were on a quest for Global Domination I will know you are certifiable. As I said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The first one that asks me what that is supposed to mean will get my unending ridicule. Anyhow, Chomsky was over the top with that one, in the Tin Foil brigade.

I wouldn't go that far. However, he is smart, entertaining and full of facts. It is the order and ommision of things that makes me not take him as serious as he should be taken. Every proposal, every story, every page is simply a step in building a pre determined stucture that will be anything but an unbiased look at the way things really are. One uniform thing throughout the four books of his that I have read is that he shows us how the US should have looked at problems throughout history. Nevermind that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and that Hitlers and Stalins just do what they do because they can and foriegn policy is pretty much reactionary rather than geared with a timeframe further than the next election in mind. He shrugs off events and crimes perpetrated by genocidal villans like the above m in a pass, instead concentrating on the true evil, elected govenments of only one country - USA. France, Germany, Britain, they all get a free pas even if mentioned adversely in his work. Obviously he is more concerned with America as he is American but to tune so many out by going over the same crap in new wrappings is garbage. No wonder he has mindless Leftists running around comparing Bush to Hitler, they know no history save what he has said and what he has wrote was for intelligent consumption, not for people trying to play 'catch up' with history. Here's a treat for you all. It is Chomsky on football; OK, bets are on, was he loaded when he wrote that or what? All you Lefties got your tin foil hats on here? Normally when there is a real government trying to control the people they just do what Saddam did, rape wives and daughters, kill husbands, gas towns, crush revolts with death, that kind of thing. Football. LOL.

This is the tenet of 'socialism'. This is also how man evolved. This statement regarding human mores also must date back at least 1,000,000 yrs. And capitalism coupled with democracy has proved far more effective as a reliable means of progressing for the good of all. It is the personal reward system that does it. Now, if there were a way to perfect it, that would be great. Then again, Socialism hasn't been that sucessful either. Personal gain must be mixed with the overall gain of co-operation, otherwise both sides miss out on the wheels of progress. I think that is what you too believe Lonius.

Thanks August, I will, in future only respond to one or two points in order to make it read less like an epic novel. There was just so much to respond to though. I appoligise. Have a great weekend!

