Embarrassed to be a Canadian

[Ronaldo]

It just keeps getting more and more embarrassing to be a Canadian. First our asswipe of a PM who represents ME doesn't support the Americans in Iraq.

Now the Canadian PEOPLE boo the American national anthem? Classy group of people we are. Real classy.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/news/2003/03/20/anthem_booed_ap/

[dyonisus]

Dude, just because Jean Cretien does not represent you, he may represent other people...

I for one am happy he has not taken a more aggressive postion for the coallition of "PEACE".

I respect your support of the US, but I am in no means embarrassed to be one of the countries who agrees diplomacy would have been the better choice! After all more I raqis seem to be surrendering then fighting!!!

Agreed there was no need to boo the US National Anthem, that is just in poor taste. A sporting event is not the place for "bad mannered" protesting!

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by dyonisus
Dude, just because Jean Cretien does not represent you, he may represent other people...

I for one am happy he has not taken a more aggressive postion for the coallition of "PEACE".

I respect your support of the US, but I am in no means embarrassed to be one of the countries who agrees diplomacy would have been the better choice! After all more I raqis seem to be surrendering then fighting!!!

Agreed there was no need to boo the US National Anthem, that is just in poor taste. A sporting event is not the place for "bad mannered" protesting!

Dude, I didn't vote for him but he DOES represent me. That was my point. He represents all of Canada.

I am embarrassed to live in the virtual peace and freedom that the United States Military provides, and then have our PM turn around and NOT support them.

God forbid Iran ever pulls something on Canada. The US might just say, "Go it alone."

Um, actually, I don't think they'd do that. The US would be the first nation to step up and take action. Whether it be in the UN or on the battlefield, the US would back us 100%. No questions asked. (Unless of course WE attacked first. roflmfao)

[twinkley]

So.... the booing was definitely uncalled for I think ....

However...

I APPLAUD your PM for having the BALLZ to stand up to our tyrant.... errr president. Okay, so he didnt make the choice you would have - dyonisus has a point - you are not the only person he represents, and I have to imagine he is going with the majority - unlike OUR president who has completely ignored what the majority of people here want, and has attacked iraq anyways, without the approval of the UN causing untold future problems....

twinkley

[StuartD]

Well said Twinkley :xthumbs:

I personally agree that Saddam must go. I don't personally agree with the war or how it has come about.

And Canada putting it's foot down and "not just doing what the US tells it to do" is a very bold move in my opinion. Shows the world that we're not just "USA Jr" over here.

If the UN says no.... and Canada listens... but the US goes against it and Canada doesn't follow the US.... we're a bad country?

oh well, anyway.. don't wanna go on a political rant here.

All I'm saying is... I personally agree with Canada's stance on this.
I don't agree with booing the national anthem though.

Just be glad they didn't fly the US flag upside down :D

[XXXPhoto]

That's right, remember that a whole 48% of Americans (plus his brother)supported Bush... 21 more months 21 more months 21 more months...

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by StuartD

If the UN says no.... and Canada listens... but the US goes against it and Canada doesn't follow the US.... we're a bad country?


No, we're not a bad country. Bad leader, yes (Not solely based on this stance either).

We're also not self reliant. Canada cannot defend itself.

As I said, if someone attacked Canada, whether the UN said so or not, the US would defend us.

If the UN agreed to take up our cause with force, again, the US would be the biggest military supporter.

Canada needs to look beyond the cowardly pen-pushers of the UN and realize that what's being done, NEEDS to be done, and is being done in the best interest of the world.

No sane person WANTS war. Sometimes it is necessary to preserve freedom. In todays world, sadly, it may be necessary to preserve humanity.

I don't agree with everything my wife does and I KNOW she doesn't agree with everything that I do. However, we always stand beside one another on any decision that we make. We may argue about it privately, but not in public.

Sheerly by geography we are married to the United States, like it or not, and we should support them through thick and thin.

Now, if they go and attack an innocent, defenseless nation, I would have a different opionion. That isn't the case here.

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by XXXPhoto
21 more months 21 more months 21 more months...

Bad math my friend.

21 more months + 21 more months + 21 more months + 6 more months

:D

[XXXPhoto]

Originally posted by Ronaldo
Bad math my friend.

21 more months + 21 more months + 21 more months + 6 more months

:D

Ronaldo...

Oh, sorry for confusion... was referring to wunderkind Bush, not your PM... :blush:

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by XXXPhoto
Ronaldo...

Oh, sorry for confusion... was referring to wunderkind Bush, not your PM... :blush:

Ouch, good one. :p

Thankfully he's gone in about a year.

One more year, one more year, one more year :bonk:

[wsjb78]

Just my 2 cents:

I'm not for war. I don't think the US (Bush) should have started it. There have been better ways...
However, the wheels can't be turned back and the war has started. Now I pray for a quick end of it and that Saddam put off his throne. The worst 2 things that now can happen is:

1.) A long lasting war with many casualties
2.) The US stops the war before Saddam was put off his throne

P.S.: Isn't Canada force as part of the Commonwealth to take part in this war also along with England?

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by wsjb78

The worst 2 things that now can happen is:

1.) A long lasting war with many casualties
2.) The US stops the war before Saddam was put off his throne



Agreed on both points :cool:

[PaulSweet]

Originally posted by wsjb78

P.S.: Isn't Canada force as part of the Commonwealth to take part in this war also along with England?

No we aren't in Iraq - we are still in afghanistan and moving more troops there though to help out.

