theloniusfleabag

Dear crazymf, Good post, I believe you are right. My dad is a 'war hero', (at least in my eyes) as it were, having took part (and being greviously wounded) in the first 'all-Canadian naval battle' against Germany in 1944. He was a gunner on the HMCS Saskatchewan, and had his left arm almost clean off. There is a reference to his emergency surgery on the mess table, in the book "North Of 50", and his life preserver allegedly spent some time in the Halifax Naval Museum. He went into gov't service later on, and worked his way up to 'Registrar of Land Titles' in a medium sized Canadian city. He never wanted to go into politics, though..."They're all crooks" he would tell me. I am going to visit him in a couple of months, though he isn't in the best of health.

Indeed, I will echo Black Dog's thoughts. I read something this morning about it, something like "The US has been after him for 2 full weeks now...". I thought that odd...

Dear August1991, Not quite so cut and dried, August. I would agree that the 'left' is guilty of prefering to 'fingerpoint', but it looks like you think that the 'right' can do no wrong, and all of it's actions are misread.I see the 'false dichotomy' argument over and over again when it comes to criticism of 'the left'. "Well, if you opposed the US's actions of empolying/aiding dictators such as Manuel Noriega, Charles Taylor, 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, etc, for their own ends, then you must be an apoligist for, and support Islamic Terrorists".

Dear August1991, The use of 'fear' isn't confined to just the 'left'. Remember Bush's state of the union address? Where he directly implied that if they didn't invade Iraq, America would get nuked?

Dear Black Dog, Don't bother to try, you will only encourage the troll. Indeed, I agree. The oilers can still win if they even get adequate netminding. Jussi will likely start between the pipes, though they may try Conklin again, whomever they think is mentally up to the challenge. If the rest of the team plays with confidence, they should still hoist the cup.

Dear betsy, I should think that you would have access to a dictionary...from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition Usually, it is coupled with the term 'preaching' (sedition). Also, please do not quote entire posts, a line or two will do.

Dear betsy, On this forum, it seems all you have to do is question US foreign policy, or suggest taxes are necessary. Otherwise, those terms are generally used (but not always) only in times of an actual 'War'. One must either be 'working for the enemy', or be trying to topple the gov't on behalf of another power. from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason To date, it seems only 2 people have been tried and convicted for treason in Canada.from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...cted_of_treason

Dear betsy, What a strange, implausible question. (MP attendance records are always good for a chuckle). It would depend somewhat on why they died. Alien invasion? 260 simultaneous freak accidents? Were it to be a result of violence, the Military would likely take over in the short term, and invoke the Emergency Powers Act. Otherwise, MPs and Prime Ministers really aren't vital to running the gov't, so each party would pick a new leader, and he or she would appoint interim MPs until an election was called. Mind you, this is pure speculation on my part, so perhaps you could write your MP.

Dear Argus, I only noticed this feature recently myself. It may have always been an option, or it may have only become available with the 'new format' to which Greg has recently changed the forum. I noticed August1991, BHS and Black Dog all had recently changed theirs, so I 'dicked around' with mine. As to I can only assume this is a rhetorical question. Indeed, why would anyone fondle themselves?

Dear KrustyKidd, They were doing this anyway, though on a much smaller scale. There might have been a time when dialogue might have made a difference, but the US stubbornly refused to acknowledge that there might have been something wrong with their foreign policy. Too many 'what ifs' now. You know as well as I do that this is a less than honest representation of the facts.

Dear KrustyKidd, You give the answer... Yes. It put fuel in the tank of the extremists. The strategy adopted by the US was not a winning one, it was one done to help their own interests. It may now be too late to point fingers at the US' mistakes, history will do that. We are soon to be faced with something far more sinister than simple terrorism. There is a real war brewing.

I must disagree with one point above... The 'anglo-saxons' are far from incompetent. I don't even know what I am, but they have, only on some individual levels, shown incompetence. Self-suffiency (though that is what is claimed to be nurtured by free enterprise)and the 'freeing of slaves' will only occur once those things are valued moreso by the majority than profit.

Dear Wilber, Very true, well said. I don't dispute that the US thinks it is, and is pretending to be, at war. However, they have pussy-footed around declaring a real war, and that is not a winning strategy. Declaring war on an idea is a waste of resources.

Dear GostHacked, This is old news...Israel too. They declared themselves above that law a couple of years ago, I believe.

Dear kimmy, Wonderful to see you back. The national electorate should be saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Good lord, none of them should be doing anything slightly iffy for the next while.