I don’t, but us swearing loyalty to something that has nothing to do with them does nothing to gain their goodwill. I mean, if there was a French King, watching 6 million of my fellow Canadians have him as their figure head would make me retch. I think I get it pretty good. I have a Queen whom I did not vote for, does not do anything for me or my country (except make Monarchists happy) and costs me money in one form or another. She carries out duties that could very well be done by politicians, corporate heads, heads of charities or even volunteers. Any one of them could be replaced if they do not perform properly. And I wish I had the time to do all that, long time since I had the ability to simply ‘work my organic garden.’ Give me a break! Like when was the last time old Charlie got a tax audit and had to come up with the last four (or even seven) years of receipts for his small business? How about sweating over a broken motor in the middle of Texas and wondering how his business was going to survive a twenty thousand dollar hit? How about being laid off and trying to figure out how he was going to make his mortgage payments, kids dental bills, car payment? You know where I’m going here.. Who the heck is belittling them? When you have lots of time, no pressing personal problems to deal with, you do what you can. The true heros are those who have all these responsibilities and still make time on weekends and evenings to work for charities, not the big stars. You put these people up on a pedestal when you should be putting people like those who have commitments that are handled by none but themselves, people without fat bank accounts and kids to feed and pick up after school there instead. These people are giving up things in order to meet with local charities and organizations to do good will. If I had all the time in the world, nothing to do and lots of money you want to bet I would be working for a cause other than personal survival. Matter of fact, I am so busy myself that the only way to do charity work was to mix it in with my work life. You work with what you have, and if you have the power of royalty, it shouldn’t be that wonderous of a thing to see them throwing support here and there for causes. No, but you must be high to make a claim that Stars like Sean Penn, Elizabeth Taylor, Nick Nolte, Tim Allen and Ben Afflick (there is more, lots more names) who work or represent charities are drug free. No I do not. You brought up the issue of this being such a hard thing to do, inferring that it is such an ordeal. I wonder, why do people seek public office? Why do they seek to stay in that office? Why do Stars try to make comebacks? Because it is so beneficial to the people? By this reasoning, Janet Jackson is such a wonderful human being, as is that money grubbing Striesand. Money, fame, beats taking orders from a teen-ager. Lots of reasons other than ‘strong sense of duty’ although, that may be part of it, it is hardly the only reason. I imagine that it went over much better than the truth. ‘I can’t believe that you guys haven’t turfed me and elected somebody who is better qualified to do this job. Thank you, thank you.’ You got it. They all like the power first, the feeling that they are doing something their way and, in a way that they think is beneficial to the people. It is really not that hard to understand and is human nature. What makes this agreeable is that we do need a leader, not five or ten of them, just one, an elected one. And that he is leader for a term of say four years, not life.......... and his kid’s life and so on. No, you are wrong, it is not personal but rather the position I abhor. It is time to get rid of them. Not the person but the position. It serves no purpose other than to provide a sense of history and belonging. One that is duplicated by a flag and education of our heritage and roots. A statue of former rulers would suffice quite well. Possibly it would be paid for by the House of Windsor as a going away present, from the money they have bilked off our fathers for the last three hundred or so years. No, I think you missed it. Royalty is a form of ruling where the ruler is predetermined largely by blood. Hence, a commoner cannot be king Because his blood is considered inferior. Hmmm, I suppose in retrospect that it is racist. And, as you said, “As such, the Queen is very capable of representing the great majority of Canadians.” Sure, but being one of them? Beneath her, she is, after all, royalty, not one of us. As for your comment of her being French, German and all, have you heard of inbreeding? The hemophilia that affected Alexis Romanov? Anything to avoid getting commoner blood injected into the line. Smells like racism to me. Furthermore, I used the term ‘nigger’ as a vile analogy of the ‘us’ and ‘them’ relationship. It was in no way intended to be racist but does illustrate the dark end to the ‘bloodline’ argument. You know, ‘Royalty’, ‘commoner’ ‘peasant’ that kind of thing. If one wants to propagate this kind of thing or accepts it then they hold a belief that some are better than others. Where does that reasoning stop I wonder? Before or after the above despicable word becomes fashionable again? By being a Monarchist, it makes me think that you also hold that belief although you are one of us. You know, like the head trustee in a prison or something. Is she better than us in your view? No, they would be left to the people who vote the politicians in. You know, democracy. However, since her position is without power (or is it? Have you figured that one out yet?) What does it matter if she is for the MJ Party? Except for this ominous phrase you used “ She holds reserve powers to be used at times of governmental crisis. They’re pretty much the same reserve powers most presidents would hold.” Hmmm, what if I want Burger King to wield power if the government crumbles, do I get a vote here or what? Erect a statue then. Make sure they use their own money, this is one Canadian that is sick of this cash outlay. I knew that. And both are not elected and hence, bogus as a representative of the people. Have you picked up a paper in the last six months? Adrienne and her budget explosion are all over the scandal reports. Double her predecessors budget, jets to her retreat on the Georgian Bay and all. Her housewife hubby berating the press for not understanding how hard it is being them and all, if it wasn't so indicative of what the Liberal government has regressed to it would be more indicative of how Royalty and it's representatives view the public coffer. No, there is more than one group at work here with a sense of entitlement. This election may see them gone with the other soon to follow . Elected in, serve the term and not re-elected. Term limits. and; No, it is my country with all it’s faults. And I will continue to work to make it for the people, not for those who wish to maintain an archaic system where some are considered better than others simply because of bad teeth and blood lines. You on the other hand, are free to leave it when us anti Monarchists succeed, or you can stay and work with us as we continue on with a democratic system - for everybody.