I personally wouldn't be suprised if our special forces was actually in Iraq right now though - they don't discuss where our special forces are though for security reasons.

Its the same for the USA. Most people don't know that US Navy Seals have been operating in South America for example against the drug cartels for a long time.

[Magnus3x]

It just keeps getting more and more embarrassing to be a Canadian. First our asswipe of a PM who represents ME doesn't support the Americans in Iraq.

You should kill yourself then!;) or MOVE.

As you know (or I hope you know) we are traditionally known as peace keepers, we dont have much to offer a massive invasion like this and judging by what I saw on TV this morning, I think they are doing just fine. Also, our Country was mostly against sending troops as was the vote by parliment.
A crowd at a game should'nt boo anthems, anyones anthems for that matter and 13,000 at a game does'nt represent a whole Country.

[Funbrunette]

I'm just proud to be me! :nuts:

[Panky]

I have no qualms with Canada and the position she chooses to hold.

The booing of our anthem was in poor taste but doesn't represent entire Canada.

This war is bullshit. Saddam is one freakin' person. He needs to die, but we don't need a war to accomplish this. Snipers. They are trained to kill quickly and discreetly. One bullet between the eyes, problem solved. Guaranteed, not as dramatic as Bush would like, but effective.



<img src="http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/r/biggrininvert.gif" width="15" height="15">
Panky

[Vid Vicious]

I agree with my gov't ... First off The canadian economy can do without the cost of war ... second our military is well rained to shine boots .. thrid it's not our war .. come to think about it, it ain't the americans war either, it's the Bush family war. Bush needs to cover his old man's ass in more then one way. First finnish the job second finnish the promises G Bush gave to the Shiats and the Gruds. And Lastly Make Love not War

[Carrie]

You cannot get a sniper to put a bullet between Saddam's eyes. Assassination is against International Law. You can, however, target a *building* that he is believed to be in.

And before anyone mistakenly goes on a rant about how this war is against International Law, no it is not. Nor is it illegal.
The UN gave the US and allies authority to wage war in Iraq to remove illegal weapons and have never revoked that authority.
UN resolution 678.

[wsjb78]

Originally posted by Carrie
And before anyone mistakenly goes on a rant about how this war is against International Law, no it is not. Nor is it illegal.
The UN gave the US and allies authority to wage war in Iraq to remove illegal weapons and have never revoked that authority.
UN resolution 678.

Hmmm, I wonder what weapons Iraq has that the US don't have? Wouldn't that mean the US holds illegal weapons either and then due to equality everyone has the right to bomb the US either because they have illegal weapons?

[Sly]

Originally posted by Panky
This war is bullshit. Saddam is one freakin' person. He needs to die, but we don't need a war to accomplish this. Snipers. They are trained to kill quickly and discreetly. One bullet between the eyes, problem solved. Guaranteed, not as dramatic as Bush would like, but effective.


You want to start a real war? Assassinate a President.

[Sly]

Originally posted by wsjb78
Hmmm, I wonder what weapons Iraq has that the US don't have? Wouldn't that mean the US holds illegal weapons either and then due to equality everyone has the right to bomb the US either because they have illegal weapons?
Oh my...

[StuartD]

I wonder how many nukes the US has in it's possession... much less other weapons of mass destruction.

Who was it that invented the atom bomb again?

Anyway... I find it highly stupid that assassination is against international law but dropping a nuke on another country is fine.

[ric knows nina]

we should have waited
12 more years of diplomacy would solve everything

[twinkley]

Originally posted by StuartD
I wonder how many nukes the US has in it's possession... much less other weapons of mass destruction.

Who was it that invented the atom bomb again?

Anyway... I find it highly stupid that assassination is against international law but dropping a nuke on another country is fine.

Nukes? Over 20,000! More than almost the rest of the world COMBINED. How do you like those numbers??

Thats not really the point though is it ....


Here is my big question.... so far we have already taken over a great deal of the land mass of iraq.... and found NOTHING. No chemical bombs, no biological bombs..... nothing. What happens if we dont?? How horrible is it gonna look after we kill alllll those people and find out they DID disarm - just like we told them to?

twinkley

[LadyMischief]

It's highly unlikely Twinkley. I'm gonna post something I put on another board, and let you make what you will of it. It's long, but I do ask you read it, and learn a little more about the mind of the madman who's supposed to have "disarmed".

Saddam grew up relatively poor in a small village in north-central Iraq. Well-read and tough.


Late 1950's: He joined the Baath Socialist Party, their goal is to rebuild the entire Arab region and improve life for all. Saddam fits in well being well read and open-minded.. he's a born leader.

1968 - Baath Party seizes control of government in Iraq, Saddam becomes the power behind the Revolutionary Command council. Through the 70's he spends his time as the Vice Chairman of the council, orchistrates a nation-wide literacy project, builds schools, roads, public housing, and hospitals.

He gets tired of having to share power with the council, decides to take some steps... culminating on July 22, 1979. He invites council members and party members to a Baghdad conference hall. Wearing his military uniform he comes in claiming there's been a betrayal, a Syrian Plot. Muhyi Abd al-Hussein Mashhadi, council secretary-general shows up and confesses involvement. He'd been tortured and started naming names. 60 "traitors" are detained. 22 of those singled out were executed (their mouths were taped shut so they wouldn't yell in front of the firing squad). Videotapes of the event were circulated and Saddam was leader.

Between 1981-1982 over 3000 Iraqis were executed with little more excuse than Saddam's word.