Dear Black Dog, Indeed, it seems true or not, the 'Main stream media' (which is beholden to the values of the right, and of Mammon) would have been all over this like snot on a retard had it been someone other than Bush in the 'Oval Orifice'. Schtuping, is that like plooking? Sinking the purple samurai? Riding the baloney pony? Launching his heat seeking moisture missile? Polling his electorate? Orchestrating a concerto in Labia Minora? Parking the Beef Bus in Tunatown? Flesh snorkling?

Dear Wilber, Don't ask me, I wasn't the one to 'not declare war' against a country, (though that is how I would do it), and I wasn't the bonehead to declare war against a word in the dictionary.The only logical step is to confront (or declare war on) Islam itself. Make the fence-sitters choose a side, and have at it. This will surely have to be done sooner or later, anyway. I believe a war declared on a religion is generally called a 'crusade', though.

Here is the standard definition, from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war though if you read on, there is reference to 'non-war' wars.What the US should have done was 'declare war' on Afghanistan. They were, after all, at odds with the gov't, and most everyone thoguh the invasion to defeat the Taliban was justified. Then they could have said, "Hand over the insurgents, or the carpet bombing continues." Further, 'insurgent attacks' and spying become hanging offences, legitimately.

Dear KrustyKidd, Indeed, were it to be so. This does not differentiate the neighbour from a bank robber, though. Further, the same lattitudes are not granted in the 'war' on the illiterate (or those that caused them to be so), likewise on the poor, or on drunk drivers.

Strange bit here, http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/Natio...rc=n060502A.xml The term 'scapegoat', as I understand it, came from the Jewish practice of placing all their sins upon a goat and pushing it off a cliff (or 'scape', or, escarpment)from... http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday4.htm From kooky old Leviticus,

Dear August1991, That is a gross misuse of the term. In a war, you have a duty as a citizen and/or soldier to support that war, up to and including killing the enemy. A war (on drunk driving) means that if you saw your neighbour drive home drunk, you should kick in his front door, toss a grenade in, and start hosing everything down with bullets. (If you happen to accidentally kill another neighbour, it is called 'collateral damage', rather than murder) Then, with your enemy vanquished, your name gets put on a list of consideration for commendation, rather than condemnation. The name you call it sets the rules. Semantic interpretation is important. (If you flip open your yellow pages, you'll find the section for 'Lawyers' is second or third largest) What terms and conditions for victory would there be if the US declared 'war' on 'Leftist thinking'?

Dear PocketRocket, I have on occasion, defended some hunting practices, in debates with my wife. However, bears are crappy eating. As much as I used to respect Nugent, it was lost when he claimed he would lead a 'boycott of Canada, and bring it to it's knees' for not granting him a license to hunt bears in the springtime in Canada. Then, he came out with an album called "Little Miss Dangerous", a soulless record full of commercialized pap. And then it got worse. The group 'Damn Yankees' was the epitome of 'sell-out' teeny-bopper formula, so much so that I couldn't unload their CD to a second-hand store.

Then it should be obvious that you have to kill their god.

Dear August1991, I agree. Holocaust denial may be based on sheer ignorance, but to make it a crime smacks of tyranny. Rubbish. I don't think his 'picture' will sway anyone. If the US chooses to strike or invade Iran, those that would oppose such a move will likely do so because is was another unsanctioned, unilateral decision by the US with solely their own interests in mind. Very similar to 'Wyatt Earp', the beloved US 'Marshall' (though he was just a deputy at that time), and his 'Gunfight at the OK Corral'. Few people know that his action was seen as that of of ambush and murder, and that he was run out of town for his brand of 'justice'.

One cannot declare a war on 'terror'. Or even 'terrorism'. 'Terror' is an abstract idea, and it has no 'front line', nor finish line. Declaring war is different than that. What a declaration of war upon an idea means, (especially if you send troops to a specific region to 'do war' upon said abstract idea) is that you will bend the people of that region or area to your will, or you won't. Further, since it is a war on a non-manifest entity, there can never be a final measure of success (or failure). There hasn't been another 9/11 (yet), is that enough to declare victory? Most intelligent people would say, "Nonsense". Rightly so. By declaring a war in which there can never be victory, nor defeat, that means that above all, you cherished warring, and what only it itself can offer, as the highest value. "Offers dictate actions". The US is trying to use a very simple (but in my mind , flawed) formula to acheive their end. Delare an open-ended war on an idea (of those that disagree with them to the point of using 'terror') Declare that they, and they alone, will wield the world's largest and 'most overwhelming' source of military power, to the point where they 'reserve the right' to pre-emptively attack anyone who may come close. Then, assume you will win by default. Of the two possible headlines, or statements to the press, that may ever come to fruition, the only one in the future that I would expect to read is not 'We Won!', but rather "Ooops".