Demos Against the Shrub?

[stickdoctor]

Right. Hitler was big on training locals to take over and he really pushed for free elections in conquered countries......

Did the Poles or Czechs have rape rooms that Hitler closed?

Canada, France and Germany (great company we keep.... ) should do more in the middle east, but don't. That may be pathetic, but it doesn't mean that America's wrong for shouldering the bulk of the burden...

Thank God for our neighbour and friend.....we would be nothing without America.

Let's welcome the free world's leader with thanks!!

Hey, if HappyGuy got banned for posting deliberately inflammatory content, shouldn't we be looking at Mike Hawk for the same?

I mean, there is no way this guy is for real....he's the worst combination of all the stereotypes of the sister-chasin, chaw-chewing, shotgun-toting, UN-world-government-black-helicopter-fearing southern-bred-ultra-nationalist.

 

[BushPilot]

Mike Hawk doesn't need to be banned from PERB. I would suggest that someone who takes every opportunity to denigrate Canada and to go on about how great the USA is, do the logical thing and fuck off to the States. Maybe living in an innercity housing project with stray bullets flying overhead, crack dealers on every corner, pawn shops and liquor stores on every street will make him realize how truly great the USA is and how terrible he really has it up here in Canada. But hey, that's just me talking.

 

[knightrb]

in 1991 iraqi soldiers raped and murdered in kuwait - I used to have business interests there so i have some direct knowledge.

the iraqi people supported this incursion, as they supported a number of other attrocities and wars (not that i am a big fan of Iran).

President Bush has done a great job of keeping the battleground in the middle east instead of here in north america. I expect there would be less complaining if there were acts of terror being perpetrated in north america (yes here in canada to) as there would likely be if not for the extension of force to afganistan and iraq.

I don't think he has been correct in his actions in iraq, being far too soft on the population, until the fallujah action, where they began a house to house mosque to mosque search for weapons - the country was and is an armed camp. totally harmless of course, they were just big into S&M and skeet shooting.

I'm done now - I think the top board on my soap box just broke.

 

[luckydog71]

Mike Hawk doesn't need to be banned from PERB. I would suggest that someone who takes every opportunity to denigrate Canada and to go on about how great the USA is, do the logical thing and fuck off to the States. Maybe living in an innercity housing project with stray bullets flying overhead, crack dealers on every corner, pawn shops and liquor stores on every street will make him realize how truly great the USA is and how terrible he really has it up here in Canada. But hey, that's just me talking.

BP –
I am surprised by your response. Mike Hawk has a critical position on one aspect of Canada’s foreign policy and you think he should pack up a move to the US. How sad.

Thousands of Canadian soldiers gave up their lives so Mike (and yes even you) can have their say and disagree with each other and their government. You would make a great dictator, agree with me or leave.

Fortunately you are in the minority and we can have our differences and still cooperate were we need to.

Bush said it right yesterday with 2 statements played on US news casts

1. Thank you Canada for helping our stranded citizen in our time of need.
2. If he thinks that it removing Sadam is in the best interests of the security of the US he will. (a Bushism for he did)

You are our neighbor and our friend, but we will act in our own best interest and we would expect Canada to do the same. In fact Canada has a history of acting in their own best interests and not falling into lock step with the US. I view that as a good thing

 

[stickdoctor]

BP –
I am surprised by your response. Mike Hawk has a critical position on one aspect of Canada’s foreign policy and you think he should pack up a move to the US. How sad.

heh heh heh heh HA HA HA HOO HA HA HA ha heeee....

oh you were serious?

Get real. Mike Hawk has a critical position on each and every thing canadian as versus american....as do you.

Basically, it appears the two of you would be the first two at the border waving the signs that say "Make us the 51st state. PLEASE" and bending over to expose yourself to enthusiastic cornholing by the first US soldiers to come by.....

 

[luckydog71]

Get real. Mike Hawk has a critical position on each and every thing canadian as versus american....as do you.
.