Another example of Saddam's "personality". Lt.-Gen. Omar al-Hazzaa was overheard speaking badly of Saddam in 1990. Not only was he sentanced to execution, but his tongue was cut out prior to his death. His son was also executed, and Saddam had his home bulldozed, leaving his wife and the rest of his children homeless.

Saddam has made it manditory that every Iraqi official must read a 19-volume official biography of Saddam. He's very vain, petty, but well-read. One of his favorite historical figures is Winston Churchill.

I hear these people talking about how awful this war is.. but think about what kind of man SADDAM is. Not that anyone is surprised. Think about what he did to the Kurds in 1988. He staged a 3-day attack in the town of Halabja. Poison gasses killed as many as 5000 Kurds. Most died where they stood. He used a bunch of chemicals, mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX. Not only did these chemicals kill people, they poluted the environment and caused genetic problems and defects for eveyrone who was involved/lived there afterwards. He took one of most fertile areas of his country and turned it into a wasteland for an insult these people supposedly imposed on him. They backed Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and not him.

I'm not sure if any of you know what these gasses do. I'll give you a bit of an idea of some of the agents Saddam is supposed to have and what EXACTLY they do.

Anthrax: Causes fever, septic shock, difficulty breathing, death in 24-72 hours. He declared 85,000 litres of it.

BOtulinum Toxin (a form of botulism): Causes blurred vision, difficulty swallowing, paralysis, respiratory failure, death in as few as 24 hours. He declared 380,000 litres of it.

Aflatoxin: Causes hemmorrhage, convulsions, coma, liver cancer, death. He declared 2,200 litres of it.

Gas Gangrene: Causes tissue death, shock, kidney failure, coma, often death, is painful. He declared 3,400 litres of it.

VX Nerve gas: Disrupts nervous system, causes convulsions, respiratory paralysis, death. He declared 4 tonnes of it (intelligence suggests he has over 200 tonnes).

Sarin Gas: Attacks nervous system, paralyzes muscles used for breathing, can cause death within minutes. He declared 100-150 tonnes of it (intelligence estimates he has up to 350 tonnes)

Mustard Gas: As a liquid, it causes skin and eye burns and blisters. As an inhalent, it can cause long term respiratory disease and cancer. He claimed 500-600 tonnes of it, intelligence suggests he has upward of 800 tonnes of it.


This is the man that planned during the Gulf war to capture american soldiers, tie them to his tanks and drive right into Saudi Arabia because he was confident the americans wouldn't kill their own. He said it was a sign of weakness. Think about what kind of maniac he is, then read again what those agents do. He's got them folks. No matter whether or not you agree with this war, if Saddam is stopped, the entire world will be done a great service.

[dyonisus]

i dont think there is any arguement, this guy Saddam, sucks as a leader! He is awful and should be ousted, I think the disagreement lies in how people feel he should be handled.

If backed into a corner, does he have the means to use these weapons or have past sanctions left him with only conventtional means to fight.

As for me, I stand behind my original statement, I am proud to be a CDN and proud my government will not be apart fo the destruction of Iraq but rather the rebuilding of ... My governemnt believes in the democratic vote and our rights to be heard!! Whether you like Cretien or not, whether the states would fight for us or not... the fact is, we are NOT involved and for that I am proud!

We may not be all powerful, but we are not cowards nor are we war hungry leaders either!!

[Becky]

Wow!! There is soo many mixed opinions on this war!
It seems like everywhere I go, and everyone I talk to has something different to say.

In my opinion I think that most of the people on this planet like to avoid confrontation to some extent, and I think that by Jean Cretien not involving Canada in this war....has acted on natural instincts of peace.
I dont find anything wrong with that.......
However, there has been much speculation as to what will happen to the relationship between the U.S and Canada after this war ends, to that I say that only time will tell.

It is easy to point fingers at people right now...and I think it is also societys way of dealing with something that they themselves cannot prevent.

I think the point here is that anyone who is not involved directly with the Government will ever really know the truth, and for the time being we can either point the finger at Bush or at Cretien.....but WHY Cretien?? I think he acted on what the Majority of Canada wanted...and that to me makes me proud to be a Canadian!!!

Also, regarding the booing.....I believe that was done as a result of previous booing made to the Candadians by the NY Islanders.....I am not saying that doing it back helped anything....but it also was not just unprevoked.

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by Becky
Also, regarding the booing.....I believe that was done as a result of previous booing made to the Candadians by the NY Islanders.....I am not saying that doing it back helped anything....but it also was not just unprevoked.

If I'm not mistaken, the Islanders fans were the ones booing in retaliation.

[McAttack]

Well, I am sorry that my home town booed the national anthem. I think it's despicable, it's in bad taste and not representative of what we think.

Secondly. I'll try to keep it short cause I am very opinionated about this war, it's reasons and why it should never have happened.

Ronaldo, You said "As I said, if someone attacked Canada, whether the UN said so or not, the US would defend us."
The US was not attacked by Iraq. It was attacked by Al-Quada, and it's been proven by the CIA itself that Bin ladden did not run to Iraq as previously stated (which was Bush's original reason to wage war on Iraq).

Some very simple facts. The first week of Bush's administration, what happened? CNN reported that US planes bombed Iraq. Nice way to start. Then 9/11. A truely sad day. At first, it was "Let's find who did this." when it was obvious that Al-Quada was responsible, they went after them in Afghanistan. Turned the regime over from the Taliban to a new diplomatic regime. Fine. This was necessary and I feel the Afghans still need help. let's not forget that the CIA is who Trained the soldiers during the cold war to fight the russians and they in turn became founding members of Al-Quada and the Taliban itself. So this was a bit of a "Let's fix our mistake" mission.

