Maple Leaf Patches/Pins

[Remiel]

I don't know about Britain and Australia, but Americans have far more to want to impeach Bush on than just lying to get into an illegal war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. He is also been doing his best to completely destroy the underpinnings of the US, ignoring law, using a legally fictious " War on Terror " to grant himself dictatorial powers, approved torture (of American citizens, no less), and believes the only purpose of a bill is to have a signing statement saying he can ignore it.

Can you point me to parallel abominations in Britain and Australia, or were the lies pertaining to getting in an executing the war in Iraq the major extent of their crimes?

Rather, my feeling is that Bush is doing something far worse to his country than either Blair or Howard is doing to theirs. Of course, there are good reasons that, here in Canada, we don't want the US to turn into some kind of fascist dictatorship. That possibility should be of infinitely greater concern to the people in the US. I read the Wikipedia entry on the impeachment of Bush, and it was somewhat heartening, but the largest protest was only like 200,000 people, and it was an anti-war protest, not an impeach Bush protest. The organizers were calling for impeachment, but it was hardly the focus. Isn't the benchmark for a truly important or effective protest in the US close to a million people though? Or at least 500,000.

Anyway, I'm currently reading up on Blair, and I'll move onto Howard after that. Maybe I'll have something more informed to say by my next post.

[Wilber]

the average Brit for not having done more to stop its government during the brutal Northern Ireland crisis; for war crimes committed in Basra (under British watch) in the current war; for the 17th and 18th century slave trade; the condition of India; apartheid in South Africa; the treatment of aborigines in Australia; the firebombing of cities during WW2; cripes, even for the bloody Elgin Marbles (and the wholesale raping and pillaging of poorer nations.

The British have many things not to be proud of and some of those they can be were definitely self serving.

But:

The "crimes" in Basra consisted of Iraqis killing Iraqis.

The recent Irish crisis consisted mostly of Irishmen killing Irishmen and Irishmen placing bombs in British cities, although the Brits have much to apologize for during their long history in Ireland.

Britain was also the first country to abolish the slave trade and used its navy to try and prevent the exportation of slaves from Africa.

Apartheid was the result of South Africa's Boer heritage, not British.

Their legacy in India also consisted of the worlds largest democracy and among other things, the worlds largest rail system at the time they left.

No country can be particularly proud of its treatment of aboriginals.

WW2 was a total war between civilizations. In hindsight, it is easy to be critical of those who were there. If you want to know a little more about the history of fire bombing I suggest you do a little reading up on the bombing of London, particularly the night of May10/11, 1941. The difference in destruction between it and German cities was only due to the German's incapacity to inflict more.

The British Museum is a wonderful place but it is not the only one which includes a lot of ill gotten gain. I daresay we have some in a few of ours. If there is an upside, it is that anyone from anywhere can go and see it for free.

It's easy to focus on the negative but there is often some sort of balance. The US is no different.

[White Doors]

Nice, balanced, post Wilber and 100% true.

[America1]

I backpacked through Europe for 2 months and I had an American flag on my pack and no one said anything to me about it.

[geoffrey]

...and, right off, people know what language I speak.

Which language is that?

[ft.niagara]

Americans have far more to want to impeach Bush on than just lying to get into an illegal war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

What is an illegal war. War is War. There is no supergovernment to legislate laws regarding War let alone enforce them. The UN is a forum with very little teeth, and what ever teeth it has had has usually come from the US.

As far as phony war on terror, someone destroyed a major American property, that is War. Not facing up to it will not make it go away, it has been tried, not facing it as Clinton did. As far as abuse, I and most Americans have no sympathy for scumbags. The American people would like out of Iraq though, but there is no marching in streets against scumbag abuse, let alone for Bush impeachment.

The hundreds of thousands of lives??? Most lives lost are Iraqi killing Iraqi, both pre and post Saddam. Not American killing Iraqi.

[Fortunata]

The hundreds of thousands of lives??? Most lives lost are Iraqi killing Iraqi, both pre and post Saddam. Not American killing Iraqi.

Just for the sake of discussion I wonder what is the difference of how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam and then since Saddam.

As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis this wouldn't be happening without the invasion by Bush. I don't see how you can decry responsibility for these deaths.

[geoffrey]

The hundreds of thousands of lives??? Most lives lost are Iraqi killing Iraqi, both pre and post Saddam. Not American killing Iraqi.

Just for the sake of discussion I wonder what is the difference of how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam and then since Saddam.

