So what is the difference between...

[HisSelf]

Is it because Mugabe has no oil?

Is it because nobody has declared Dick Cheney a sociopath?

Dick Cheney for dogpatch dogcatcher. I think he has the smarts.

Maybe not the equipment.

... in any case, he will be able to get enough money from his job chasing dogs to rent a space in the trailer park for Mugabe. OK. If they work together, this might be achievable....

Cheney and Mugabe. There's the ticket.

The dick tick, right?

[Oleg Bach]

Is it because Mugabe has no oil?

Is it because nobody has declared Dick Cheney a sociopath?

Dick Cheney for dogpatch dogcatcher. I think he has the smarts.

Maybe not the equipment.

... in any case, he will be able to get enough money from his job chasing dogs to rent a space in the trailer park for Mugabe. OK. If they work together, this might be achievable....

Cheney and Mugabe. There's the ticket.

The dick tick, right?

Great premise and a very acute parellel between the two me..both are brutal..both are corporate gangsters and I often wonder why Chaney was never connected to the Enron scandal? I will tell you why...I personally ran into a former trade delegate to China that was an early Enron insider and he was about to be extradited to the states because he had information on Chaney's envolvement..WELL our stupid court of appeal here in Toronto KNEW that Chaney wanted his ass and they were more than willing to send him back to the states...He had married a Canadian and had a child here...still - our appointed judges wanted to kiss Ricky's butt and please the mobster...I remember one thing this poor man said to me outside the court house..."The last to guys they extradited back to the states at Cheney's request are dead"...this "witness" was terrified....so Richy Cheney is right up their with Mugabe as far as covering his smelly trail.

[Shady]

So what is the difference between..., ... Robert Mugabe and Dick Cheney?

Jokes and fantasy aside, the main difference between Mugabe and Cheney, is that Mugabe is a dictator, and Cheney is the VP of a democratically elected government. However, I'll submit the next question for you guys to post. What's the difference between Adolf Hitler and George W Bush? Discuss.

[August1991]

Jokes and fantasy aside, the main difference between Mugabe and Cheney, is that Mugabe is a dictator, and Cheney is the VP of a democratically elected government. However, I'll submit the next question for you guys to post. What's the difference between Adolf Hitler and George W Bush? Discuss.

Shady, if you don't know the difference, then I fear for my children's civilization.

Dick Cheney will be gone in a few months. Bush too. In newspapers, these names will disappear. The United States is a true democracy.

The names of Mugabe, Castro, Putin will still be around.

What is Democracy? The names change. I know that this seems absurdly simplistic but it contains a simple basic truth: Democracy means choice.

[HisSelf]

Dick Cheney will be gone in a few months. Bush too. In newspapers, these names will disappear. The United States is a true democracy.

Cheney is an abomination that will not go away.

Dick Cheney is the Jack Ruby of American foreign policy.

[Oleg Bach]

Cheney is an abomination that will not go away.

Dick Cheney is the Jack Ruby of American foreign policy.

Well put - now we will have that tiny faced lack of brain mass Obama as the surrogate taking the place of the front man Bush - and Hillary will be the new Cheney. Along with Bill the hard on Clinton and his gang of socialists who insist we are all equal - equally poor while they will rule and live like demi-gods on earth and all will suffer - as Obama simply dismantles great historic speeches and parrots off important sounding disconnected text.

[GostHacked]

Shady, if you don't know the difference, then I fear for my children's civilization.

Dick Cheney will be gone in a few months. Bush too. In newspapers, these names will disappear. The United States is a true democracy.

The names of Mugabe, Castro, Putin will still be around.

What is Democracy? The names change. I know that this seems absurdly simplistic but it contains a simple basic truth: Democracy means choice.

Democracy only allows a new name to continue atrocities done in democracy's name, where as the dictatorships, still have the same criminal in place.

We democraticly elect criminals while the others just let us know they are criminals without the front.

[bush_cheney2004]

Democracy only allows a new name to continue atrocities done in democracy's name, where as the dictatorships, still have the same criminal in place.