Then the CIA reported that they thought Ossama fled to Iraq. So the word became that they won't just fight the terrorists, but they'll fight the countries harboring terrorists. At this point, CNN was pointing a finger at pretty much every other country, especially Canada. Now history is showing that this was a way of opening the doors to be able to invade Iraq.

Think of one thing. How did the US government know that all the weapons in the disarmament document from Iraq were not listed correctly? meaning they knew there were more (which still hasn't been proven). Well apparently there are a lot of "Made in the USA" parts in those weapons, which makes it a bit easy to count the possible number of weapons in existance. Doesn't mean they were built.

Saddam should be ousted, he should not be there, but I don't believe it should be by such a direct force. There's a much more important threat right now in North Korea, but then again, Korea doesn't have all that Oil does it?

I'm sorry, I wanted to keep it short. It's my one and only rant on this situation. I agree that sometimes, war is unfortunately a necessary solution, but I don't believe that this is one of them.

I am proud of Jean Chretien for his stance, he surprised me. I also think of this. When he leaves office, this will hopefully be what he'll be remembered for. History books won't talk about the gun registry program which is a huge problem. They wont' talk about his other issues, they'll talk about how our Prime Minister made a bold statement that followed what the majority of his people wanted. And polls still show a large amount of canadians support Mr. Chretien for this.

[Crak_JMan]

War's not Good

Saddam is BAD

I am proud to be Canadian

But I do give a damn.


Peace Out everyone

[Kath]

I don't think you should EVER be embarrassed to be from your own country. You can be embarrassed by what some of your countrymen do - appauled by what some of your leaders and officials do when the "represent" you to the world - but don't ever be embarrassed about where you come from.

You don't think Americans are ever embarrassed by what OUR countrymen do when the cameras are on them? Maybe you haven't watched the weather channel during tornado season - or haven't caught a monster truck rally on the Speed Channel - but we DO have our moments too.

Tell you what...just watch CNN this week - no matter how you feel about the war on Iraq, our dirty laundry is there for all to see...

:bonk: :bonk: :bonk:

[Pidgin]

Originally posted by Ronaldo
Ouch, good one. :p
Thankfully he's gone in about a year.
One more year, one more year, one more year :bonk:
I am not an american so I have no saying there, but I think you are delusional if you think Bush will not be reelected. As dumb as some of you think he is, he will be damn popular after the war with Iraq since you Americans like victories ;)
Also - you like capitalism - and he brings exactly that.
Some of you appriciate a man with balls - and sure he got those :rolleyes:
He may be dumb - but that appeal to the common man :cool:
His opponent is a jerk (imho). This Tom Daschle is a spineless jerk. I am not talking about his views - just the man itself :p
Unless Democrats come with a Clinton clone they stand no chance at all.

As for other countries' leaders having "balls" for opposing the war. That is one option. The other is - they are chicken-shit. Its not like they are great diplomats and had helped in promoting the diplomatic process of disarming Iraq. They sat on their fat asses all this while and all they can do is shout booo at someone else saying he didn't do enouhg - as if its HIS war and not their's.
Actually - being chickenshits like they are it is indeed not their war since they know the US will protect them if they are attacked or thretned.
I call it as I see it. Any leader opposing the war because of "UN/world support" or "popularity" (as if the right thing is always popular) is a spineless nobody.

I have more respect for naive dreamers who object the war because they are blind and pacifist.

[Ronaldo]

XXXManager,

By quoting me I'm assuming you think that I was referring to Bush not getting re-elected. I re-read this thread and while it IS confusing, I was referring to our Prime Minister stepping down in a year.

I DO believe that GWB will get re-elected.

However, Bush Sr. was also very popular during and after the Gulf war. That didn't get him re-elected. I hope that's not the case for Bush Jr.

Aside from having to point out those two things, I agree with everthing else you said. Except the last line. :cool:

[Pidgin]

Originally posted by Ronaldo
By quoting me I'm assuming you think that I was referring to Bush not getting re-elected. I re-read this thread and while it IS confusing, I was referring to our Prime Minister stepping down in a year.
...However, Bush Sr. was also very popular during and after the Gulf war. That didn't get him re-elected. I hope that's not the case for Bush Jr.
Hi ronaldo
i wasn't critisizing you in any way at all. I actually agree with most of what I read in your posts here so far.
Although your PM is not mine - I am asshamed of him, regardless of his political views which I have no knowledge of. I will shy away from that atm.
As to bush reelection and his father issue - I didn't say the war was the only reason he will be reelected. its the collection of the multiple issues I was covering. And unlike the previous gulf war - this one comes as part of a longer campaign and will not be forgotten as fast as the previous.

[Dean]

The beauty of Canada, like the U. S., is that one can voice their opinions without consequence. This is the essence of which our brothers and sisters are risking the ultimate sacrafice ~ their lives, as they fight to protect our way of life.

I have nothing, but respect and admiration for Canadians ~ and you too for that matter.

... your heart's in the right place, my friend! :)

[twinkley]

XXXmanager...

I dont think you are correct. I dont think bush is going to be elected, and here is why.

People care about what directly affects their lives. Unemployment is at an all time high right now. A lot of people have loved ones over in Iraq and surrounding countries fighting a war they dont believe in. The stock market has been steadily falling since bush took office ....