No, I knew all that. My cousin roomed with Andrew at Gordenstern until he managed to beg his way out of it a couple weeks later. The guy was ordering him around like he was a servent to no end. As for Prince Charles and his toughness, sure, I can buy that. However, i said that his life was not one like ours, where we face having to make it on our own without help like they have handed to them. To counter the rest of the assumption that I am not tought, I was a Canadian Pathfinder, not many of us as it is a pretty hard thing to be. Up there with US Rangers and the like so personally, although I have great respect for Marines and all others, know that those courses are quite passable by normal military standards. Yes, there is a price for being a public figure, it's called being in the public eye. I daresay that a look at the unemployment roles will find a very short list if you look for 'Ex Royalty' and 'Hollywood Super Stars' that are sick of the limelight. Gret rid of them!

No, it is like Viet Nam in the way that the people are divided and hence the enemy is heartened. As well, America is ftghting with at least one hand tied behind their back trying not to invoke public opinion against them further. This small uprising could have been avoided easily by decisive and deadly raids months ago. Saddam kept these people cowed for decades, maybe it might have been prudent to have used more force from the begining. You know, less schools, water pllants being built and more kick ass. Worked for Saddam. If they had pulled this on Saddam, they would have been gassed or flattened. The US takes a week to decide how best to avoid killing innocents which by militents is seen as weakness. One thing is certain, the US will not leave until this is settled. Which is unlike Viet Nam.

I can see why the French Canadians have separation on the table. We still want to feel like we belong to something. How about starting with our own country? I'd like to belong to that, not a country so desparate for identity that it has to have a King or Queen so that we know we are the common people. Sure Prince Charles has a hard job. Cut me some slack! He would crap in his pants if he ever had to do manual labor for the rest of his life, cook his own food and so on and forth. His job is so so soooooo hard with all that fundraising that Hollywood Stars, wearing sunglasses to hide their drug high, do it, so they have something to do while they are waiting for their poodle to get clipped . Retire and what? Talk politics? Write nasty letters to the editor? LOL, he doesn't have to, he's the King, Queen, Crown ring piece cleaner whatever! He will never retire, that's why his mum, the grand old bitch herself hangs onto the scepter and will, until every hair has fallen off her toothless head. She likes it. Gets off on it, makes her feel that she is better than you and I. If you tell me that her postition is like taking a daily ten mile walk over burning coals, and that she only does it for love of Canada ..... forget it. LOL, she holds onto power because she is, after all, royalty. It brings back the good old days I suppose, where some were better than others. White men were better than blacks, Chinese, Arabs right? Is that what you think? If it isn't broken, why fix it? No need for human rights, we have a ceremonial slut that provides an example of how there is an order in bloodlines. Same with her AWOL crony Adrianne. The person that is her representative in Canada. The one who is only supposed to be in one of two places, Canada and Buckingham Palace giving her report. Instead, she likes to do that oh, oh oh sooooooooo hard job of public relations, flying off to foreign countries to spend your money. Not elected, she still has the authority of the Queen. LOL, but the Queen has no authority somebody said? Turf em' all, make them pay taxes like the rest of the human race. At worst, if you need a security blanket, elect a King or Queen. I'm tired of being the cereimonial nigger for a bloodline that should have ended circa French Revolution.

Nothing wrong with the overall plan. It's the same old Viet Nam thing; to afraid to do what it takes to win. This thing with the Cleric Al Sadr never should have happened. Soon as he and his goons butchered that Cleric with swords and the Murder Warrent was put out by the Council, they should have taken him down then. Instead, showing how 'Liberal' they are, they let this bastard set up a newspaper to spread his hate! No wonder they are having this uprising. However, as observed in BD's article On the bonus side, it gets them all out of the woodwork so they can be confronted once and for all. It is highly unlikely any of these factions (including Al Queda and Hamas) would have ever accepted the new Iraq anyhow. To accept it is to accept that they would never have power. That's the last thing a group of thugs want is the people to have self determination and they will fight to the death.