Not true. There are a lot of things I love about Canada. Actually that might make a great new thread. But for starters:

- The beer , eh?
- Hockey
- The ladies on this board
- The strip clubs with great lap dances
- The friendly people (well most of them anyway)
- The money is colored
- Crown Royal
- The many cultures that are encouraged to thrive and are celebrated
- The RCMP

 

[Osiris]

1)actually, university students were exempt from conscription. See: Clinton, William Jefferson .
What we need today are the massive 1968 student protests like the ones that occurred in:

Paris
Mexico City
New York(Columbia)
California(Berkely, Santa Barbara[1970], East Los Angeles[1970])
Michigan(Ann Arbor)
Ohio(Kent State [1970])

etc

Quote from "The Reader's Companion to American History":

Nixon reduced draft calls while gradually withdrawing U.S. troops, but his dispatch of American units across the border into Cambodia in 1970 led to massive public protests. Only reluctantly did Congress in 1971 extend the draft for two more years. The lawmakers also eliminated student deferments and voted a massive ($2.4 billion) pay increase for the lower ranks in order to achieve an avf by mid-1973. During the 1972 election campaign, Nixon cut draft calls to 50,000 and stopped forcing draftees to go to Vietnam. On January 27, 1973, the day a cease-fire was announced, the administration stopped drafting, six months before induction authority expired on July 1, 1973.

 

[dittman]

all of this is quite amussing, what it really comes down to is that your all pissed off because we wouldnt let you vote in our elections and with the true arrogance of the "progressives" you aactually think you know better, and understand better we is in our national interest. I submit to you ladies and gentleman you would sell out our collective asses in a heartbeat because your hatred and intolerence runs so very deep.

 

[timec]

all of this is quite amussing, what it really comes down to is that your all pissed off because we wouldnt let you vote in our elections and with the true arrogance of the "progressives" you aactually think you know better, and understand better we is in our national interest. I submit to you ladies and gentleman you would sell out our collective asses in a heartbeat because your hatred and intolerence runs so very deep.

Dittman, if it was just your US National interest you were affecting you wouldn’t see the reaction you’re railing against – look outside your closed mindset and realize there are peoples and countries in this world that don’t agree with parts of US Bush administration policy that affects the world… you know, the non-US Domestic policy.

It is unfortunate that you interpret disagreement and associate it with arrogance. As you state, “your national interest”... that comment, your comment, is arrogant in itself. The US Imperial march, in the guise of “Freedom is on the march”, is truly an arrogant position that presumes the US knows what is best for the world… in it’s National interest.

Sell out our collective asses??? How so – care to clarify? You mean we’d line up behind the US, lock step? I think not – I trust we Canadians would show measured caution in going to war, that we would show respect for human rights and other Sovereign nations, that we would respect international law and treaty, that we would engage the rest of the world in a truly multilateral manner, etc. Some of that might line-up with US policy, some might not. I wouldn’t consider where we might have alignment a “sell out of our collective asses”, as you say.

 

[dittman]

national interest in not arrogance its knowing that people like you would sell us americans down the river in a new york minute to the criminals and thugs that are the u.n.

 

[timec]

national interest in not arrogance its knowing that people like you would sell us americans down the river in a new york minute to the criminals and thugs that are the u.n.

Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000

Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat. But the president was being convinced by the neocons that down the road we would regret not taking him out.


Mike Hawk - any other Islamic nations on the target list... which country is on deck and slated for the next US occupation?

Albania,Algeria,Bahrain,Bangladesh,Brunei,Egypt,
Indonesia,Iran,Jordan,Kuwait,Lebanon,Libya,
Malaysia,Morocco,Niger,Nigeria,Oman,Pakistan,
Palestine,Saudi Arabia,Somalia,Sudan,Syria,
Turkey,United Arab Emirates,Yemen?

 

[luckydog71]

Mike Hawk - any other Islamic nations on the target list... which country is on deck and slated for the next US occupation?

Albania,Algeria,Bahrain,Bangladesh,Brunei,Egypt,
Indonesia,Iran,Jordan,Kuwait,Lebanon,Libya,
Malaysia,Morocco,Niger,Nigeria,Oman,Pakistan,
Palestine,Saudi Arabia,Somalia,Sudan,Syria,
Turkey,United Arab Emirates,Yemen?