As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis this wouldn't be happening without the invasion by Bush. I don't see how you can decry responsibility for these deaths.

I don't see how you can decry holding Saddam responsible for the crimes he commited. He wasn't about to be served wtih a warrant and surrender peacefully.

[Fortunata]

The hundreds of thousands of lives??? Most lives lost are Iraqi killing Iraqi, both pre and post Saddam. Not American killing Iraqi.

Just for the sake of discussion I wonder what is the difference of how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam and then since Saddam.

As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis this wouldn't be happening without the invasion by Bush. I don't see how you can decry responsibility for these deaths.

I don't see how you can decry holding Saddam responsible for the crimes he commited. He wasn't about to be served wtih a warrant and surrender peacefully.

Nice deflection. Can you point out where I said Saddam shouldn't be held responsible? Where is your outcry about the deaths Bush is responsible for?

[Charles Anthony]

Guys, try to reduce the excessive quoting.
Tap into: Using the [ Quote ] Feature: Avoid using more too many quotes!

[geoffrey]

I don't see how you can decry holding Saddam responsible for the crimes he commited. He wasn't about to be served wtih a warrant and surrender peacefully.

Nice deflection. Can you point out where I said Saddam shouldn't be held responsible? Where is your outcry about the deaths Bush is responsible for?

How is he going to be held responsible? With empty condemnation from the UN? One thing many people on your side of this argument don't get, a law is only law if it's enforced. Letting Saddam get away with crimes against his people like he did wasn't acceptable.

There was no alternative method of removing him or his government from power.

I struggle with placing these deaths on Bush's hands. Most deaths are from terrorist attacks against Iraqi's... those deaths are the responsibility of the terrorists, not George Bush. I doubt if GWB wants Iraqi's killed by terrorists everyday.

Sure, the death of US troops that have been sent there is a responsibility of Mr. Bush as he's even admitted he's made poor planning choices. Incompetence is evident in the Bush administration. Criminality is not.

The invasion of Iraq was justify IMO, not by WMD, but by the arrest of a criminal that was otherwise going to run free until his natural death. The American intentions were good, Iraq in it's current state doesn't do the US any good... a peaceful Iraq definitely has positive outcomes for Americans.

It's easy to single out Bush as the responsible one for the current state of affairs in Iraq, but I really it's these terrorist leaders that continue sending in their brainwashed suicide bombers to kill Iraqis. If the terrorists ceased their attacks, the US would leave immediately (believe me, the GOP wants out FAST before they lose any more political traction). And Iraqi's would go on living nicely.

But this religious war between varying Islamic fantatics is now causing too much chaos. The US needs to stay and assist with returning order. If the US were to leave today, the body count would be far higher than with the 'surge' or other plans. It's neccessary.

So you can continue to dwell on the misleading claims about WMDs and things like that, but in reality the situation at hand requires US troops to be there and that's that.

[Leafless]

The hundreds of thousands of lives??? Most lives lost are Iraqi killing Iraqi, both pre and post Saddam. Not American killing Iraqi.

Just for the sake of discussion I wonder what is the difference of how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam and then since Saddam.

As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis this wouldn't be happening without the invasion by Bush. I don't see how you can decry responsibility for these deaths.

I don't see how you can decry holding Saddam responsible for the crimes he commited. He wasn't about to be served wtih a warrant and surrender peacefully.

President G.W. Bush did serve Saddam with an ultimatum:

"Bush has given Saddam and his sons until 4 am (1am Irish time Thursday) to leave Iraq or face war. Saddam rejected the 48 hour ultimatum on Tuesday."

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/0.../story92311.asp

[tml12]

The hundreds of thousands of lives??? Most lives lost are Iraqi killing Iraqi, both pre and post Saddam. Not American killing Iraqi.

Just for the sake of discussion I wonder what is the difference of how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam and then since Saddam.

As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis this wouldn't be happening without the invasion by Bush. I don't see how you can decry responsibility for these deaths.

I don't see how you can decry holding Saddam responsible for the crimes he commited. He wasn't about to be served wtih a warrant and surrender peacefully.

President G.W. Bush did serve Saddam with an ultimatum:

"Bush has given Saddam and his sons until 4 am (1am Irish time Thursday) to leave Iraq or face war. Saddam rejected the 48 hour ultimatum on Tuesday."

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/0.../story92311.asp

Leafless is correct...that sure sounds like an ultimatum to me.

