caesar Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 I am not a LIBERAL but it has been plain to see that Harper, Campbell, and Bush qall have many similar outlooks. Harper had the nerve to go to the USA and apologize for Canadians not joining the USA in the unwise invasion (It was not a war) of Iraq. He claimed Canadians were wrong. CANADIANS WERE NOT WRONG; Harper and Bush were wrong. Even the Americans are now seeing the truth and realizing that old Georgie lead them down the wrong path. That Bush lied, used poor information and ignored the warning from other countries and their own experts. The invasion of Iraq; besides being uncalled for; took the pressure off seeking out and containing the REAL terrorists. They may have captured Saddam ( a irritatating jerk and vile dicatator; but no ties to terrorists nor WMD) The real leader of the terrorists (by American claim) was Osama bin Laden; he is still free to lead and rebuild his terrorist organizations. The attack on Iraq while it was still cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors only served to inflame Muslims and Arabian people. This action and the subsequent mistreatment of prisoners has only succeeded in making more young Muslims decide to join the terrorist groups against this unfair attack of their people. Quote
takeanumber Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Canadians have been fighting the real war on terror in Afghanistan while the US has been out waging war for cheap gas in Iraq. Very pathetic. And for Harper to turn around and deny the fact that the Alliance and most of the current Conservative caucus wanted to go to war in Iraq, is just typical. Say one thing. Do another. Quote
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Canadians have been fighting the real war on terror in Afghanistan while the US has been out waging war for cheap gas in Iraq. Do you purchase "cheap gas"? If so, please tell me where you get And for Harper to turn around and deny the fact that the Alliance and most of the current Conservative caucus wanted to go to war in Iraq, is just typical.Say one thing. Do another. He seemed quite straight forward about his views on Iraq in the debate...... I am not a LIBERAL but it has been plain to see that Harper, Campbell, and Bush qall have many similar outlooks. Harper had the nerve to go to the USA and apologize for Canadians not joining the USA in the unwise invasion (It was not a war) of Iraq. He claimed Canadians were wrong. CANADIANS WERE NOT WRONG; Harper and Bush were wrong. Even the Americans are now seeing the truth and realizing that old Georgie lead them down the wrong path. That Bush lied, used poor information and ignored the warning from other countries and their own experts. Is Iraq going to produce any WMD in the near future? Is Iraq going to threaten any of it's fellow Middle Eastern countries? Do you disagree that now that the United States has a large footprint in Iraq it can pull out of Saudi Arabia and with a pullout of Saudi Arabia, the West no longer has to kowtow to the Saudis? Added to the fact that now that the United States is pulling out of Saudi Arabia, there has been an increase in terror attacks within the Saudi Kingdom, and because of that, the Saudi's now have to start dealing with terrorism for fear of being over thrown? .......but anywho, when WMD are found in a remote location in Iraq/Lebanon/Syria/Iran or released in a Western city, then will you still think Bush made a mistake? The invasion of Iraq; besides being uncalled for; took the pressure off seeking out and containing the REAL terrorists. They may have captured Saddam ( a irritatating jerk and vile dicatator; but no ties to terrorists nor WMD) The real leader of the terrorists (by American claim) was Osama bin Laden; he is still free to lead and rebuild his terrorist organizations. Where are the majority of terror attacks happening now in the world? Could it be Iraq and Afghanistain? It's almost like the Americans thought that if they went into the middle east, the terrorists would follow them and instead of fighting the war on western soil, the war is now being fought in the middle east........call me crazy The attack on Iraq while it was still cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors only served to inflame Muslims and Arabian people. This action and the subsequent mistreatment of prisoners has only succeeded in making more young Muslims decide to join the terrorist groups against this unfair attack of their people. If Iraq didn't have WMDs, why didn't they provide proof that they had been destroyed to the UN inspectors before the war........Now remember, Russia, France, Germany and China also had intell stating the Iraqis had WMDs, they just didn't agree on the course of action the Americans wanted to take....... I even remember France saying that if Iraq used WMD during the war, they would have entered it....(I think the Germans might have said the same thing) As for the mistreatment of the "poor Iraqis", if Canadians were threatend by terrorists, I'd have no bones about pulling a persons toe nails out or making them pose naked if it would get info that could help save the lives of Canadians or other allies..... Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Boydfish Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Actually, what Harper supported, in specific, was to stand shoulder to should with our allies. That's it. We didn't send troops to Vietnam, but we sure supported the US in that war. We supported without deploying a single soldier, instead we beefed up our deployments intop other areas. We strengthened our warfighting capacity and deployed elsewhere in the global war against communism. What Harper was putting forward was that we should stand with our proven friends like the UK, Australia and the US, not climb into bed with France. What the Canadian media will not admit is that Harper never said "send troops", he just said "support". There is a big difference. Harper knows that the Liberals have hobbled the CF to the point that deploying a warfighting brigade to British Columbia is beyond the CF's capability, let alone one to Iraq. Quote