If a country harbors terrorists it should expect to be on the list.

You are part of the solution or you are part of the problem.

Time to choose.

 

[dittman]

That just shows you that maybe zinney should do what he does best and that is not reading. Bush never ever said Iraq was an imminent threat, what he did say was we must strike before the threat is imminent.

On to his 2nd point about the un again he blows it out his ass because his political views get in the way.. It has been proven that the snctions were no longer working, his goal was to buy off enough of the security council of the unm hiow for a pres. to be elected like bill clinton and the sanctions would no longer be. Then with in a few months he could reconstitue his wmd. then that threat that wasnt so imminent becomes then the world starts whining oh me what are we ever going to do, lets ask the us to take care of our business because they always do.

 

[timec]

If a country harbors terrorists it should expect to be on the list.

You are part of the solution or you are part of the problem.

Time to choose.

luckydog, a part of your problem, I guess

 

[Osiris]

Timec:

Every nation should do all it can to protect it's national interests.

In as much as radical Islam has become the most serious external threat to developed/democratic countries and their citizens and residents (INCLUDING Europe, USA, Canada, Aus and NZ, Japan etc...) the US is taking appropriate measures to defend itself (and Canada, at America's expense).

Just how is the US taking appropriate measures to defend Canada? I don't recall anyone attacking Canada.

In "The Most Embarrassing Canadian" thread Jean Chretien seems to be a prominent name, but one decision of his that just looks smarter and smarter was a refusal to send troops to Iraq.

On the other hand, where the threat was tangible and action was justified, Canada has helped and continues to assist in Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda.

As far as protecting national interests, what would be wrong with cutting off gas, oil, and water to the US until softwood lumber and beef negotiations are settled? The softwood lumber tariffs imposed by the US amount to the same behaviour.

My vote for most embarrassing Canadian goes to Mike Hawk.

I think it was in this thread that somebody said words to the effect that "France, Germany, and Russia only opposed the invasion of Iraq because they were buying Iraq's oil." Wouldn't you oppose invasion on that basis if you were them?

And, any American who thinks Canada is arrogant should check out a mirror. This discussion isn't about whether or not we like Americans, or its military (which has done a pretty fine job in the circumstances thrown at it). This is a discussion about American foreign policy, rather than an attack on America's people.

 

[luckydog71]

luckydog, a part of your problem, I guess

Timec, can you image there are people (terrorists) in this world who hide behind women and children. They use children as shields and then fire at their enemy.

They use churches as a staging point to launch attacks.

They strap explosives to their own children and send them out to blow up themselves and hopeful innocent people.

I wonder how many children were killed on 9/11?
I wonder what it was like to be on the plane taken over by radicals?
War is a horrible cruel event and innocent people are hurt. This has been true through out history.

I find it interesting that as part of your montage you did not post any pictures of the rape rooms or the people who jumped from the WTC as an alternative to being burned to death.

I know you do not believe Iraq supported Al Qaeda, but I do.

You should at least strive to be fair and balanced and show both sides. You could take a lesson from FOX news on how this is done.

 

[BushPilot]

BP –
I am surprised by your response. Mike Hawk has a critical position on one aspect of Canada’s foreign policy and you think he should pack up a move to the US. How sad.
Thousands of Canadian soldiers gave up their lives so Mike (and yes even you) can have their say and disagree with each other and their government. You would make a great dictator, agree with me or leave.
Fortunately you are in the minority and we can have our differences and still cooperate were we need to.
-LuckyDog71

LuckyDog,
As pointed out by another poster, Mike Hawk is critical of all things Canadian. If you read his posts in this thread and just about any other, you can see his pattern of running down this great country at every opportunity. I suggested that if he genuinely held such negative feelings towards this country, he should pack up move to the US, a country that he has nothing but praise. If he did so, I'm sure nobody here would shed a tear. As for the rest of your post, it's complete bullshit. You sure do an admirable job in trying to paint yourself as the one who supports other people's freedoms while accusing your opponents of trying to limit yours. I suspect, from the general position you take on the politics of the day, that you support the USA Patriot Act. That piece is great for protecting civil liberties. If you bothered to read, you'd see that in my post, I affirmed Mike Hawk's right to post his views, while suggesting that he exercise his freedom to move. If that makes me a dictator, I guess it must be so. And for me being in the minority, if you'd read the thread (again, I understand that reading comprehension is a challenge for you), you'll see that there seem to be a fair few more people that would support my politics than yours.