The fact is, this war is supposed to take the view away from those things.... I just dont think it will be enough.

twinkley

[Becky]

Originally posted by JMan
War's not Good

Saddam is BAD

I am proud to be Canadian

But I do give a damn.


Peace Out everyone


I like your response the best!:D

[sherie]

I am not embarrassed to be Canadian, although I am embarrassed of my government.

I am embarrassed because we have a PM that is a weak coward!

He has not stood up for our Country, nor has he said things that he should have said such as A) We do have troops over there, they are peacekeepers. B) We have taken so much money away from our Military that it is pointless to send more people over there, as they do not have the resources. C) That he will repremand those in the cabnet that make comments like moron and bastard. D) That he only has what 7 months left and doesn't give a shit. Well ok so he is not going to publically state some of that. But he should be defending us and the stance instead of hiding behind the UN and it's decision.

He should have stood up and explained to the world what Canada does and has done. Not just sit back like a toad and say nothing. He has not represented us well at all. This statement is not about whether or not I am pro or anti war at all, I am just stating that I am not embarrassed of my Country I am embarrassed of the MORON BASTARDS that we have running it!

That is my 2cents!

[Pidgin]

Originally posted by twinkley
XXXmanager...
I dont think you are correct. I dont think bush is going to be elected, and here is why.
1. People care about what directly affects their lives.
2. Unemployment is at an all time high right now.
3. A lot of people have loved ones over in Iraq and surrounding countries fighting a war they dont believe in.
4. The stock market has been steadily falling since bush took office ....
5. The fact is, this war is supposed to take the view away from those things....
I just dont think it will be enough.
twinkley
1. That is too general statement. It is true but not pointing a direction. I remember alot of you speaking on TV after the 9/11 about how you are all changed and realize some people/countries hate you even if you are far away from them.
2. Unemployement in US is higer than 2 years ago as in every country on earth. There is a world recession. The economical nature of a resession is complex and I can assure you it has hardly anything to do with your presidnt. Im not saying he is the best president econimically speaking - but stating unemployement has risen since he was elected is not looking at the right reasons
3. So what? Still 72% of you support the operation in the gulf. as a matter of fact 50% on democrats support Bush position on Iraq. Not only that but caring about the people there is - as point #1 - not too directional. Iraq and the war in general is not an issue due to the fact that even a democratic government will imho be going to war today. if not today than in 2 years when 30K americans die in some bigger catasrophe.
4. Same as #2 and in many ways a preceeding indicator of it. The stock market has zero relation to Bush and its policy. None at all. The stock market collapse is a result of the bubble effect, the global recession and 9/11 and terror in general.
5. I personally - and as someone living in this area - see things very differently. If you think your society and economy can survive economically (and otherwise) terror attacks like 9/11 and instabilities resulting from terror and world insecurity and instability in long terms, I think you are dead wrong.

But you are missing the main point imho..
A. The end of the war will bring very positive economical changes to the US as well as many other countries around the world.
B. You WILL win the war. You WILL (i believe) find WMD. You WILL rub it in to the french and others. You WILL like that - BIG time. You WILL like GWB for it. You are Americans in general
C. You have no alternative today for Bush. Who? Tom Daschle? That twat? Any person who states on TV that he moved from supporting US actions to opposing it, only because he saw so many other countries not supporting this policy is a dangerous snake that should be taken as far as possible from any position that can influence the world in any way.

Don't get me wrong. If -I was an American I would be a Democrat in many ways (have no Idea who I would vote to though).
I have many social views that are democratic. I liked Clinton big time and love his wife. I would have voted for them if I were you. BUT they are not there to be voted.
As I said - Unless they come up with a Clinton clone - the Democrats will loose imo. Just my view and guess - but I see no flaws in it so far. I am sure its inaccurate in many points - but I don't see anything that will overall tip it over.
Im not saying its good or bad - or if I like it or not. I just don't see an probable altenative.

[Darin]

Originally posted by twinkley
XXXmanager...

I dont think you are correct. I dont think bush is going to be elected, and here is why.

People care about what directly affects their lives. Unemployment is at an all time high right now. A lot of people have loved ones over in Iraq and surrounding countries fighting a war they dont believe in. The stock market has been steadily falling since bush took office ....

The fact is, this war is supposed to take the view away from those things.... I just dont think it will be enough.

twinkley

Twinkley, stick to porn sites.

[twinkley]

**twinkley smacks darin upside the head**

nobody was talkin to you fool!


XXXManaager,

What you say is true, however, that doesnt really change the way people think. It is a known fact by economists and politicians alike (at least here) that the state of the economy directly impacts how the people think of the president. The fact that people are scrambling for money is going to a make a huge difference in the next election. The fact that people are out of work (this is actually the highest unemployment has been here in almost a decade) is going to affect the election. Not because the president REALLY has anything to do with those things, but because people relate the economy to how good a president is.

Perfect Example: Clinton. Through ALL the scandals his FIRST term, the man still managed to get re-elected ..... why? Because the nation was floushing! People were fat and happy and money was flowing like water. Unemployment was low, jobs were pleniful, the stock market hit SEVERAL all time highs.....

But, in the immortatl words of Dennis Miller

"This is just my opinion, I could be wrong"

twinkley

[Darin]

Originally posted by twinkley
**twinkley smacks darin upside the head**

nobody was talkin to you fool!