caesar Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Canada was right in not supporting the invasion of Iraq ON ANY LEVEL. It was the wrong time and was completely unjustified. It was based on fraudulent information and down right lies that were revealed PRIOR to the invasion. Canada can make its own decisions; regardless of what other countries agree or disagree. The American people are now agreeing with our original opinion and decision. Would those who believe we should have supported the American decision to invade a disarming country also want us to support the illegal imprisonment against Geneva convention of prisoner being held by the American in Cuba? Would you have Canadians support the torture of prisoners in Iraq. These cases of torture and murder are not being commited by individuals; it is too widespread. These soldiers being prosecuted are scapegoats to take the heat off the USA administration. Do you really believe that the invasion of Iraq has made North America safer from terrorist attacks. It has not. It will probably make such attacks more common. Quote
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 We didn't send troops to Vietnam, but we sure supported the US in that war. We supported without deploying a single soldier, instead we beefed up our deployments intop other areas. We strengthened our warfighting capacity and deployed elsewhere in the global war against communism. We didn't send troops as a nation, but we shouldn't forget the thousands of Canadians that volunteered to fight for the Americans..... What the Canadian media will not admit is that Harper never said "send troops", he just said "support". There is a big difference. Harper knows that the Liberals have hobbled the CF to the point that deploying a warfighting brigade to British Columbia is beyond the CF's capability, let alone one to Iraq. I agree, at most, If Harper had of been in, the ships we had in the gulf "fighting the war on terror", would have now been "fighting the war with Iraq".....maybe a few Herks, MPA and some special forces (If they didn't already ) might have took part...... Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Canada was right in not supporting the invasion of Iraq ON ANY LEVEL. It was the wrong time and was completely unjustified. It was based on fraudulent information and down right lies that were revealed PRIOR to the invasion. What lies? Canada can make its own decisions; regardless of what other countries agree or disagree. Yes, and the Americans were free to make their own decision wrt SARS, Mad Cow and softwood lumber....I wonder if their decisions would have been different if ours had of been......... The American people are now agreeing with our original opinion and decision. Would those who believe we should have supported the American decision to invade a disarming country also want us to support the illegal imprisonment against Geneva convention of prisoner being held by the American in Cuba? When WMDs our found, what do you think the opinion will be like then? As for "the poor terrorists in Cuba" see above...... Would you have Canadians support the torture of prisoners in Iraq. These cases of torture and murder are not being commited by individuals; it is too widespread. These soldiers being prosecuted are scapegoats to take the heat off the USA administration. Yes...... I doubt they were given from higher ups, because if that was the case, we most likely would have never seen or heard about it........I'm sure the CIA knows how to hide things........ Do you really believe that the invasion of Iraq has made North America safer from terrorist attacks. It has not. It will probably make such attacks more common. Yes I do, as they say, actions speak louder then words......There are thousands of terrorists fighting in Iraq, but the good thing about that is that thoses thousands of terrorists are not fighting in the west right now...... Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
takeanumber Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 No Stoker. The war was about cheaper gas. (It's become clear now that's what it is what about, since they were lying the whole time about the WMD) But it just goes to show how much of a failure the Bush Administration really is. Quote