[ft.niagara]

You have to give it to that Saddam though. He certainly stood on principle. He could have had a decent life in some country like Marcos did, but NOOOO. His sons died by bullets, and he died by a rope. Before the attack, Dan Rather gave a rather sympathetic interview where Saddam offered to duke it out with Bush. Both Dan and Saddam are history now.

[ft.niagara]

The hundreds of thousands of lives??? Most lives lost are Iraqi killing Iraqi, both pre and post Saddam. Not American killing Iraqi.

As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis this wouldn't be happening without the invasion by Bush. I don't see how you can decry responsibility for these deaths.

Decry responsibility???? I will have to look that one up. That one isn't a rhymy word.

But if you mean deny responsibility, yes on behalf of the United States of America I will deny responsibility for Iraqis killing Iraqis. I think any idiot can understand why. He or his representitive (Saddam's) who pulls the trigger is responsible for a death.

[Fortunata]

Deny, deny, deny. Iraqis wouldn't be killing Iraqis without the American invasion and disrupting the country. It is now a country in complete shambles thanks to Bush. He's your president; he had support of a majority of Americans to do just that. The blood there is on your hands.

[guyser]

The blood there is on your hands.

As I suppose it is on yours too.

[Wilber]

Deny, deny, deny. Iraqis wouldn't be killing Iraqis without the American invasion and disrupting the country. It is now a country in complete shambles thanks to Bush. He's your president; he had support of a majority of Americans to do just that. The blood there is on your hands.

Nonsense, that's how Saddam kept power, by killing any opposition to Sunni domination. The US pried off the lid he had kept on sectarian violence. The result ain't pretty but eventually it would have happened anyway. Just too many different groups in that country who hate each others guts.

[ft.niagara]

The blood there is on your hands.

And where do you get your mushrooms from? It is almost funny listening to American bashers, they can be so out of touch with reality. By their outragous comments they demean their credibility.

[Fortunata]

The blood there is on your hands.

And where do you get your mushrooms from? It is almost funny listening to American bashers, they can be so out of touch with reality. By their outragous comments they demean their credibility.

And it's so tiresome to listen to the so over used now-meaningless phrase "anti-American" because you disagree with the US about something. Quit throwing childish phrases around and saying, "it's not my fault, it's not my fault" is like a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum in the supermarket. You're in denial if you think all the killing that is happening in Iraq would have happened if US had stayed home. Before USA Saddam and his henchmen did the killing, not every Ahab, Ahmed and Hamid. So suck it up.

As I suppose it is on yours too.

Afghanistan blood unfortunately is. We're there. My country sent troops and there's a lot of killing going on that wouldn't previously have been. The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that Afghanistan harboured the terrorists that were committing murder around the globe, remember 9-11? Afghanistan was a must do. Iraq on the other hand had nothing to do with 9-11 and it was Bush's wanna do. It wasn't necessary and now as it turns out, wasn't wise. American's denying responsibility for unnecessarily tearing that country apart is so much wrong. There would have come a time when Iraqis would have risen up to take their country back from despots like Saddam and sons; it was theirs to do, not Americans to do for reasons as fickle and false as now have proved to be.

[bush_cheney2004]

Afghanistan blood unfortunately is. We're there. My country sent troops and there's a lot of killing going on that wouldn't previously have been. The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that Afghanistan harboured the terrorists that were committing murder around the globe, remember 9-11? Afghanistan was a must do. Iraq on the other hand had nothing to do with 9-11 and it was Bush's wanna do. It wasn't necessary and now as it turns out, wasn't wise. American's denying responsibility for unnecessarily tearing that country apart is so much wrong. There would have come a time when Iraqis would have risen up to take their country back from despots like Saddam and sons; it was theirs to do, not Americans to do for reasons as fickle and false as now have proved to be.

A very fine rationalization for Canada's noble mission that kills innocent people in far off lands (just like Iraq), but the "terrorists" weren't only in Afghanistan...that would be the Taliban.....as in Taliban Jack. Will Canada help the Saudis with a dose of Terrorists Be Gone next? Whatever floats the popular human rights boat I guess....same deal happened in Kosovo, where Canada certainly did not just let Albanians "rise up" to solve their own problems from "despots" like Milosevich.

The elected leadership of Australia, UK, and USA decided to invade Iraq. Canada's fence sitting opinion was largely irrelevant, and even less principled than France or Germany, which stridently opposed the invasion.