JCCC though, you said what they wanted was to be on CNN, now you add that all they want the US to mind it's own business? What other little farts of wisdom have you been holding back? Might they want the Spanish to get out of Iraq? Might they want to propegate radical Islam throughout the middle east, even if America left? How about the Basques? is their main purpose the same or are they different? What about the IRA? Red Brigade? Does it all hinge on America? How about Hamas and Israel? As I said, terrorism has been with us for a long time. It's shape, form and reason change to fit the situation for both perpetrators and victims. Although you may not agree with the action the US has taken and, would have wished they had done otherwise is fine. To supply a better game plan is better, however, to simply accept terrorism on the basis that it is as normal as the sun setting or changing of the seasons makes me question your reasoning. Cute.

Wow. What a statement. Terrorism has been around long before CNN and America is so many different forms and for so many different reasons that it is unfathomable. Vikings did it to strike fear in enemies and victims in order to lessen resistence, Romans the same, the Stern Gang to demoralize the British and frighten Palestinians. It does not go away until they have won what they want.

Terror: In 1986, the United States was convicted by the World Court of violating international law in Nicaragua. One reference is here, with a link to the full U.N. findings. Has a communist state been convicted of this? (I'm genuinely asking you since you should know). Nice try, Russia commits the Titanic of all murders with over twenty million dead in purges and you try and swing attention to a cork in the ocean with the US in Nicaragua. First off, as soon as the attention shifted from WMD to 'Regime Change' any body with half a clue knew the WMD was secondary (or even further down the list) to the actual reasons for this action. Second, without going into legitimacy or right to posess, just assuming OBL, or Saddam or any third world dictator had WMD you would feel that the world would be just as safe as it was with say, only France, the US, Britain, Israel and so on posessing them? And are you trying to say that Saddam, OBL and others like them are in full capacity of their humanity, liberal reasoning powers and are able to separate themselves from their emotion so that some safeguards are in place to prohibit launching of these hypothetical weapons? Also, in this scenario, what safe guards are in place that make accidental launching impossible or unlikely. Is there codes and stuff like that or simply guys dancing around them firing AKs in the air waiting for the order to launch? If you can't verify or assure me of that then your argument is really out to lunch. That's not very many. Saddam killed on average, something like five thousand a month during his overall reign. Seeing as how the US has had 10 thousand Iraqis die on them in the last year and a third (15 months) that makes it an average of 600 or so. I'd say that a 1500% decrease in death is a good thing wouldn't you?

Sorry all, I thought I made it clear that it was a thought process of the US in that day, not my own. forty two years later with a Russia which is totally changed. I was six years old during the crisis and hardly in any position to affect the events with any opinion that I may have had. (I think I liked the Mighty Hercules, that's all I remember of my political views of the day) My quote from the Chomsky post;