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 No Stoker.The war was about cheaper gas. (It's become clear now that's what it is what about, since they were lying the whole time about the WMD) Ahh.......So thats why gas is so cheap Do you know when the Americans are going to start stealing Iraqi oil? It had better be soon since the date for the hand over is coming up......Also, if the stolen Iraqi oil is going to be coming to market soon, I'll hold off on filling my tank....... Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted June 19, 2004 Report Posted June 19, 2004 Oh, the Americans were handing out long term contracts from day one. Things have just not gone as smoothly as they thought. They said all the Iraqis would be greeting them with open arms as they sat on the big pile of WMD that Saddam had. That life in Iraq would be great; not quite how reality turned out. Quote
Stoker Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Oh, the Americans were handing out long term contracts from day one. Things have just not gone as smoothly as they thought. They said all the Iraqis would be greeting them with open arms as they sat on the big pile of WMD that Saddam had. That life in Iraq would be great; not quite how reality turned out. As I said in another thread (maybe to you), if this was just a war so Bush could hand over contracts to his buddies........Why not allow his buddies to drill in protected parks in Alaska instead of going to war? And even if that was not enough, why not go to war with Iraq in his second term when he wouldn't have to worry about being reelected? And my final one...........Why is Oil so bloody expensive right now if this war was about stealing Iraqi oil? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
takeanumber Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Because they expected to be welcomed. That hasn't happened. The oil hasn't flowed. (If anything, it's been delayed.) So the answer is: Typcial Republican Incompetance. Quote
Stoker Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 The oil hasn't flowed. (If anything, it's been delayed.) Oh, so the Americans haven't been able to grift the oil yet? Whats it called when you accuse a person (in this case a nation) of a crime, without any proof, of a crime that has not occurred? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Do you ever listen to the news. Stoker. If you still believe that Bush and co had just cause to risk young Americans lives and to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis; you are beyond hope. You must live in your own little world of denial. How old are you? Quote
takeanumber Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 He's in denial. Most Republican's are. From chucking feces at each other, to torture, to lying about intelligence, there is no low that the Bush Administration won't go. Quote
Stoker Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Do you ever listen to the news. Stoker. If you still believe that Bush and co had just cause to risk young Americans lives and to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis; you are beyond hope. You must live in your own little world of denial. How old are you? I watch/read/listen to it all the time.....and from doing that, I haven't heard any stories that provide any proof that America went to war to steal Iraqi oil.......now if you don't mind enlightening me to some sort of proof that Bush is a new-age Machiavelli.......be my guest, but remember, conjecture doesn't count. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
takeanumber Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 I watch/read/listen to it all the time.....and from doing that, I haven't heard any stories that provide any proof that America went to war to steal Iraqi oil.......now if you don't mind enlightening me to some sort of proof that Bush is a new-age Machiavelli.......be my guest, but remember, conjecture doesn't count. Classic. Quote
Stoker Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 QUOTE I watch/read/listen to it all the time.....and from doing that, I haven't heard any stories that provide any proof that America went to war to steal Iraqi oil.......now if you don't mind enlightening me to some sort of proof that Bush is a new-age Machiavelli.......be my guest, but remember, conjecture doesn't count. Classic. I guess it is, since I've yet seen my line of thinking proven wrong.......care to try? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
noelandmero Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 Yes oil is so cheap here in the US do to the invasion of Iraq. That is why gas here is at an all time high I paid 2.34 a gallon this afternoon. so don't talk about things you so obviously know nothing about. Do you ever listen to the news. Stoker. If you still believe that Bush and co had just cause to risk young Americans lives and to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis; you are beyond hope. You must live in your own little world of denial. How old are you? Maybe what you should do is broden youre horizons and quit watching CBC and pick up a book and do some real reading on this war that is costing billions of dollars not making money. Saying the US should not have gone is the dumbmest thing I have ever heard maybe we should not have stepped in agaisnt Hitler either. The reasons for going can be debated but doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing. Twenty years from now when Iraq is a beacon of democracy in the gulf Bush will be hailed as a visionary. And then you can kiss his ass just like all the liberals politicians had to do to President Regan lastweek when they realized how much everyone but the ultra left wing loved him. Quote