That's all a "democracy" is supposed to do....anything else is just gravy. Do gooders only get one vote, just like the rest of us....nothing special.

Edited July 8, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[sharkman]

Cheney is an abomination that will not go away.

Dick Cheney is the Jack Ruby of American foreign policy.

The difference is when Mugabe was going to lose an election fair and square, he sent out his squads to murder, beat and terrorize the electorate. Cheney's time is up due to the two-wins-and-you're-out election laws.

Something you don't seem to realize for some reason. But if you lived in Mugabe land you'd have the truth of the situation beaten into you. You know what they say, ignorance is bliss.

Edited July 9, 2008 by sharkman

[White Doors]

Democracy only allows a new name to continue atrocities done in democracy's name, where as the dictatorships, still have the same criminal in place.

We democraticly elect criminals while the others just let us know they are criminals without the front.

Wow, another world traveller I see..

[obsidian]

hitler and bush both spied on all of their citizens (the USA's version is way more invasive)

the US censors freedom of expression (to an extent), so did germany [tip toe totalitarianism ie. eroding it little by little, a peace sign=suspension or expulsion from school]

hitler had the jews, we have the terrorists, which are transitioning with the aid of psyops to islamofascists(million dead in Iraq, many more in the next decades from DU)

the US now authorizes torture as long as it doesn't result in death, so did germany. during WWII the allies prided themselves in not torturing POW's.

hitler pretty much removed every1's rights, now the same has happened in the US. Habeas Corpus is ESSENTIAL. The period you can be detained without a charge is undefined and therefore infinite.

both amassed large arsenals before their "expedition of empire"

both used fear to coerce and control the people/countries

the USA illegally invaded Iraq, as much I am told it is not a question of legality though.... do as though wilt, everything is permissable, apparently. (BC it was a preventitive war not even a pre-emptive war, which is illegal, which was based on admittedly BULLSHIT intelligence)

if we ever do find out what actually happened on 9/11 it could be very simmiliar to the Reichstag Fire which granted Hitler his control. After the false-flag attack he passed all kinds of legislation establishing a police state and ensuring his control.

and the one thing we should really try to avoid is ignoring the facts. many warned of hitler and even offered to help stage a military coup in the late 30's but Britian refused to support them. will we learn from the past? or repeat it with 21st century weaponry for Americas "Project for the New American Century".

Edited July 30, 2008 by obsidian

[bush_cheney2004]

hitler and bush both spied on all of their citizens (the USA's version is way more invasive)

False....they spied on some of their citizens, just like every other country, particularly in time of war (yes, that includes Canada).

the US censors freedom of expression (to an extent), so did germany [tip toe totalitarianism ie. eroding it little by little, a peace sign=suspension or expulsion from school]

Americans have more freedom of expression than Canadians (e.g. hate speech laws).

hitler had the jews, we have the terrorists, which are transitioning with the aid of psyops to islamofascists(million dead in Iraq, many more in the next decades from DU)

We have "jews" too....so what? They help to exterminate the "islamofascists". Do you know where the DU comes from.....one guess!

the US now authorizes torture as long as it doesn't result in death, so did germany. during WWII the allies prided themselves in not torturing POW's.

The US also took advantage of German and Japanese medical testing on prisoners, including live vivisections. Torture in Korea and Vietnam too. Torture by Canadians in Somalia. Oh well.....

hitler pretty much removed every1's rights, now the same has happened in the US. Habeas Corpus is ESSENTIAL. The period you can be detained without a charge is undefined and therefore infinite.

So did Abraham Lincoln and FDR....Bush is in very good company!

both amassed large arsenals before their "expedition of empire"

yep..don't leave home without a large "arsenal"; essential to replacing the British Empire's large arsenal.

both used fear to coerce and control the people/countries

No, the Americans just bombed them....no dicking around.

the USA illegally invaded Iraq, as much I am told it is not a question of legality though.... do as though wilt, everything is permissable, apparently. (BC it was a preventitive war not even a pre-emptive war, which is illegal, which was based on admittedly BULLSHIT intelligence)

"Illegal war" is an oxymoron....so sue me!

if we ever do find out what actually happened on 9/11 it could be very simmiliar to the Reichstag Fire which granted Hitler his control. After the false-flag attack he passed all kinds of legislation establishing a police state and ensuring his control.

