Montgomery Burns

Who made you the one who dictates what one can or cannot post on their own thread? Grow up.

Black Dog: Yes, Germany was a threat to Canada....well, uh, no they weren't. Ludicrous. As VP Dick Cheney stated: Trust Saddam. Trust him. He hates America with every fiber of his being so he is credible. Congratulations for winning The Dumbest Analogy of the Day™ Award.

Who is "we"? Are you British? And what are you saying? That US forces would be massacred by Canadian forces in the extremely unlikely chance that the US invaded Canada? I don't want to flame you, but 2 words came to mind when I read your post: Kool-Aid. Bong.

Black Dog: From President Bush's January 2003 SOTU address: Apparently Black Dog is from the John Kerry School of Defense. We will let Saddam do what he wants, but after he launches an attack, nuclear or otherwise, we will respond swiftly. GRRR!!! Thankfully the Bush Administration has a more realistic worldview. Same with the American voting public. Nonsense. Al Qaeda and Saddam joined forces against a common enemy. Secular Iraq? Are you unaware of the inscription Saddam had placed on Iraq's flag? Biological weapons are small and can be a devastating terror tactic. As President Bush stated in his January 2003 SOTU address: Montgomery Burns: Black Dog: Nope. Again (from the ISG): .As VP Cheney so aptly put it: "The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts.... We are, after all, dealing with the same dictator who shot at American and British pilots in the no-fly zone on a regular basis, the same dictator who dispatched a team of assassins to murder former president [George H.W.] Bush as he traveled abroad, the same dictator who invaded Iran and Kuwait and has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel, the same dictator who has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for the better part of two decades" But the USA wasn't really a sworn enemy of Saddam's Iraq. pwned - again.

Pocket Rocket: From President Bush's SOTU address in January 2003:

The troops don't get to pick their missions. So if the civilian wonks in the Pentagon choose to send them off on a "morally repugnant" mission, that's not the fault of the grunts. Supporting the troops includes supporrting not sending them on morally repugnant missions and my wishing for their well-being and safe return when they are. On the flip side, supporting sending troops on a morally repugnant mission with insufficient numbers and equipment, while backing an administration that cuts veteran's health care and benefit programs is not supporting the troops. So say it loud, Monty and Shady: "I support our politicians and bureaucrats!" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Answer the question: How can you support the troops when you think the mission they are on is morally repugnant? *crickets chirping* Come on, Black Dog. Shout it out loud, "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT THINK THE MISSION THEY ARE ON IS MORALLY REPUGNANT!!" And the generals on the field could have had more troops if they asked for them; they did not. They are in charge, not the armchair generals in the press. And the US troops are the best equipped soldiers in the world, period.

Maybe Bush should start another war and cut taxes at the same time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Once again Cartman and CNN show their disingenuousness. Perhaps Cartman and Black Dog should have read more than CNN's typical misleading title. I believe 21 + 22 = 43 Is 34 higher than 43? Apparently in Cartman/Black Dog's mathematically challenged world, it is.

