newbie

Right on Arif!

Thank God he only got a minority. He's basically a eunuch.

So like, uh, what's the age of consent for a blowjob?

A little too left perhaps? Seems to me most of the bans are those on that side of the fence. Ooops, maybe I'm next.

I heard the CBC is looking for a replacement for the late Mr. Dressup.

And the whining continues.

Phone your long lost Aunt in Fredericton.

Aaah, such eloquence.

Actually, Bush has made it easier for many people to be anti-bush.

(bold and italics mine) And that's why I just might vote NDP.

I don't need to come to eureka's defense but when it comes to decorum, perhaps you'd better do a bigger search. The amount of whining and complaining and smearing Liberals is unparalled on this board. And I don't get it. You cons are winning! Why the anger?

What you should have "noticed", is that the debate wasn't centered on whether Iraq possessed illegal weapons, all believed that, the debate was centered on what to do about it, more inspections versus removal from power. Again, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the UN all had intelligence that strongly suggested Iraq possessed illegal weapons and continued to pursuit illegal weapons programs. Your lies may work with a less informed audience, but not with this one, and not in this forum. Re-write your history someplace else. Now for the REAL truth: Those countries I listed didn't go with Bush because it was illegal in their eyes. They wanted the U.N inpsectors to continue to do their work. Saddam was fully contained by sanctions and the fact that his weaponry was destroyed back in 1991. Ritter and Blix, who were on the ground in Iraq for years found nothing (as they should have), but Bush ignored that, opting instead to rely on forged letters from Niger and some fuzzy satelite pictures. Bush and Blair charged that Iraq was not living up to the requirement that it fully disclose its WMD activities. France, Russia and Germany argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003 There was no immenent threat to the U.S. or anyone else. This had nothing to do with humanitarian efforts. It was a plunder for oil, pure and simple. All one has to do is follow the Halliburton trail.

The following is NOT to be taken as a justification, but...... I've been watching an 11 hour DVD set, "WWII, The Complete History". It's incredibly detailed, and concentrates on the history, and cause-and-effect more than spectacular battle scenes. All sides were guilty of bombing civilian centers in all theaters of operations. The Blitz over London. The razing of Stalingrad and Leningrad. Japanese attacks on civilian populations, mostly in China, but a lot elsewhere in the Asian theater. British and US planes carpet-bombing French and German cities. EVERYONE was bombing civilian populations in that war. Furthermore, the Japanese could not be said to have been "about to surrender". On the contrary, they were digging in, ready to fight over their homeland inch-by-inch, as they had already done on various islands. The USA was simply the first country to develop the A-bomb, and consequently, the first (and hopefully last) to use it. Let us all thank our lucky stars that none of the Axis powers developed it first. Here are a few quotes from that era you might find interesting. "The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo]. 8/9/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was the second time he had publicly given reasons for using the atomic bomb on Japan: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. Well, we now know that wasn't the case. In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson: "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

That quote by John Kerry has been so misunderstood by the Conservatives. It is very easy to understand when you take it in context. Kerry addressed a veterans group in West Virginia, a heckler kept demanding to know why he had voted against more funding for the troops. In his considered but long-winded fashion, Kerry tried to explain that he had wanted to vote for the funding, but only if the Senate passed an amendment that would whittle down President Bush's earlier tax cut for the rich. Kerry voted for the amendment, but when it failed, he voted against the funding. The heckler pressed, and Kerry, losing patience, fell into senatorial procedural shorthand. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," he said. from: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2004/11/i-actu...87-billion.html Now I can find volumes of really dumb things said by George W. Bush that would make Kerry's tired comment look pretty tame. But comments like yours about a very educated man do nothing but show ignorance.

[quote name=Argus' date='Jan 20 2006, 08:43 PM' post='90176 All of that would make sense only if the war were profitable. It hasn't been, by a very long shot. Oh, it was profitable alright. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4311.htm http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/07.14A.halli.profit.htm http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/stock_troop2.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...4&articleId=801

This has been overly discussed in the past and I can't believe there are still some people here who believe that crap. Let's talk coincidences shall we: 1) Bush is an oilman, 2) Cheney used to work at Halliburton who handled some of the biggest contracts in pre-invasion Iraq (thru the Cayman Is.) 3) Halliburton has one of the biggest contracts in post-Iraq invasion. 4) America needs oil. 5) Iraq has one of the biggest oil reserves in the world. 6) Halliburton subsidiary KBR got $12 billion worth of exclusive contracts for work in Iraq. 7) 911 commission finds no link between Al Queda and Saddam. 8) no weapons of mass delusion found in Iraq 9) convenient bad intelligence THIS WAS FOR OIL FOLKS.

Since you brought up Israel, what of the Palestinians and their rights? Who speaks for them? I think you'd better go back and look up the history of that area before spouting off the rights of Israelis.

Feel better Argus?

Naah, Trudeau put us on the world map.

I think what's at stake here will override a little snow.

Right on Bubber. And this idea that Canadians are anti-American is overdone. If anything we are anti-Bush and his administration for all the right reasons; one of which is Bush's right-wing Christianity. And what does it say when Pat Robertson has the likes of Tom Delay, Bill Frist and other high power republicans on his little TV show.

Now now Argus, you know better than to break the "no insult" rule.

Who has the right to tell anyone they can't have nuclear weapons? Amazing how quick we forget who first used "the" bomb, not once but twice, against an enemy nation after they were about to surrender. This also broke international law (League of Nations - 1938) as it bombed civilians.

I've never seen nor have I heard this. Post a link lest it be seen as untruth. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/29/canad...ionharper040629

We discuss and vote as individuals. Our ideology is the same however.