XXXManaager,

What you say is true, however, that doesnt really change the way people think. It is a known fact by economists and politicians alike (at least here) that the state of the economy directly impacts how the people think of the president. The fact that people are scrambling for money is going to a make a huge difference in the next election. The fact that people are out of work (this is actually the highest unemployment has been here in almost a decade) is going to affect the election. Not because the president REALLY has anything to do with those things, but because people relate the economy to how good a president is.

Perfect Example: Clinton. Through ALL the scandals his FIRST term, the man still managed to get re-elected ..... why? Because the nation was floushing! People were fat and happy and money was flowing like water. Unemployment was low, jobs were pleniful, the stock market hit SEVERAL all time highs.....

But, in the immortatl words of Dennis Miller

"This is just my opinion, I could be wrong"

twinkley

Dennis Miller is right, you're wrong.

[StuartD]

Originally posted by Darin
Dennis Miller is right, you're wrong.

Hmm.. you make a good arguement... strong and solid points and undeniable facts... you definitely put a lot of research into this response :p

[sherie]

Originally posted by StuartD
Hmm.. you make a good arguement... strong and solid points and undeniable facts... you definitely put a lot of research into this response :p You could have said, 'Well Rick Mercer was right too' LOL

[Darin]

Originally posted by StuartD
Hmm.. you make a good arguement... strong and solid points and undeniable facts... you definitely put a lot of research into this response :p

Thank You.

[twinkley]

Darin,

Dont make me twist that gerbils head off....

It WONT be pretty hahahahahaha

twinkley

[sherie]

Originally posted by twinkley
Darin,

Dont make me twist that gerbils head off....

It WONT be pretty hahahahahaha

twinkley Pull an Ozzy and bite it's head off!! Now *that* won't be pretty!! LOL

[Darin]

Originally posted by twinkley
Darin,

Dont make me twist that gerbils head off....

It WONT be pretty hahahahahaha

twinkley

I might like that.

[Darin]

Originally posted by sherie
Pull an Ozzy and bite it's head off!! Now *that* won't be pretty!! LOL

.. and THAT really turns me on.

[sherie]

Originally posted by Darin
.. and THAT really turns me on. I'm here to do what I can, what ever the cause! ;)

[Pidgin]

Originally posted by sherie
I'm here to do what I can, what ever the cause! ;)
Why don't I get sexually offensive offers :confused:

Anyway - as I said Twinkley..
Your economy is in a recession. Recessions are temporal. Wars help get out of recessions. I do agree that this is the only threat to Bush next term BUT I don't think it will be an issue on what? 2-3 years?
Time will tell.

The fact that this is the only reason Bush is in threat - and NOT the fact that the democrats have an appealing and wise man as an opposition should worry you more than the immediate temporary economic situation. Politics off - this Daschle seems to me like a dickhead. Person-wise not politically/patriotically(US) :p

[cdsmith]

There are protestors wandering in groups through my city, mindlessy parroting "no war (drool) no war"

Sometimes these things are best addressed by others.....

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

-- John Stuart Mill




I truly believe this will be a better world once we are minus one tyrant.


I've recently heard from relatives that have been travelling in the US that have been refused service in some restaraunts and stores for "being Canadian". Ignorant, yes, but just as I assign the blame for this war on Hussein, I also assign the blame for this descrimination squarely where it belongs..... on the shoulders of one Jean Chretien. I hope that Americans will come to realize that a large percentage of Canadians openly support the coalition's effort to defeat Saddam, if not forgive our nation for turning it's back on it's friend.

[twinkley]

XXXManager....

You are correct - the democrats DONT have an impressive candidate to take over for bush.

That means the field is FINALLY clear for an independant or libertarian to run. Hopefully. We have seen in the last ohhhh 3-4 elections the steady increse (although still minor) in support for people who are not with either of the major parties.

Personally, I think that would be the absolute best thing to happen in the election.

Oh, and I guess im gonna have to ramp up the dirty talk on ICQ huh?? :D

twinkley

[ric knows nina]

great posts XXXManager and cdsmith. I'm with you.

hey Twinkley! I don't know how the former left-wing-turned-rationalist Dennis Miller would feel about you appropriating his material ;-)

[StuartD]

ok... look... any way you want to slice the cake here.... Bush went and did his own thing. Without approval... he decided to do his own thing.... plain and simple.

People... you judge him whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

I say a democracy is a good thing... people vote on a situation and a solution... the majority wins the vote as it is probably the best for all concerned.

One person decided to go against the vote.... then there's no real point in a democracy is there?

Bush will get re-elected.... providing he gets Saddam and can make the media show this big eutopia that comes over Iraq once he's gone.

If Bush fails at getting Saddam like he does in everything else he's tried to do... then who knows. He might just persuade people to vote him in so he can "finish the job".

Economy, crime rate, homeless... none of it will matter. Because no one can talk about anything other than the war, because that's the only thing that television stations will let you know about.

When it comes down to an election, it'll be.... a vote based on 2 options.
Check here if you think he's an idiot
Check here if you think he's a hero

It won't matter who's else on the ballot either. That's all it will boil down to.

[Pidgin]

Originally posted by StuartD
ok... look... any way you want to slice the cake here.... Bush went and did his own thing. Without approval... he decided to do his own thing.... plain and simple.
People... you judge him whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
I say a democracy is a good thing... people vote on a situation and a solution... the majority wins the vote as it is probably the best for all concerned.
... Democracy? His-own-thing? Without approval?