PocketRocket: As Mahdi Obeidi, a scientist who worked on Saddam's nuclear program, said, "we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen." Apparently those sup=duper satellites you talk about are not all-seeing. And who said that Saddam had nukes? More fairy tales from you? That would be too dangerous for the US to take on the mighty Liberal-funded Canadian military.. After all, as liberal Canadians constantly remind Americans, they burned down the White House during the War of 1812. So what if it was the Brits who did it and Canada didn't become Canada until 1867? Let's just leave out that little fact. Facts are for those silly rightwingers. The only fact you need to know is NO BLOOD FOR OOOIIILLLLL!!! Hell, let's give all despotic regimes nukes. After all, it's only fair since despotic regimes are morally equivalent to the US, the UK, and other democracies. Right? The US was a sworn enemy of Saddam's Iraq. He previously tried to assassiante a US president. He harbored all kinds of terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. He allowed Al Qaeda to train at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp - which had a Boeing 747 plane to practice....what? Counter-terrorism tactics? Saddam gave the families of dead displaced Arab homicide bombers which also killed Americans in Israel. Saddam had ignored the ceasefire Iraq signed. You're toothless - like Clinton was - if you let someone walk all over you. And one does not need a military to be a threat to the US these days. Biological weapons are very small and cause great damage. Well, at least you were paying attention to part of Bush's speeches. Bull. Dual-use biological and chemicals are used and sold to all countries. Nealy every country does this. To the USA's credit, when they suspected that Saddam was not using it for medical purposes, they ceased shipping them to him. And the US was no where near the leader of in providing arms to Iraq. Nor was Canada, who shipped six Bo-105L helicopters to Saddam in 1988 (they were ordered in 1987). From the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI): Russia: 57% France: 13% China: 12% Where are the US arms sales to Iraq? Oh, there they are...way down at #11, one percent of Iraq's arms sales were from the US. I couldn't get SIPRI's PDF file to open today (I've opened it many times before to counter the "US led the way in arming Iraq" falsehood); otherwise I would have sent you directly to them, instead of a copy of the graph from The Command Post. I'll take SIPRI's numbers over the Bush-bashing NY Times, Washington Post, and *snicker* Counterpunch.org any day. If you claim that the US led the way in arming Iraq, I challenge you to name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the US. Name the specific weapon – missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell – that is US-made or has US equipment installed in it. The Iraqi air force did not fly Falcons or Eagles. The majority of the Iraqi air force was made in Russia. The Russian MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus supplied Iraq with hundreds of advanced strike-fighters and the Mach 3 Foxbat interceptor. The remainder of the Iraqi air force came from France and China. The Chinese supplied Saddam with the Chengdu F-7, a copy of the Russian MiG-21. The F-7 can fly from unimproved runways and is known to be a vicious in-close dog fighter. The French supplied Iraq the Mirage F-1. Anyone with half of a brain knows that you cannot keep a modern jet fighter in the air without spare parts. Thus the Russian, Chinese and French jets should've been museum pieces after 12 years of a so-called UN ban on weapons sales to Iraq. Yet somehow Saddam has his air force flying over 1,000 sorties a month. Maybe, just maybe, Russia, France, and China were supplying Iraq with spare parts during the UN "ban". Naw, it is America's fault. It's always America's fault. Perhaps the Iraqi missile force has some US-made weapons? Nope. The primary Iraqi missile was the Russian-made Scud. Other missiles include the FROG-7 from Russia, the Exocet from France and the Silkworm from China. The Iraqi air defense has plenty of missiles ... from Russia, China and France. The SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa and SA-6 Gainful SAM missiles are all of Russian or Chinese manufacture. The French also supplied Iraq with a number of Roland air defense missile systems. Even the missile parts are from Chinese, German and French sources. Israeli authorities know full well what is inside Iraqi-made Scud missiles since many of them fell on Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. The Israelis found that the Scud warhead electronics were made in Germany – not the USA. Tanks! What about tanks? The Iraqi armor force was made up of Chinese and Russian models familiar to any "cold" warrior. The Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks are all Russian. The Iraqis also had a large number of Type-59 Chinese tanks and Russian-made BMP armored troop carriers. No M-1 Abrams here. How about attack helicopters? The Iraqis had a number of choppers they used against the Kurds and Shiites. Sorry. The Iraqi attack chopper force was Russian and French. The Russians supplied Iraq with a large number of the Mil-24 Hind attack helicopters, armed to the teeth with cannon, missiles and even chemical weapon sprayers. The French supplied Saddam with a large number of Gazelle attack helicopters. The same French also managed to keep Saddam's attack helicopter force flying today with spare parts. Well, uh, er, what about Guns, then? Surely the US supplied Saddam with guns? Nope. The main Iraqi artillery was the French 155mm howitzer. The remainder of Iraq's artillery is 122mm Russian-made cannons and Russian-made short-range rocket launchers. Even the Iraqi foot soldier was armed with the venerable AK-47 of Russian and Chinese make. If you're going to say that the UN can let Saddam ignore 16 or 17 of their BINDING UN resolutions, then allow Saddam's biggest arms dealers to veto the enforcement of the BINDING UN Resolutions, then you are as hypocritical as the US liberal who says he supports the troops, even though they are a bunch of baby-killing, blood-drinking fascists. Especially Japan and Germany. And your derision of the US freeing 25 million Iraqis from a lifetime of tyranny is contemptible. Yep. 12 years of playing games with Saddam was not enough. It should have went on for at least another 50 years. Only one thing would have happened if the UN caved - like Russia, France, and China desperately wanted them to. Saddam would have immediately started up his WMD and nuke programs. But then again, they're only "programs". Nothing to worry about. Let's move on. As you so aptly put it...Game.Set.Match.