Too late....we already have control...until January 2009? LOL!

and the one thing we should really try to avoid is ignoring the facts. many warned of hitler and even offered to help stage a military coup in the late 30's but Britian refused to support them. will we learn from the past? or repeat it with 21st century weaponry for Americas "Project for the New American Century".

Hmmm...your empire sat on its ass until 1939 and failed to stop the Americans in 2003? WTF?

[guyser]

One is white, the other , not so much.

[CANADIEN]

hitler and bush both spied on all of their citizens (the USA's version is way more invasive)

the US censors freedom of expression (to an extent), so did germany [tip toe totalitarianism ie. eroding it little by little, a peace sign=suspension or expulsion from school]

hitler had the jews, we have the terrorists, which are transitioning with the aid of psyops to islamofascists(million dead in Iraq, many more in the next decades from DU)

the US now authorizes torture as long as it doesn't result in death, so did germany. during WWII the allies prided themselves in not torturing POW's.

hitler pretty much removed every1's rights, now the same has happened in the US. Habeas Corpus is ESSENTIAL. The period you can be detained without a charge is undefined and therefore infinite.

both amassed large arsenals before their "expedition of empire"

both used fear to coerce and control the people/countries

the USA illegally invaded Iraq, as much I am told it is not a question of legality though.... do as though wilt, everything is permissable, apparently. (BC it was a preventitive war not even a pre-emptive war, which is illegal, which was based on admittedly BULLSHIT intelligence)

if we ever do find out what actually happened on 9/11 it could be very simmiliar to the Reichstag Fire which granted Hitler his control. After the false-flag attack he passed all kinds of legislation establishing a police state and ensuring his control.

and the one thing we should really try to avoid is ignoring the facts. many warned of hitler and even offered to help stage a military coup in the late 30's but Britian refused to support them. will we learn from the past? or repeat it with 21st century weaponry for Americas "Project for the New American Century".

Not that I am confortable one bit with the way the U.S. Government is willing to disregard the rights of its citizens because it wrongly believes safety is worth that prize... Or that I am a fan G.W.B. But you are welcome anytime to go tell a Shoa survivor that he is as bad as Hitler.

And last time I checked, 1930's German Jews were not terrorists.

[White Doors]

Hmmm... Hitler also had gun registration and then gun confiscation.

He also had hate speach laws.

Doesn't sound very American, does it?

[AngusThermopyle]

Darn it BC, you were doing so well with that post until you blew it with this.

Torture by Canadians in Somalia. Oh well.....

This is an invalid comparison and I'm sure you are well aware of it. What was being discussed was officially sanctioned torture and as such your comparison is meaningless.

The Somalia incident was a rogue action committed by one member (passive participation by a few more more) in no way sanctioned officially. Therefore to compare it to official government policy is both false and disingenuous. If it were officially sanctioned then why were those involved prosecuted? Thats a rhetorical question anyway, I know for a fact it was non sanctioned as I did my six months in Somalia during the period of time this occurred and can assure you that our orders were pretty well diametrically the opposite of what these people did.

Using your analogy I could state that a small percentage of Americans murder other Americans so Americans murdering Americans is official government policy. An absurd comparison to be sure, yet one that falls in line with the reasoning you used when you made that statement.

If you mentioned it only to score some points it was a dismal failure.

[HisSelf]

And last time I checked, 1930's German Jews were not terrorists.

At least not until the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Now we're getting somewhere.

[bush_cheney2004]

Darn it BC, you were doing so well with that post until you blew it with this.

This is an invalid comparison and I'm sure you are well aware of it. What was being discussed was officially sanctioned torture and as such your comparison is meaningless.

So Shidane Arone (and others) should be relieved that such "torture" was not "officially sanctioned". Gee, that makes all the difference!