Hey, look at us! We didn't screw up like America! We're Liberals, we didn't do anything! - Michael Nickerson

[ft.niagara]

And it's so tiresome to listen to the so over used now-meaningless phrase "anti-American" because you disagree with the US about something. Quit throwing childish phrases around and saying, "it's not my fault, it's not my fault" is like a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum in the supermarket. You're in denial if you think all the killing that is happening in Iraq would have happened if US had stayed home. Before USA Saddam and his henchmen did the killing, not every Ahab, Ahmed and Hamid. So suck it up.

Most likely you do not disagree with the US about something, you disagree about everything. Your intillectual focus in life no doubt is to disagree with the US. Your silly post about supermarket tantrums just reinforces your empty tank in the grey matter department. To say the US was wrong in deposing a cruel dictator because his killing innocent people was ok is simply stupid. Basicly, that is what you contend, so suck that up.

[TheLastCanadian]

Ok, on the original topic: I wear a maple leaf pin, not so much out of any attempt to distinguish myself, but as a simple gesture of my pride in my country. I wear it at home as well, not just abroad.

I've often heard this, and while I think it's largely just propaganda that Americans wear them.

Alright, now for the rest of this stuff:

What's up with the inferiority, superiority complex?

I can't speak for Americans, but I find nothing lacking in my own country that would give me any reason to be jealous of them. We have spineless politicians, economic sellouts and plenty of others that the Americans have to deal with too.

I think the overall reason a lot of Canadians take issue with America is the level of integration we face. I'm fine with working with America, but I'm often deeply worried by how gung-ho the Canadian politicians are to go along with them.

We need to forge a unique policy from America, not follow them, which is what our politicians seem to prefer to MAKING THEIR OWN DECISIONS *GASP, YOU SPEAKETH THE DEVIL'S WORD!

Now, as for Iraq and Afghanistan, I take issue with Iraq on the point that the US couldn't go about it like a man and say what they were really in there for. To spread democracy is bullshit. If that was their motive, why the hell did they not go there sooner? Why are they not fighting Myanmar or China? To depose a dictator? the same question stands. Say it like it is, Saddam was a liability and a class-one asshole.

Take flak for your real decisions, don't lie about it like we're all too stupid to figure it out.

As for Afghanistan, I used to have strong misgivings about it. I thought it was an American war, and it was provoked by their reckless foreign policy (mind you, I still hold the latter position that America's policy had a huge role to play in 9/11). I strongly believed it would fail. Make no mistake, if it keeps on like this, there is no question it will.

If you fight a conflict like Norway, you're going to get a Norway, with similar successes.

As it stands, Afghanistan needs three major things: Proper government support, Commitment of troops sufficient to hold the country and keep it secure, not this half-assed measure they've introduced, and finally, total suspension of the laws of war.

We give them mercy when we can expect none. These laws are not only disregarded by our foe, but work to his benefit. They are ruthless fundamentalists with no inclination than to die for Islam, and will not be won over by any kindness we display. As guerillas, they can take advantage of our dislike of harming them in "unethical" ways.

Afghanistan is a necessary war. Not because the US was attacked. Not because terrorism is dangerous, but simply because of the inordinate evil religious government presents. Nothing on this Earth is more dangerous than theocracy, the medieval fusion of religious fascism and dictatorship. It liberates humans from any compassion for their fellow man, as those in power are solely accountable to a higher power, most of which are indifferent to our suffering, so long as their will is done.

Given my own position on faith, I say that to quash humanity for a life that never comes is the height of folly and utterly criminal.

It is not some crusade. Afghanistan is as necessary as the destruction of Nazism was.

These people must be liberated from the evils they have been subjected under.

I only hope the nations of the world follow suit with Iran and all other religious states.

Edited July 3, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[bush_cheney2004]

....Now, as for Iraq and Afghanistan, I take issue with Iraq on the point that the US couldn't go about it like a man and say what they were really in there for. To spread democracy is bullshit. If that was their motive, why the hell did they not go there sooner?

They did...the UK/USA kept the screws to Saddam for twelve years after the Gulf War, with many military attacks, no-fly zones, sanctions, and funding for Kurdish rebellion.

...Afghanistan is a necessary war. Not because the US was attacked. Not because terrorism is dangerous, but simply because of the inordinate evil religious government presents.

Then why didn't Canada do it sooner (from logic above)?

[bloodyminded]

Ok, on the original topic: I wear a maple leaf pin, not so much out of any attempt to distinguish myself, but as a simple gesture of my pride in my country. I wear it at home as well, not just abroad.

I've often heard this, and while I think it's largely just propaganda that Americans wear them.

It smells like myth to me, too.