Catchme

They may not be illegal, but apparently they might just sink Hrper's ship in PQ. And apparently by the negative press they may well regret doing them. The CPC are all about setting lows, and it seems these set the bar even lower. Harper and the CPC sink to a whole new low!

You are operating behind a moniker, why should we trust what you say. He offers opinion, no proof, much like yourself. If I offer opinion, it is always backed up at least once. but hey that never stops "some" people from disbelieving anyway.

Very accurate and of course very honest. I wonder if Hamas and the rest of them are ready for full nation hood and all the various levels of government needed to maintain a national infrastucture. What would they do with the money they would get including Canada's aid. Would they honour the peace and help their people? Sorry but you are both in error. And no 2 errors do not make a fact. http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=1

He meant to say it, or he was only speaking about those who DO NOT have as much going on as we do, ya know, or there is no thanks necessary he knows what we are doing for them over them! Let's face it "Steve" does not matter anymore to Bush than Chretien did. Good analogy!

That is not why that is what.

Well apparently Dave, his real name, and his full name is on the blog, who is former military and who is not operating behind a moniker, feels much different, and perceives much different than you do. As such, because he is not operating from a behind a moniker, I will trust what he says.

How do you know the summary was written by the policy makers? Prove that it was written by the policy makers. Prove that the report will be, or is being, "massaged" to fit the summary. A summary is just that a summary of what the findings were. Main Entry: 1sum·ma·ry Pronunciation: 's&-m&-rE also 's&m-rE or -"mer-E Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin summarius, from Latin summa sum 1 : COMPREHENSIVE; especially : covering the main points succinctly 2 a : done without delay or formality : quickly executed

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction. Oh could you please prove, that "we" value life a lot more than alleged terrorists do. The truth is the USA and their unholy coalition, has bombed and killed many many more than the alleged terrorists have with NO compunction. Obviously, your intellectual comprehension that dictates the difference between 'good vs. evil' is nonexistent. Besides Saddam could have avoided unnecessary bloodshed at the beginning, but declined. How convienent revisionist history. So it's okay for one country to illegally invade another country based upon lies, killing 10'sof thousands, destroying the country and it's infrastucture, littering it with depleted uranium shells, and you consider them good. Seems it is not my moral compass that is out of whack. Saddam told the truth he had NO wMD's, it was Bush that lied. There was nothing that Saddam could say other than the truth, now was there? So, how could he have avoided/declined bloodshed? The onus is on the USA Bush Admin here leafless, they are the ones that started this mess with lies and an illegal invasion of a country.

That is a dishonest picture of the history scribblet.

I've never in my life heard anyone argue that terrorism is good. Who are you talking to? Maybe you need to make some new friends. Strictly gleaned from discussion groups, where there is no actual argument per se that terrorism is good, it is simply that anything the U.S. or Bush does is bad - no matter what. My argument is no more 'crippled' than one that refuses to acknowledge that the terrorists are killing thousands of their own people indiscriminately. As for this thread, there is little difference between this and any of the other countless threads on Iraq. I can't say that I have read any liberal type person or 'left winger' condemn the insurgency or the thousands of innocent Iraqis they are killing. The violence will not stop when the U.S. eventually leaves, it will get worse, until one or the other wins and imposes its own dictatorship. Somehow, there has to be a way, but it will take a lot more troops and a lot more countries getting involved and that won't happen, so maybe some type of peace will only be possible under a theocracy which the majority appear to want anyway. What has Bush done thats right? The US has certainly done something good. that many here have taked about, and that is get rid of the Republicans from control of Congress, and try to stop Bush from his war mongering expansions. Why do you want us to condemn an insurrgency in Iraq?

Even more telling is that Hillier did not take Harper to account, after all if he is going to break his oath and trash talk he should've been taking Harper to rtask if he was not being blindly partisian. http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/

That is a red herring and has absolutely NO bearing upon anything.

Interesting, a former military person, has much to say about Harper's demoralizing speech of this week and none of it is good. http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/

Always the same argument: any attempt to discredit the illegal war is "Bush or U.S. hating" or "terrorist loving." You aren't even trying to present a credible defence of the violence you support. I don't support violence, but I don't support the Taliban or AQ, I do believe Bush made a mistake going into Iraq, but rehashing that serves no purpose. Why do I never see any condemnation of the terorrism (not just in Iraq) why is it always the U.S. bad - terrorists good. Why are you et al ignoring the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by the insurgents. The discussion should be about how all countries can work together and do something about stopping it - or do you all really, deep down, believe that all Iraqis are too savage and violent, pull out and let em all go at it until the best 'man' wins by killing as many people as they can. Because the Bush admin launched an illegal invasion of a country based upon lies, and destroyed a country, what do you not get about that? Why are you NOT discussing how many innocent Iraqis died at the hands of the uSA, and who will die for generations to come? Funny I have never seen you discussing how countries should work together and do something about stopping it? And what is IT BTW?

One wonders if the CPC ever read scientific reports? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0216-03.htm

Hillier, a man with integrity? Please show me what you think is his integrity? I will say why I think he isn't. His military says they are in a war in Afganistan, he says no "it's a mission". He took an oath that bars him from expressing political opinion, he broke his oath. He is propping up a corrupt Karzi government and says nary a word. He is a war monger and sought to change our military's "mission" in Afghanistan, and the behaviour of our military personnal to resemble the USA's more, even though the Brits and the Dutch are having much greater success using a reconstruction approach, as were we before he took the USA approach..

Interesting, bash the posters instead of debating the subject matter. Thought Greg just made a post about this type of rule breaking yesterday, or is NOT applicable to you?? And I see you pounced pretty fast after my post, going back to Jerry's post, even though you had just posted prior to mine with nary a mention of jerry's posted words that you just use to try and cast aspersions.

Actually, no! The RCMP owe Canadians an apology, for stating something that was NOT true, and this misinformation got us a government that wou;d've never gotten in. Harper and the CPC owe Goodale an apology, they inferred continually it was him. Not so, they were fabricating at best. It was a government employee, not a LIberal Party member.

I was actually putting jerry seinfeld's sweeping and erroneous words back at him.

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction. Oh could you please prove, that "we" value life a lot more than alleged terrorists do. The truth is the USA and their unholy coalition, has bombed and killed many many more than the alleged terrorists have with NO compunction.

So just what is this Canadian jet doing of the illegal nature? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle732439.ece

Sorry I messed up the poll deleting it

Hmmm, was just thinking about this, if the USA does not recognize what we are doing in Afghanistan as anything much, and definitely not enough to thank us for, then they would NOT miss our being there. A pertinent fact seeing as how we should have gotten out of there last fall. What a slap in the face Bush gave to Canadians and an even laerger one to the families who have lost loved ones, and to those who are recovering from grevious injury.

What an amazing fete of propaganda, that was put forth about how thing in Iraq were just tickedly boo, and Rumsfeld and Bush were right on the money with their predictions and actions.! When it was/is so far from reality as not to be recognizable

No, its not normal statiscally, PolyN. A good many people, know what happened on 911 was not the way it seems. Those who are trying to insist all was normal, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, have their own agenda. Ignore them and keep on putting facts up do not let it get personal it defeats the purpose. From your link.