anticlimates

Holy Krist, that's funny! Don't you mean that's the number one lie about George Bush?

I'm not anti-American. If I'm against the Bush administration that makes me anti-American? Have another glass of koolaid. I note that you failed utterly to answer the question, put both by myself and another, and have instead resorted to childish sneers. I'm starting to see a resemblance to a previous poster who acted the same way. Would you care to tell us who else you've been here? Oh, sorry. Missed this. Thanks to Stoker for drumming it up. To answer your question as to why I didn't answer your question.... I don't feel obliged to answer questions that are posed to me along with insults. Feel free to do the same to me. Note also that I asked a question regarding your insult. Let me requote it for you: I note that you failed utterly to answer the question

Post it again. Of course nations have been developing things. The question is not do nations continue development....the question is at what pace does it occur. Is it a slow...unhurried thing that holds promise for agreements and treaties, or is it a "race". The USA is creating a new race....and already we see Russia responding to the starting gun. It's outrageous to claim that the cold war arms race "continued". Thank God Canada stayed out of Bushs new race.

Again, to alleviate any confusion similar to what we've already seen here... Bush has become irrelevant in the world community (and even domesticly) relative to previous levels of relevance. He still holds relevance....so he is not completely irrelevant in any and all sense of the term. We are about to witness him finnish off his Presidency in a lame-duck fashion.

Well said. It's easy for all the Ann Coulter types to chaulk up the BMD decision to "anti-Americanism". Always easier for people to attack others. It's harder to actually consider the valid reasons behind a decision. That's the challange for all the ditto-heads who are sharing in the Bush outrage over this.

Apparently you do. Why do you hate Canada?

This bizarre and quite divorced from reality. How are the threats from walking the street at night in this or that city relevant to the threat of a ballistic missile? You're the same person who claimed in another thread that the BM threat was part of the terrorist threat: You seem to have a lot of confusion regarding what's a threat and what isn't, and the appropriate response. Yes, terrorism IS a threat. No, this does not mean a ballistic missile is a threat. Bush has been really good at scaring people...scaring them out of their wits.

BMD is protection from terra? WTF??? I submit that anyone who thinks "terrorists" are liable to lob a BM at the USA is in la la land and has been drinking the Bush Terra-flavored koolaid FAR to long!

I didn't realize I had to "disprove" anything ft.niagra spews. It is mearly a matter of irony that he accuses our military of being inept in light of current events. ft.niagra more often than not is engaged in insult and offense for the sake of it. You seem confused about forum protocal, I don't have to disprove things like that.

Attack the content, not the author. ps. I guess that's why Lloyd is the president of a University. And a very successful minister of foreign affairs.

I think you've got it completely backwards. The accusations of anti-Americanism are what's out of control. This is a disturbing new tactic by rightwingers in both countries to try and paint opposition to the policies of Bush as illegitimate. I see it constantly while lurking on American forums....any liberal who critisizes the war or Bush is hurled the anti-American accusation. And we get to hear over and over and over again how one Canadian used the word "bastards" while referencing Americans.....and another one used the word "moron" for Bush. Both situations were "overheard" (private conversation in the heat of an emotional political moment before the Iraq war). Why do we keep hearing these two anecdotes? Are they really significant? Are they really evidence of "anti-Americanism"? Or are there people on this continent who benifit from this anti-American myth? Bingo.

Regardless of your personal opinion of the American government or its citizens, this isn't intellegant debate. I resent that. It's clear I'm talking only about the Bush administration. An ambassador is primarily sent to communicate to a government. As well, if you remove the word "assholes" the rest is intelligent debate. We DO need someone to be totally blunt with the American government. I do apologize for the profanity.