playfullfellow Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 No matter how you look at it, Hussein is a very evil person. He killed thousands just because he didn't like them. He had a history of using chemical weapons on his own people. He had a very blatant disregard for the rest of the world and he felt he was invincible, almost a god. Where was he found? Hiding in a rathole like the coward he was. Do I feel Canada should have been there? That is debateable the sad state our military is in. Should we have morally supported the US for destroying this mad man, yes we should have. Would our opinion have been different if it was France ot Germany that invaded Iraq, probably. Those countries are not looked as bastards by people in this country. Like it or not, we are neighbours to the worlds only super power now. It is like living next door to Bubba who outweighs you by 200 pounds and he beats up Buddy around the block for throwing a rock through his window. Buddy has a history of throwing rocks through windows and you feel your window may be next, do you get in Bubba's way? Nope, Bubba will probably make sure Buddy never throw another rock and you feel that Buddy deserved it because did it before. Lastly, who the hell is gonna get in the way of someone a lot larger than you are, it is a matter of survival. Quote
caesar Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 By your reason playful; the world shouldn't have interfered with Hitler when he started invading countries/ The USA is wrong; this is not a CBC opinion. I have done serious reseach; to bad he USA didn't. Anyone who stil cannot see that the USA made grave error when it invaded Iraq on its proven (prior to the invasion) fraudulent information. There is now a group of 24 former (Reagan and Bush sr) diplomats and ambassador's from the USA asking people to vote Bush OUT of office because of the damage Bush has done to the USA's reputation with its ill advised invasion of Iraq and the holding of prisoners in quatanama without their geneva convention rights plus the widespread torture and killings of prisoners in Iraq and quatanama. Bush was warned by Former Intelligence agents for Sanity (24 former CIA and FBI intelligence agents) PRIOR to the invasion; that the intelligence that Bush and Co were using was seriously flawed. Quote
Argus Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 By your reason playful; the world shouldn't have interfered with Hitler when he started invading countries/There are a few problems with this analyses. To begin with, Germany was never attacked first, as the US has been. Second, Saddam was a vicious, brutal, murdering scumbag, not a democracy like most of the nations Hitler invaded. Third, the US IS a democracy which respects human rights a lot more than any of the people in the countries it invades. Are they perfect? Hell no. Are there blemishes on their record? Hell yes. But they're still better than anyone else.Here is the gist of a conversation I had on an Islamic group about the recent beheading of an American hostage. Him: These men are heros. The Americans got what they deserve. Just look at what happened in Abu Grahaib prison! Me: So you think what the Americans did in that prison was right? Him: Of course not! Me" But you approve of the beheading, which is worse. How can you dissaprove of what the Americans did then? Him: No answer. There is a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to the Americans. People who will show respect or at least neutrality towards the most vile, evil, murderous regimes sneer in contempt at the Americans, who they accuse of being behind every evil the world has seen in a century. I have seen people on this very site say the Americans are worse than Hitler or Stalin. I'd really like to own a time machine so I could stuff people like that into it and send them back to live under Hitler or Stalin to see for themselves what the differences were. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
playfullfellow Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 By your reason playful; the world shouldn't have interfered with Hitler when he started invading countries/ Didn't say that at all, Buddy can be perceived as Hitler and Bubba as England. Hitler (Buddy) showed he was going to keep going with his errant ways and Bubba was determined to stop him. You may not agree with war or beating someone up but you feel justice needs to be done, Bubba is much bigger and stronger than you are, so let him do it. Quote
caesar Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 By the way Playful; claims that Saddam gassed his own people is NOT a proven fact. In fact, according to the USA War College; the Kurds were likely gassed by accident as both the Iranians and the Iraqi military were using gas on each other. The Kurds just came in between. PLUS; according to their experts the gas poisoning they were showing symptoms of were indicative of the gas being used bu Iran. Of course, we must remember that at that time; Saddam was a close ally of the USA in their dispute with Iran; perhaps it IS just more American changing propaganda?????? The USA War College is the same one that Bush recently gave his speech from!!!!!!! What other untruths are we being told??? Personally, I didn't like Saddam but my feelings are not a good enough reason for killing thousands of Iraqis and destroying the infrastructure in their country. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.