Let me get this right..
* Bush is the president of the US of A?
* He got elected democratically? (not to talk about the bipartisan support he has for his actions with the people of the USA)
* Under this democracy - his obligation is to serve HIS country? (last I checked the russians, french, germans and syrians - and canadians for that matter - did not vote for the presidency of the united states)
* Under that US political system - he approved his actions and budget?
He got it approved with the army, secretery of defense, CIA/FBI/NSA/CNN/KFC/me?
* He is now with many other (more than 40) countries taking an act that little oppose to due to reasons that has to do with non-personal-gain reasons?
* He is acting to execute the 1441 UN resolution which was approved by 100% of the UN security council? ;)

I think you take European media too much for granted.

But let me understand it ever better. IF the UN had voted to go to war - then the war would have been right and just? That means morally right is what the UN votes on?

When (god forbid) someone tries to rape your daughter (you don't have one so its clearly hypotetical) don't wait for a popular vote before blowing his head. The right thing to do is the right thing to do even if not popular or voted upon.

in 1981 Israel bombarded the Iraqi nuclear reactor. It was very unpopular, was not approved by the holy UN and was condemmed by the entire world.
I am not sure I asked - but did you say thank-you Israel already? (cause most of the world aready did ny now) If not - its about time you realize you better be unpopular and alive than prude, popular and dead.

So - are saying that taking down a tyrant and brutal dictator who tried to assasinate a president of the US and continuously tries to develop WMD and has used it in the past and which supports terrorism in more than the financial way and which executes his opponents - this is the WRONG thing to do? Just because some countries are affraid to take an active role in that? :confused: (and don't kid yourself into believing that anyone really believes that Inspections or diplomacy really works with Saddam. You are WAY smarter than that - that I know for a fact)

[Pidgin]

P.S.
Originally posted by StuartD
I say a democracy is a good thing... people vote on a situation and a solution... the majority wins the vote as it is probably the best for all concerned.
You refer to a vote in the UN?
When a country like Syria is in the security council??? A country which has NOTHING to do with democracy and 100% to do with Terror?
I see.. Democracy at its best bro :bonk:

[StuartD]

So then what you're saying is that you don't believe in democracy? You don't believe that all parties involved should get a fair and equal vote in all matters pertaining to them?

That when everyone gets an equal vote, and a concensus is reached.... that's it's invariably wrong?

[ric knows nina]

what's the use in having a sovereign nation if you must submit to the general will of the UN? I didn't vote any UN officials into office. Nations would no longer be independent, and that is dangerous. If the UN doesn't like what we're doing, take a vote and condemn us. It wouldn't change a thing really. We'll do what we think is in our best interest. We don't have to agree with consensus among other nations.

People always assumed that the UN was really a function of the US govt. Now we see that it's a waffle house, waffling over important world issues. I think the world is shocked to see a US president take a stand after 8 years of vague waffling by Clinton.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by twinkley
So.... the booing was definitely uncalled for I think ....

However...

I APPLAUD your PM for having the BALLZ to stand up to our tyrant.... errr president. Okay, so he didnt make the choice you would have - dyonisus has a point - you are not the only person he represents, and I have to imagine he is going with the majority - unlike OUR president who has completely ignored what the majority of people here want, and has attacked iraq anyways, without the approval of the UN causing untold future problems....

twinkley

I know I'm a bit late to this thread but I notice that the above clap trap was let go and as a thinking American, I feel the need to respond.

Anyone who would refer to our president as a tyrant, should learn to quiet down until she's finished with the 6th grade and has a better understanding of politics and the world around her.
And as for your dopey comment that our president has ignored the majority goes, please, stop embarrassing yourself. the last poll I saw had an 80% approval rating for the war.
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
We just happen to be better informed.
Americans also will not be bound to the UN. We don't have to abide by the rules of a body of idiots and sadly, that's what most of the world is made up of.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by StuartD
ok... look... any way you want to slice the cake here.... Bush went and did his own thing. Without approval... he decided to do his own thing.... plain and simple.



You're sadly mistaken. He has the approval of the people of the US.
The people of the US know that only a fool would follow the UN.
What you now see from the French, Canadians, russians, and germans is childish foot stomping over wishing they were something better than they are.
When you see someone else do what they think needs to be done regardless of the nonsensical rantings of those around them, you become jealous in your impotence. :D

[StuartD]

Originally posted by 12clicks
You're sadly mistaken. He has the approval of the people of the US.
The people of the US know that only a fool would follow the UN.
What you now see from the French, Canadians, russians, and germans is childish foot stomping over wishing they were something better than they are.
When you see someone else do what they think needs to be done regardless of the nonsensical rantings of those around them, you become jealous in your impotence. :D

yes well, this is just another case of "Americans are the only ones that matter" talk... what about the rest of the world? I'm talk about a vote of all countries involved in the UN... and then some that aren't even....
If the majority of countries think that the US shouldn't do it... the US should just look to itself to say "well, Americans think we should, that's good enough for me... let's go!" ??

[twinkley]

Stuart,

I think a lot of that attitude comes from the fact that we are world police. And while no one likes the police to hassle THEM, everyone wants them around when something bad is happening to them....

Yes, its true - we are giving the appearance that we dont care what the rest of the world thinks... and to a point it really is true. When you have saved most of the people who are now bickering with you at one time or another -- it HAS to be frusterating to sit back and let them slam on your tactics. We have done more for the world financially, militarily, and politically than pretty much anyone else out there. We are the first ones to step up to the plate to help when asked, and were slapped in the face when we asked for a little support.