Black Dog: Healthcare premiums should not be abolished. This $528 reminds people that healthcare is not "free", like so many Canadians seem to think it is. Then later on, you ask Catch-as-catch-can how the $400 can go towards healthcare. Easy. You can choose to put the $400 towards the $528 healthcare premium. Indeed, the typical family of 4 could pay for the entire premium ($1056 per family) and still have $544 left over. If oil revenues continue, as Klein thinks they might, then every year Alberta families could pay for their healthcare premiums, single Albertans could pay for 76% of their premium and still be reminded that healthcare has a cost.

No, actually it either belongs to all Canadians (that is, the Gov't of Canada) or it belongs to the oil companies. I do not believe that there were any 'grubstakes' filed on behalf of the people of Alberta. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is regrettable that Theloniusfleabag seem unaware that our Constitution specifically gives control of natural resources to each province rather than to the federal govt.

Yeah right. How can you support the troops when you think the mission they're on is morally repugnant? Why would you support people who are engaged in morally repugnant acts? If you think Bush is another Hitler, what does that make the troops carrying out his orders? If you think the US is occupying and oppressing Iraq, how can you support the people carrying out the "oppression" and the "occupation?" If you detest conservatives and think they're vile, rotten people, how can you support the troops who are notoriously for conservatism? If you see no difference between a soldier accidentally killing a civilian and a terrorist deliberately killing a civilian - and many liberals don't - then why wouldn't you feel the same way about the soldier as the terrorist? If the terrorists in Iraq are "freedom fighters" and "Minutemen," then doesn't that mean you are rooting for the US troops to lose? About 80% of the military are conservatives. It's not coincidence that the Democrats try to disqualify the votes of overseas troops. Republicans have enlisted. LIBERATING CHILDREN FROM TYRANNY IS CO$TING TOO MUCH!! Btw, do you think it didn't cost anything to have US troops in the Mid East and patrolling the no-fly zones for 12 years? Or if people like you had their way - patrolling the no-fly zones for eternity?

Katrina aftermath: Poll shows Republican Governor Barbour soars, Democrat Blanco plummets A SurveyUSA poll of the state governors reveals that all of the governors whose states were directly hit by Hurricane Katrina had a major boom in job approval compared with the previous month, with the notable exception of Louisiana's Kathleen Blanco. Haley Barbour (R, Mississippi) +26 Bob Riley (R, Alabama) +21 Mike Easley (D, North Carolina) +19 Sonny Perdue (R, Georgia) +18 Rick Perry (R, Texas) +17 Kathleen Blanco (D, Louisiana) -22 The gap between Barbour and Blanco, who lead the states most devastated by Katrina, could scarely be more stark.

Bill O'Reilly lays a lickin' on radical leftist Phil Donahue. I watched it last night on the O'Reilly Factor (The No-Spin Zone), and it's now available on video on the Internet. Enjoy. I know I did.

There is a serious difference in both the circumstance and the motivation, albeit in the case of Iraq it is a perceived motivation. Iraq had not conquered Europe, in fact they were seriously incapable of fighting any war. Had the US waited (and it is generally agreed that no 'immediate threat' was there) for Un and world support, and had made a legitimate case for it, things would be different. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is this a troll post? Saddam was definitely capable of starting up his WMD ambitions very quickly after the US and UK left. And Saddam's sponsorship of international terrorism, his Al Qaeda links were definitely capable of doing great damage to the USA. And get this! The US is supposed to ask for the world's permission to defend itself, according to Theloniusfleabag. And even though the 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN resolutions were broken, even though Resolution 1441 warned of serious consequences, which even Hans Blix - in his book - said was diplospeak for war, the US was supposed to ask Russia's permission - a country that supplied Iraq with 57% of its weapons and was owed billions of dollars by Saddam; ask France's permission - a country that supplied Iraq with 13% of its weapons AND had built Saddam a nuclear reactor, and was owed billions by Saddam, and ask China's permission - a country that supplied Iraq with 12% of its arms, and was owed billions by Saddam. Since China, France and Russia voted no, the war was "illegal". Unbelievable "logic".

