kuzadd

name='August1991. I agree with your all flash no cash comment, but I do not limit it to Liberals, but to Canada in general. There is no independant policy, cause it was Britians' before and it is the USs' now. Or follow the empire, to be flippant. same old. same old I concur with the show of strength, though IMO the show was aimed towards USSR.

morality in war is utter nonsense. I have to ask you why on earth do you seriously believe that? seriously? Is it moral for one group to slaughter humans, but somehow not moral for another? that's what you believe? like I said utter nonsense. People who believe , that there is morality in war, only believe that because it is what they have been told, repeatedly, like the mantra of ww2 'the good war", don't you recognize a slogan? How about Operation Iraqi Freedom? Are the Iraqis getting Freedom? moral appeals are used to make people such as yourself, feel ok, and justified in slaughtering "other" humans.

YOu forgot about the filipino monkey and the pentagon tapes, but then that too was a means to increase domestic support in the US, and that worked also. Recent polls and Hilary's railings indicate, the fear increased, good pr score! YOu think escalation is the bonus or the ultimate goal? I think it's the ultimate goal.

Now that's a plan!

what issue exactly are you getting at here? I've answered your questions a number of times, already. I didn't say we or anyone was "questioning Hillary's interpretation", in fact it is interpreting Hilary's words, that has been what this entire thread was about. Though of course it has gotten way off track. I've already said, but I'll say it again, it is indeed IMO a veiled threat that plays well to a domestic audience. Nonetheless the implied threat is still there. As for Canada, I already said, and I'll say again, Canada went in as a loyal british subject. Canada followed the empire master and the US is the empire doing as they please in the world. It is never about good and bad it is about geopolitical strategy and resources Or as BC says economics trumps virtue. Israel has nukes the penultimate weapon, no one is going to attack the country, especially not Iran. In fact the reverse in reality is far more likely. But do you see war as moral?? It appears you do. When is war ever moral? With some countries( as an example the US) having some kind of 'moral'righteousness to slaughter, maim and kill, but then when another country (let's say Iraq), takes that same "privilege" for themselves then that is evil, right like some kind of insane double standard?? Hmmm, interesting but not my cup o tea. Mark Twain's The War Prayer, comes to mind.

Gosh, are you saying that the Brits would do this intentionally knowing the soldiers were not in Iraq waters, for a desired dust-up? For a pretext?? no!!!

OMG are you saying western democracies have told other lies, BC? No way! Beside this last bit of British BS? Or the America bit with the " voices" from the "menacing' Iranian boats, oops I mean we don't know where they came from, ooops never mind. no, say it isn't so. I thought it was all about "democracy and spreading good will, cheer and making people lives better" war for peace and getting rid of bad guys Your going to destroy the beliefs of so many posters here, you spoiler.

Besides the two that only ever were used by the US? None, but then the cold war saw a unprecedented nuclear weapons arms build up. has it made us safer and more peaceful? Doubtful. I wouldn't say nuclear was unthinkable, if I am not mistaken I believe the US has thought about it, since Japan. You ever read Helen Caldicott?

american woman" hilary's word are extremely subjective and wether you agree or not, they are open to interpretation and that is why the whole discussion began. Were Britians and Canada's actions defensive? obviously not based on the most basic meaning of the word. Hillary as I said is as full of baloney as all politicians. And btw Israel is armed to the teeth, as a nation it is quite capable of defending itself, so the very idea of the country being in need of defending like some weak little wilting flower, is nonsensical, to say the least.

I would think Iran thought these arbitrary changes to it's borders constituted very uncivil behaviour, your right in and particularily in that no one bothered to inform them. Interesting to note even the British press, GETS that there is a problem with this.

of course Iran considered the arbitrary changes not agree too, a problem. but here is the simple fact, the water the soldiers were in were not Iraqi waters as was repeatedly claimed by the British, Which means the Brits fibbed, lied, fudged, whatever and they knew it. and they went on and on about it, it was sensational, they denied the soldiers were spying when they infact were , they claimed they were in Iraqi water , when in fact they were not. It's pretty bad when it is the western democracies caught repeatedly lying, isn't it?