So yeah, i can kinda see where the forget it, we are just gonna do it anyways attitude comes from.

twinkley (playing devils advocate)

[12clicks]

Originally posted by StuartD
yes well, this is just another case of "Americans are the only ones that matter" talk... what about the rest of the world? I'm talk about a vote of all countries involved in the UN... and then some that aren't even....
If the majority of countries think that the US shouldn't do it... the US should just look to itself to say "well, Americans think we should, that's good enough for me... let's go!" ??

That's such a sweet sentiment but in the real world, it doesn't wash.
A good part of the world isn't bright enough to trust with a meaningfull vote. (imagine giving a 6yr old the right to vote for president and you get the pricture)
Then you have the countries who side against the US because of sour grapes. (think france)
Then you have the countries currently profitting from the status quo (think france germany and russia)

Only a fool would decide to trust an electorate like this. Thankfully, I'm not a fool and niether is my president.

[Ronaldo]

Interesting signature 12clicks :cool:

[StuartD]

Originally posted by 12clicks
That's such a sweet sentiment but in the real world, it doesn't wash.
A good part of the world isn't bright enough to trust with a meaningfull vote. (imagine giving a 6yr old the right to vote for president and you get the pricture)
Then you have the countries who side against the US because of sour grapes. (think france)
Then you have the countries currently profitting from the status quo (think france germany and russia)

Only a fool would decide to trust an electorate like this. Thankfully, I'm not a fool and niether is my president.

Those are all very good points, and I do agree... I've always said, I agree with the war, just not how it came about.

The system probably is flawed, in all the ways you said... but it is still the system. And like it or not... there will be a lot of people who aren't happy with the US's decision.

And ultimately, going after one or 2 countries who has terrorist feelings toward the US may just incite those feelings in a lot of other countries by doing what it did. So it may end up causing more of a problem then solving it.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by StuartD
.

The system probably is flawed, in all the ways you said... but it is still the system. And like it or not... there will be a lot of people who aren't happy with the US's decision. We don't need to work with a flawed system.

Originally posted by StuartD
And ultimately, going after one or 2 countries who has terrorist feelings toward the US may just incite those feelings in a lot of other countries by doing what it did. So it may end up causing more of a problem then solving it.
If countries develope feelings of hate towards the US because of our fight with terrorism, then they are terorrist countries anyway and we will deal with them.

Even now, syria is sending the iraqis night vision goggles and other military equipment to support iraq's fight against the US.
You understand that syria has a vote in the UN too, right?

[StuartD]

Originally posted by 12clicks
We don't need to work with a flawed system.

If countries develope feelings of hate towards the US because of our fight with terrorism, then they are terorrist countries anyway and we will deal with them.

Even now, syria is sending the iraqis night vision goggles and other military equipment to support iraq's fight against the US.
You understand that syria has a vote in the UN too, right?

If countries don't agree with the US than they are terrorist countries?? So Canada is a terrorist country now? Just because we aren't helping or might not agree with going against the UN's vote?

What if more than 50% of the world, including some rather developed countries all think that the US is over stating it's boundries? I'm not saying it does... but what happens if it does? It's the US against the world at war then? Because they're all now considered terrorist countries?

[12clicks]

Originally posted by StuartD
If countries don't agree with the US than they are terrorist countries?? So Canada is a terrorist country now? Just because we aren't helping or might not agree with going against the UN's vote? Stuart, I know you're losing this argument but twisting what you and I are saying won't help your case.
you said:

Originally posted by StuartD
And ultimately, going after one or 2 countries who has terrorist feelings toward the US may just incite those feelings in a lot of other countries by doing what it did.
Now, are you saying that by fighting terrorism, we're causing "terrorist feelings" in canada? No? Then lets not twist words, eh?

Originally posted by StuartD
What if more than 50% of the world, including some rather developed countries all think that the US is over stating it's boundries? I'm not saying it does... but what happens if it does?
Stuart, you should never fear being right, no matter how many people who are wrong are arrayed against you.

Originally posted by StuartD
It's the US against the world at war then? Because they're all now considered terrorist countries?
you have this odd fixation with not agreeing with the US equating terrorism. If you could over come that, you could probably see the situation more clearly.

[StuartD]

I'm not twisting anything... this is what you said

If countries develope feelings of hate towards the US because of our fight with terrorism, then they are terorrist countries anyway and we will deal with them.

So... if I hate the fact that the US up and did something against what the world voted against... am I a terrorist or not?

If I hate Bush for doing what he's doing just so that he can play the hero and get re-elected... am I a terrorist?

Do I get to have a scud dropped on me for opposing the US's decision?

And I am losing no argument.. I'm just not winning it. I have no intention of winning... I just like how you keep making the US out to be Godly over the world and making everyone else out to be terrorists who will feel your wrath.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by StuartD
I'm not twisting anything... this is what you said
in response to your dopey question regarding terrorism. hopefully you'll outgrow this inability to follow a train of thought.


Originally posted by StuartD

So... if I hate the fact that the US up and did something against what the world voted against... am I a terrorist or not?

If I hate Bush for doing what he's doing just so that he can play the hero and get re-elected... am I a terrorist?
If you just think it, we'll let you live. if you act upon it by trying to kill Americans, we'll very happily kill you.

Originally posted by StuartD
Do I get to have a scud dropped on me for opposing the US's decision?
We would never use something so primative.

Originally posted by StuartD
And I am losing no argument.. I'm just not winning it. I have no intention of winning... I just like how you keep making the US out to be Godly over the world and making everyone else out to be terrorists who will feel your wrath.
If that's all you're getting out of this, you should pay closer attention in reading comprehension class.