BHS: Exactly. I was pointing out some of the hypocrisy I see on this forum towards the USA. Unfortunately the usual morons missed the boat - again. Canada declared war on Germany 9 days after Poland was invaded by the Nazis. Yet Germany was no threat whatsoever to Canada. So why did Canada declare war on Germany so quickly? Because it was the right thing to do. Whatever happened to that Canada? It appears that Canada's leaders taking Saddam's blood money is more important these days, and some on this forum seem to support that.

I'm not surprised that it went over your head....

No, it's not John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, the Daily Kos' Markos "screw them, I feel nothing fo them" Zuniga, Cindy Sheehan, Louis Farrakhan, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carolyn Parrish, the CBC, or Rosie O' Donnell. The answer is Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi

Ouch Please give us business people tax relief. We contribute something very important to society. We contribute J-O-B-S - which creates more tax revenue, and the more successful we are, the more taxes we pay. We have to stay competitive on the global market and our powerful next door neighbor has a president who has cut taxes twice, which has contributed to a 4.9% unemployment rate and a near record GDP growth. Any liberal want to challenge this?

During the 1980s, Saskatchewan's "Progressive" Conservative Party was involved in a political scandal where they ripped off Saskatchewan taxpayers to the tune of $838,000. Six of the PCers were sent to prison for a total of 11 years. Yes, I know that $838,000 in the 80s is worth more these days, but still....

Windsor Star editorial:

Poll: McCain, Giuliani would both beat Hillary Clinton Yeah, I know it's only a poll, but I decided to play Mirror's game.

, of that there is no doubt. There are still a lot of great people there, but the overall values of the nation have gone in the toilet. Instead of god, freedom or equality, they generally worship the Golden Calf, 'bling', and Mammon. Instead of 'democracy and fairness', they worship guns, death and 'sue or screw thy neighbour' at the earliest possible opportunity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gotta love the freedom to right an article like that, wait a second....Wasn't it the United States who succesfully prosecuted a 2 front war against the the Japanese and Nazi Germany and liberated most of Europe and parts of asia from conquest. And by proxy defeneded canada? I guess are war mongering ways are ok, just so long as it protects canadian freedom of speech. But heck, Maybe some of canadians would rather speak japanese of german. Note: i realize all candians dont feel this way <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Canada's warmongering was embarrassing. Germany never invaded Canada; never declared war on Canada, yet Canada sailed across the ocean to attack the Germans. Why?

The liberal media is all over the story of Cindy Sheehan’s march on Washington DC, with the usual worshipping tone, accompanied by carefully cropped photos. So this march must have been gigantic for the lamestream media to devote so much time, energy and money to covering it, right? Wrong Yet, every single one of the photos at Getty Images is cropped to hide the miniscule size of this "rally." A wide-angle shot of St. Cindy's rally: 29 people, including Cindy Sheehan

Alberta's healthcare premiums should not be eliminated. The healthcare premiums remind people that healthcare has a cost; it is not "free". Something perceived to be free is abused. Look at the people who run to the doctor because they have the flu, or because Little Jimmy scraped his knee. As for lowering taxes, I suspect that Klein may be reluctant to do so because oil prices are already steadying and even dropping some. Perhaps he thinks lowering the 10% flat tax to 9% might be too hasty a move at this time. Moving the tax brackets up is not a good idea because Alberta"s provincial tax brackets are harmonized with the federal tax brackets....and that makes things so much easier for accounting purposes. What about raising Alberta's basic personal amount from $14,523 to, say, $20,000? This would help every taxpayer, and specifically the lower income people. Are welfare people eligible for this $400? If so, I disagree with that. However, I have no problem with people on EI receiving the $400; they, at least, paid into the system. Overall it might not be perfect, but it is nice seeing govts giving the people theirmoney back. Much of that money will flow back into the economy. What are the odds of the NDP ever doing that? They'd blow it on some govt social programs.

Please, no cheating by using a search engine. I'll be back tomorrow with the answer.