The Somalia incident was a rogue action committed by one member (passive participation by a few more more) in no way sanctioned officially. Therefore to compare it to official government policy is both false and disingenuous. If it were officially sanctioned then why were those involved prosecuted? Thats a rhetorical question anyway, I know for a fact it was non sanctioned as I did my six months in Somalia during the period of time this occurred and can assure you that our orders were pretty well diametrically the opposite of what these people did.

Oh sure....that would explain the cover up and watered down investigation. Disbanding the Canadian Regiment was just a mere coincidence? How much time did Matchee serve? Why didn't the chain-of-command intervene after being informed by Brown? How 'bout that McKay "home video"...."we ain't killed enough niggers yet".

Using your analogy I could state that a small percentage of Americans murder other Americans so Americans murdering Americans is official government policy. An absurd comparison to be sure, yet one that falls in line with the reasoning you used when you made that statement.

But your analogy is correct...it is official government policy that Americans can and do murder other Americans. Then we have an investigation and trial...sometimes.

If you mentioned it only to score some points it was a dismal failure.

Your emphatic response is evidence enough of my successful intent. I could have gone with Security Certificate detentions and torture by Canada, but nothing gets the natives stirred up like the Somalia Affair. Nothing personal, as I'm sure you served with honor, but if somebody here wants to play the torture card, then lets play with a complete deck.

Edited July 31, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[White Doors]

At least not until the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Now we're getting somewhere.

nevermind the distatefulness of your insinuation that the Jews should have marched more peacefully into the gas chamber, you also are factually wrong on the dates.

The Warsaw uprising was in 1943.

I doubt that you care that you are wrong, again.

[HisSelf]

nevermind the distatefulness of your insinuation that the Jews should have marched more peacefully into the gas chamber, you also are factually wrong on the dates.

The Warsaw uprising was in 1943.

I doubt that you care that you are wrong, again.

Well once again we have a deflection into the world of hate. Is it any surprise?

So let me interpret my post for those who have problems understanding the nuances of simplicity.

There are environments in which people who rise up against oppression are labelled as terrorists.

Some day it might even be us. Or you. Or a Moslem in Srebonica. A black African in Somalia. A Tibetan in the Olympic country (trying to get you banned from the Olympics here MLW), or a Palestinian in the occupied territories? There was time when it would have been a man on a horse on the road near the North Church Tower.

There. Now do you get my point?

A simple thank you will suffice.

Edited July 31, 2008 by HisSelf

[White Doors]

No, I do not get your point - because you do not have one. The Jews of Warsaw were fighting the SS for their very survival.

They were not blowing up pizzarias to make a political point.

The fact that you cannot or will not differentiate the two shows just how much you hate Jews.

No reasonable person would confuse the two. Perhaps you just aren't educated on the subject and that you really don't know... but I doubt it.

[White Doors]

PS: If something is 'simple' there shouldn't be any nuances.

be careful playing with big words that you don't understand.

[AngusThermopyle]

You raise some good points BC but I still maintain the comparison is invalid. Chretiens government acted after the fact in a sort of damage control mode. That does not in anyway justify what they did, it merely serves to illustrate what I've always said about them, that they were a dishonourable dishonest lower form of life. They were more concerned with their personal reasons than with honesty and the good of the country.

As for Matchee, well I'm sure you are already aware that he removed himself from the entire judicial process by turning himself into a catatonic vegetable so no prosecution could ever occur. Personally I have my doubts as to the validity of the claim that he did it to himself. I believe that some of his fellow soldiers decided to enact that old military tradition of expunging dishonourable conduct in a draconian manner.

The disbanding of the Airborne was just a political publicity stunt and should never have been contemplated in the first place. It turns out that it was neither here nor there though since we still have our Airborne, they just cant call themselves that publicly anymore.

Why didn't anyone react more quickly to Browns information? Thats a damn good question and one I've asked myself over the years many times. I think it can only be explained by the Ostrich principle, that or fear of being deemed disloyal and untrustworthy. Never the less I have always believed that such concerns should be subordinate to the truth and doing the right thing.

Anyway I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the validity of your comparison.

[AngusThermopyle]

the nuances of simplicity.

What does this mean?

[HisSelf]

What does this mean?

If you have to ask....