 

[[Server Error]]

If a country harbors terrorists it should expect to be on the list.
You are part of the solution or you are part of the problem.
Time to choose.

Does this mean that the U.S. is free to invade any country, since the definition of terrorist is pretty much what the U.S. administration wants it to be?

As for "either we are part of the solution or part of the problem," it is not universally true, although it may seem true in a very narrow, local sense. Hence, whenever in a dilemma, try not to think in this way.

Timec, can you image there are people (terrorists) in this world who hide behind women and children. They use children as shields and then fire at their enemy.

They use churches as a staging point to launch attacks.

They strap explosives to their own children and send them out to blow up themselves and hopeful innocent people.

I wonder how many children were killed on 9/11?
I wonder what it was like to be on the plane taken over by radicals?
War is a horrible cruel event and innocent people are hurt. This has been true through out history.

It should be noted that who really is behind 9/11. It was staged to create panic, so that the majority of the public is more than willing to give up their rights in exchange for the supposed increased security. And this has succeeded. Expect another major event whenever those in control want to take away more rights from the people. And yes, they will make it look like someone else did it, and they won't give a damn how many will perish as long as the goal is met.

 

[stickdoctor]

You should at least strive to be fair and balanced and show both sides. You could take a lesson from FOX news on how this is done.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HEEE HEEE HEEE HOOO HOOO ha ha ha....

God, I needed that.

WOW! A lot of things have become clear about luckydog now....he's drunk the FOX kool-aid!

Don't worry about it Luckydog....there is plenty of help out there. We can start with a deprogrammer with a background in cults, then we can have a few classes in critical thinking and logic.....

You'll feel much better once you can actually think for yourself.

 

[stickdoctor]

In as much as radical Islam has become the most serious external threat to developed/democratic countries and their citizens and residents...

This is FAR from a generally accepted conclusion. Radical Islam has existed for a VERY long time.

What happened to change things?

Well, a grotesquely incompetent Bush administration ignored warnings from their intelligence community and manipulated information emerging from their intelligence sources to paint the picture they wanted to see.

As a result, Al-Quaeda managed pull off a dramatic terror attack, composed almost entirely of civilians from the nation run by the Bush family's great buddies, the Saudi Arabian royal family.

After running around for a while like a chicken with it's head cut off, the Bush Administration's response was to invade Afghanistan. If it had stopped there, and they had finished the job there, it would probably have been fine, though the Bush Administration has shown an astonishing ability to generate failures.

But no, the necons in control of policy in the Bush Administration took full advantage of the opportunity to realize their fondest foreign policy goals and invaded Iraq on the basis of fabricated and inaccurate intelligence, while they were fully aware that Iraq did not possess any WMD, was not a participant in 9/11 or a supporter of Al-Quaeda.

The Islamic world, of course, saw the weaknesses of the USA case for the invasion emerge almost immediately, and for most of them, the "real" explanation for the invasion was immediately obvious - American Imperial Expansion. Whether this is reality or not is irrelevant...this is the light in which much of the Islamic world sees the actions of the USA.

Of course, this means that radical islam has been greatly strengthened by the gross foreign policy incompetence of the Bush Administration.

But is radical islam the greatest problem facing the western world today?

No.

I would place in far higher importance:

-growing divisions between rich and poor in western society

-the disappearance of the middle classes

-the likely crash of the american economy in the next 3-4 years.

-the lack of priority given to developing alternative energy sources and reducing scarce resource consumption

NONE of these are external threats.

Our greatest enemy is ourselves.