Missile Counter-Attack Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Thu Mar 3 2005 By LLOYD AXWORTHY Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more. I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results. But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game. read the rest here He's our former foreign minister. He used to be much more....diplomatic! I guess he's trying to more of a Fox news "in your face" tactic so the Bush admin might hear it. This part is great, really nails it: Cellucci has been a joke...just a mouthpiece for Bush, nothing more. When Bush came that was another joke....he was too scared to address Parliament. Thought he might get heckled for petesake. I hope Condi takes the advice and stays away from rightwing think tanks while up here (we're infested with them) and actually seeks out contrary opinion. The BMD decision was based upon sound logic. Martin isn't throwing that logic publicly in Bushs face because he doesn't want to embarrass him (like Bush did to him on his visit here)

I agree, common sense isn't a partisan issue. And calling Bush irrelevant in the context I have here is in line with common sense. The problem some are having is they want to redefine what I'm saying. They're sticking upon the word "irrelevant" and claiming Bush is not irrelevant IN THIER OWN CONTEXT. Nobody is irrelevant ultimately, under those conditions. Bush has become irrelevant on the world stage. Not completely, of course. The USA has to much money and exposure for the president to ever be completely irrelevant. The point is that RELAVIVE to the relevance he held in his first term and the relavance of other Presidents, he is very irrelevant now. Nations are turning away from his wishes. In the space of a couple weeks Russia first rejects Bushs wish to not give nuclear material to Iran, and now they announce they're developing a missile that no defensive system will stop. This is a close ally....a supposed close "friend" of Bushs? Taiwan better lay low. I doubt China will worry about a weakened Bush.

Canadians are pretty much the same as Americans, except perhaps we're more exposed to world issues and events by our media. As for the "inept" impression of our military you have, I will just quote a little recent news for you: Why indeed. Is it because they're inept, or because the chain of command is inept. Or does it go right to the top...is Bush himself the inept one? Aw gee, there I go critisizing Bush again......that's being anti-American, right? I could point out some facts to you here. They would show the ridiculousness of this statement....but why bother you with facts? Keep the divorced from reality world of the farrightwing intact. Yes, an accident caused by the negligence of American pilots involved. This has been established. What the Canadians were shooting at is irrelevant. Like Bush!

Guilty as charged!!!..........I'm a 100% GWB cheerleader......I'm an even bigger fan of Dick Cheney....(seveal paragraphs detailing why poster loves Cheney removed)....So yeah, I'm a fan..........whats your point? Well, I think you've made my point. You are unable to objectively judge the actions of Bush/Cheney because of your "fan" status.

Don't ever say I won't quote myself.

Lots of people responding aren't understanding me. I'm saying it's a bigger deal than it should be. Yes, there was much pain associated with it and America was shocked out of relative security it's enjoyed for it's entire existence. Relative to the rest of the WORLD though, it's not such a big deal. It's a blip. It's nothing, and people need to get over it. Educate yourselves about all of the death that is ongoing. Sure, don't forget 9/11. Honor the dead and care for the living. BUT....9/11 needs to be removed as a central priority that drives the bulk of US foreign and domestic policy. It's not as important as Americans think it is. Nobody can deny that 9/11 was played up by the American government for election reasons. Anyone that would is a liar.

No, that's is exactly what we are NOT saying. Americans do not speak for Iraqis neither do the other terrorists. Right, exactly. Thankyou. Why is it that so many people insist on knowingly twisting words and meanings these days? liberal=communist disagree with bush=unAmerican hollywood=anti-American dissent=support for terrorists Iraq=threat Ballistic Missiles=threat sharks=threat Germany=Iraq=Japan AARP=gay Gannon=victim of the left Prostitute=gay Canada=enemy Criticism=hate

Are we making the assumption that a tiny minority of armed radicals speak for Iraqis as a whole? -kimmy Maybe you are, I'm not. I never even went close to that. Are you being dishonest? "WE" are saying that the USA should get out of the propaganda business abroad, just as many are wanting them out of it at home. It's really quite simple. Who might be attacking employees of these US propaganda vehicles is irrelevant....the point is they can't expect NOT to be attacked since they are propaganda vehicles and part of the "information war" (as described by the Bush admin). Note the word "war". Deeds speak louder than words.