actually re-read it is in my opening post. The 'coalition' cannot arbitrarily set International boundaries, first of all. Secondly, after they arbitrarily 'set' the said boundaries, they failed to inform Iran. Therefore, the british soldiers were in Iranian waters and Britian lied from the get go.

did it?

well looks like there was good reason to have some major doubts! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle3761058.ece Report reveals Iran seized British sailors in disputed waters remeber Britian claimed the sailors were in Iraq waters. well they were not, and Britian under FOIA is caught lying. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act detail for the first time the blunders last spring that led to what an all-party committee of MPs came to describe as a “national embarrassment”. Newly released Ministry of Defence documents state that: — The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi; — The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was; The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ coastal protection vessels were crossing this invisible line at a rate of three times a week; It was the British who apparently raised their weapons first before the Iranian gunboats came alongside; — The cornered British, surrounded by heavily armed Iranians, made a hopeless last-minute radio plea for a helicopter to come back and provide air cover. Iran always claimed that it had arrested the Britons for violating its territorial integrity. and it was the British that had been lying all along. recall:

you can interpret them your way, and I can interpret them my way, that's how it works, ya know? btw: I also don't believe the nukes were a means to end the war, but were the first volley in the next war. They were a warning to Russia, looky what we have! We got the big big big guns!

Yeah it sounds like most all war, lots of bullshit, and never the truth.

oh and all these comparisons to ww2 and nukes. As a factual reminder, what one country ,pontificated endlessly as the "decider" and ruler of the world/ rational and democratic, has been the only country to use nuclear bombs???? That is after burning alive in their beds, many, many hundreds of thousands of civilians with massive firebombings Hint; it wasn't Iran.

yes, as good loyal subjects of the British!

why were we not part of the British empire at that time? is that what I am ignorant about? lol! the simple fact of the matter is ww2 is not relevant to this discussion at all, Iran is no superpower armed to the teeth and they are not attacking anyone. Nor do they have the nuclear capabilities to launch such an attack. The only superpower armed to the teeth, like Germany, attacking weaker countries is the US , see Afghanistan, see Iraq, and see threats again Iran. The other commonality is the backing of big US business firms, who supported Germany. Iran, the US is making quite sure is having all manner of difficulty with regards to banking business. The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16962 and before that the US had been trying to work it' s magic in the international banking community. Turkey rejects US bank request on Iran Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:05:37 U.S. punishes Bahrain bank for its Iran ties Wed March 12, 2008 Germany did not have that issue. so let's at least make relevant comparisons, and not bogus ones. ww2, there is more revisionism there then one can shake a stick at!

yes as loyal subjects of the British empire, which is what I meant.

yeah where were those wmd's in Iraq, tikrit wasn't it according to rumsfeld? yeah , sure.

I am not "upset" in the least, please don't project. Hilary is as full of it as all politicians are. people who swallow bullshit are never intelligent, just gullible. You do realize that so far their is zero indication that Iran has nuclear weapons , right? Or has the propoganda gotten to you also?

since this has nothing to do with WW2, I don't see the relevance nor is there any. Didn't Hitler attack Britian, answer that and you'll know why Canada was there. as for hilary, it was a threat directed to Iran that plays well for a domestic audience, and don't most americans now foolishly and may I add again, falsely believe that Iran has nukes, I saw some recent polling that indicated that is correct. she can come across however she wants, hopefully people don't swallow that crap for anything but what it is, unfortunatly, and sadly, that's not the case.

btw: let's make note of just what a great ally Israel is to the US. Israel braces for fallout from U.S. spy case Government says it's 'following ... developments' after U.S. citizen arrested http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24273143/ shades of Jonathon Pollard, so this isn't about allies.

god almighty stop with the comparisons, what nonsense. if the US attacked Iran, for attacking Israel, it would not be retaliatory attack. A retaliatory attack could only be done in response to an attack on the US Since there is zero evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons, the conjecture raised by Hilary is nonsensical (if Iran attacks Israel) and likely this should be first of all be considered a direct threat towards Iran, as it was intended. In other words, give us a reason, any reason (even a pretend one)and will blow you to smithereens. secondly she is playing tough to the american constituents at the same time.