I'll wiegh in on this. He's one smart mother. I don't find him hard on the eyes, just repititious in theme. I know how each chapter ends before I turn the pages. However, It is overall an eye opener to get the details on a lot of the events he describes. However, it is skewed quite often. Take his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. In true Chomsky-speak he quotes an unknown person in the Wilson administration (speaking of the Latin American people in the early 1800s) Here is a typical 'Noamism' comming up folks. Watch how he once again quotes an unknown, but first, adds his own words in. "and require" (Chomsky put that in himself, just wanted to be clear on that part.) Then continues on with the mysterious person who is unnamed and only reffered to as "The Wilson Administration" Was that one quote or two I wonder? He doesn't list the source as he normally does so ..... hmmmm. I would remind Noam of two points. that was then, this is now. People those days were under the belief of manifest destiny. All of the civilised world was, not the USA only. Spain, France, Britain all shared the same belief that the world was theirs and only restricted to whether or not another power would prevent them. Is it any wonder that somebody in any administration in that day would refer to less advanced societies as children? He uses this as a valid point to establish a pattern in US foreign policy that extends to this day. Get real Noam, hang ten and chill out! His ommision of the stark reality that most other nations of the day were more aggresive in their attempts for 'Hegemony' in that day is missing. Probably doesn't fit in with his premise. Anyhow, when is his work on French Hegemony comming out I wonder? Not like they changed suddenly, when did they change I wonder, If they did. Could it have something to do with losing a couple of times in war and being rescued by the US in large part? And could that large part be a defining moment in how the US suddenly felt the need to protect loser countries that couldn't protect themselves? I mean, not like there was suddenly no threat from anybody with the Soviet Union saying chummy things like 'We will Bury the West.' Yes, I can see where the US might have felt a need to stick around a bit to make sure the French and European Citroin didn't get stuck in the mud again. Chomsky calls it Hegemoy, I might call it common sense. His portrayal of the Monroe Doctrine is one of the US preserving the Western Hemisphere for it own uses. Chomsky, in true Chomskonian Leftie-Looping and Over- Cascadeing of Facts sees this with blinders and omits the obvious; The US had a legitimate wariness of the power of Europe and the strife that they brought to places in which they really colonised. Not the rhetorical, leftist type of 'US Imperialism' and 'Neo Colonialism' written on a sandwhichboard in downtown London or whatever by a wet protestor, but downright slavery of anybody they could put under a boot No pretentions of help, just rip out what they could leaving nothing but less than what they found. This was the reality of what Europe brought to the new world. Think about it for a moment, you are a somewhat powerful country, isolated from other powerful countries and they come from thousands of miles away and start to colonise and influence countries ajacent to you. Are you supposed to sit by and watch all this happen without raising an eyebrow? The Monroe Dorine was less a claim of property than a 'keep out' sign to governments that were at least as hegemonic as the US was at that time and had a history more oppressive than the US has to this day.. He never entertained this, not once. The US did it to rip off the people of the Philippines, Carribian, Latin America. That's his gig and he's good at it. Some points are great, some are stretched and others are just worthless. He is so biased that he is not credible as a whole. Another example is the Cuban Missile Crisis. He brings forth a revelation that Russia had legitimate reasons for placing the missiles in Cuba, as did Cuba for allowing them there. Very good reading BTW. From a 60s standpoint though, he loses track of a harsh reality in his thougtful tirade against US foreign policy of the day, Communism sucks. I don't feel sorry for Russia, I don't like them having nuclear missiles. I don't care that they have a corrupt and crappy slavery system to propegate. I want to keep those bastards out of our hemisphere. And, I don't feel sorry for them or give their valid reasons any credibity as Communism is evil and we will crush it whenever possible. More later. Note: I edited this post slightly to clarify some points. I also wish to clarify that the above para was the legitimate feeling of the US during the 60s, not my own in present day as there is no Soviet Union now.

Very wise Willy. 'Willy the Wise' you shall be known as from this day forward. Here is another that says the same thing. I quote myself I have to say, that I, over the course of the last couple of years have had a few beliefs changed through argument and analysis. I still lean to the right, but don't have the ferverent defensiveess of what I had before, as I understand that not only are thngs not black and white, they are not even grey either. There are streaks of white in the grey, black in the white and all quite often, many events are 'Catch 22' situations that give neither side a moral position. It is interesting to see how others were right in some cases but for reasons they either didn't know, lucked into or couldn't articulate properly to make their point at the time.

I don't think there is a actual true form known as 'freedom' when in a situation of two or more people. Unless they are identical in every way they will have differences. Freedom is a perfection that will be forever unattainable. We try to balance it with democracy, but when an agreement is made, somebody loses their freedom and another gains more of it. Even democracy is unatainable. We cannot have a referandum on every issue so we vote in whom we believe will act in the majority's interest. This leaves the minority without their freedom in many issues and even the majority have no freedom until the next election. What is interesting though, is that the only time that we are truly free is when we are in the voting booth. Those few minutes are the sum total of all the suffering, of all the victims of tyrany throughout human history, multiplied by the sacrifices and efforts of those who fought to achieve freedom. And how many don't even bother? Victims all. Their one chance to be free for a moment and they give it up, letting us have an opportunity to have our way, however narrow our choices are.