Save me time, tell me something you don't support him on! Or is it always "ditto George!"?? I agree with you on this. I think the USA will do everything it can to see them fail. That seems to be the pattern so far. It's really sick, but I almost wished for this prediction as I read your post. I think it's a little sickness I've gotten from trolling rightwing sites like Freerepublic.com where rightwingers shout constantly for the nuking/bombing/invasion of various nations. That, coupled with the knowledge that an attack on Iran would make the death and suffering witnessed in Iraq multiply 20-fold, gives me a sense of "I told you so you dumb rightwing f@#ks!" I don't want to have to say I told ya so though. My only response to the rest of your post is that you're unclear about what's been demonstrated and evidenced regarding Iran and nuclear weapons. Keep informed.

After GWB's statement last tuesday, I go along with what he said.......All options are on the table. Wah? That's your answer? What are you, a pot-smoking truth-dodging President? I'm asking you, not chimp! Newsflash, I don't think Iran is hanging on your every word. You can be straight with us here! The "ordeal"? Bushs ordeal of having to accept something he doesn't like, you mean? Iran has struck a deal with Russia. That's a done deal. Period. The "ordeal" is indead far from over....in spite of losing relevance Bush and cast will make a lot of noise over Iran. That will be an entertaining "ordeal" indeed! You deferred your ability to think to him again! I'm not interested in the administration one-liners. If I had a dime for every time I've heard one of those ditto-heads tell us "all options are on the table" I'd be a rich man! It means nothing. All options are NOT on the table....politically or realisticly. Again, I remind you....Iranian agents are not trolling this site hanging on your every word. Let's step away from the administration talking points......put down the koolaid!

I was waiting for that one, and knew it wouldn't take long! Now I get to explain the difference between the CBC and the multitude of US-funded radio and TV stations that have sprung up in the Mid-East. The CBC is funded by the government (although it does earn it's own revenue) but it is not influenced by government. If you talk to a paranoid Canadian rightwinger, they might not agree. But I can testify I often here the CBC reporting on things that the liberal government would much rather weren't being given attention. Basically, the difference is that the CBC is not government propaganda. It operates independent of government influence. The US actually calls what it's doing part of an "information war". I call it stupid. People don't like being manipulated. Thus the dead anchorwoman. After all, an information war is still a war. Hey, if the US wants to give grants to media and then let them decide how to operate that would be different.

That's part of it, for sure. Bush and his cohorts have played the fear card over and over and over. I think rightwing grassroot haters (some of which we see evidenced here) are doing their best to keep it a big deal also. It's become the excuse for their ignorance and complicit agreement of all things Bush They post pictures of 9/11 and implore us to "never forget". To bad they forget all of the far larger tragedies that are going on even now. Anyone know what's happening in Congo right now? Who cares, right? 9/11TERRA9/11TERRA9/11TERRA9/11TERRA!!!!!! It's really pathetic. Not as pathetic as someone presuming you hate America because you are against Bush. That's REALLY pathetic! 9/11 was a blip, it's time to put it in perspective. Everyday there are a multitude of things that take more life. Rwanda was far more important than 9/11, and we see similar things happening in that region today. Why doesn't Bush recognize the seriousness of that if he's REALLY interested in freedom and liberty in the world? Why doesn't he chat up the tragedies that are occurring right now? Because he's a faker, he's not motivated by all the fine things he claims to be.

So, ya'll think Bush (or Israel) will attack Iran if they get the bomb. OK Fine... What if Iran just goes ahead with what they're doing with their reactor? The deal with Russia is done......it's done. No debate. Let's say that they refuse to let the IAEA in (which is likely) and there's no way for anyone to confirm that all the spent rods are being returned to Russia. What then? Should the newly irrelevant Bush attack? Will he? Surely he won't think this "axis of evil" member can be trusted....?