Blasting U.S.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
And Bush's Secretary of Education called teacher's unions a terrorist organisation. Tom Delay, and many other Republicans, have repeatedly called democrats nazis, or compared them to nazis.

Why are you not equally outraged about that? Because you're completely biased and blind to the ills of those who hold your beliefs.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those analogies are inappropriate and I disagree with them but Durbin's is particularly heinous because it comforts and encourages America's enemies and puts its troops in danger. A lot of Americans are very upset with his remarks and so they should be.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Those analogies are inappropriate and I disagree with them but Durbin's is particularly heinous because it comforts and encourages America's enemies and puts its troops in danger. A lot of Americans are very upset with his remarks and so they should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a load of crap Kirk. You're putting troops in danger if you speak out against the administration line is getting old, and completely against what this country stands for.


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

Qikdraw

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Those analogies are inappropriate and I disagree with them but Durbin's is particularly heinous because it comforts and encourages America's enemies and puts its troops in danger. A lot of Americans are very upset with his remarks and so they should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
===============================================
BULL! The only one who put the troops in danger is the Commander In Chief that sent them into Iraq for dubious reasons.

[KirkOntario]

It's pretty clear that if you falsely make America look like it abuses the Koran and Gitmo detainees it leads to riots and attacks on Us troops. Those riots took place all over the muslim world. They took place as a direct result of the Newsweek story. 1000's of Americans live and work in the these countries and US troops are endangered as they are obvious targets. Hard to deny the connection isn't it but if you wish to ..... As for Durbins comments they were eagerly picked up and repeated by the Arab press. Feeding the anti-American hate machine in those countries is irresponsible and dangerous and no US senator should do it.

[hm0504]

Yes, Americans and American troops were loved and revered all all over the Muslim world and no Americans had ever been killed by Muslims or were in any danger from Muslims until Newsweek printed those five words.

I think the reality is that no matter how hard the American military to act with ethically and with sensitivity, a certain amount of bad stuff is going to happen. That's the way it would be for any civilized military. The ultimate issue is America's strategy in the war on terror. Unfortunately, far worse than the mis-representation of WMD intelligence, is the profound delusion the Whitehouse had about what a post-Saddam Iraq would be like -- eg. Iraq would almost immediately revert to peaceful country with a strong economy; that America could immediately pull out the bulk of its soldiers and spend no more that $2 Billion rebuilding the county (instead of the 100s of Billions now spent).

Had America spent those 100s of Billions (or even a fraction of that) working with American-friendly Muslim moderates, I think the West would be a lot further ahead in the War on Terror.

[hm0504]

At the risk of being callous, my view is that the problem lies not with Newsweek or the American military being too insensitive, but with, umm, shall I say out-of-whack sensitivities by many Muslims.

Though I obviously have severe disagreements with the White House's policies, I cannot help but note that I'm not quite in synch with the perspectives of Muslim fundamentalists either.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Though I obviously have severe disagreements with the White House's policies, I cannot help but note that I'm not quite in synch with the perspectives of Muslim fundamentalists either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that fundamentalists of any sort, the majority of people agree with.

I don't agree with radical muslims, and I don't agree with radical christians. I've never seen a radical buddist though... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Qikdraw

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've never seen a radical buddist though... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check out
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Aum_Shinrikyo

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've never seen a radical buddist though... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check out
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Aum_Shinrikyo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know I remember that, but I didn't know they were buddists.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
At the risk of being callous, my view is that the problem lies not with Newsweek or the American military being too insensitive, but with, umm, shall I say out-of-whack sensitivities by many Muslims.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An American senator should know better than to stoke the anger of relgious fanatics. But then there was another American Senator in another war who compared American troops to "Ghengis Khan" and so many of his allegations turned out to be false too. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[hm0504]

If problems are not discussed openly and freely, they will grow and fester until full-scale disaster. That is the point of democracy.

By openly discussing, and addressing, the problems, the American media, the American politicians, and the American military show that they are both resolute in the War on Terror and sensitive to the culture of Muslims. That is America at its finest, and though that kind of America is hated by Islamists and is sometimes used to their advantage, it is also the kind of America that inspires the democratically-minded Muslims to change their countries for the better. And ultimately, that is how the War on Terror will be won.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I agree. Annexing Canada would make a lot more sense.

Besides if you believe the live footage from the anti-Syrian protests in Beirut (estimated crowds 1/4 of total population of Lebanon), democracy is their cup of tea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CNN: "Syria's staunchest allies Hezbollah and Amal headed for a clean sweep in south Lebanon's polls on Sunday in the first general election since Syrian troops quit their smaller neighbor...", more at
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/05/lebanon.election.reut/index.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And now that the WHOLE of Lebanon has voted: the opposition wins,

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4710438

[hm0504]

Unfortunately, anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians seems to have a very high mortality rate:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/21/lebanon.bomb.ap/index.html

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Unfortunately, anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians seems to have a very high mortality rate:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/21/lebanon.bomb.ap/index.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this Arab spring all started with a Syrian assassination, the anti-syrians know what they are up against....and guess what? it's worth it.

[SonTestedShelter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Now here's a 'blast' for the US from a 'loyal' democrat. One of your US senators compared America to Hitler's Germany, Stalin gulags and Pol Pot for fiddling with the airconditioning at Gitmo'. Here's the face of the left these days: anti-America, they compare it to an evil regime, anti-war, and no matter who the enemy is or how humane Americans are they the US is like an evil regime. What conclusions can you draw from Senator's Durbin statements? That the US should be defeated? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Bush's Secretary of Education called teacher's unions a terrorist organisation. Tom Delay, and many other Republicans, have repeatedly called democrats nazis, or compared them to nazis.

Why are you not equally outraged about that? Because you're completely biased and blind to the ills of those who hold your beliefs.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Durbins comments ticked me off so much. He should be kicked out of office. I don't get "outraged" hardly ever at political things, but when I read what he said I fumed. And show where a republican said what your alleging. I'm not going to try to defend them, I just want to know if they did indeed say democrats were nazis. That would equally tick me off.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SonTestedShelter:
[

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE> And show where a republican said what your alleging. I'm not going to try to defend them, I just want to know if they did indeed say democrats were nazis. That would equally tick me off.[/QUOTE]

No doubt your television wasn't working during the campaigns. Try watching the 11:00pm news or doing a google. You might be surprised at what comes out of some of their mouths. Just this week the actual head of our gov't, Karl Rove, was more then insulting with his comments on national security and non-conservatives.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SonTestedShelter:
Durbins comments ticked me off so much. He should be kicked out of office. I don't get "outraged" hardly ever at political things, but when I read what he said I fumed. And show where a republican said what your alleging. I'm not going to try to defend them, I just want to know if they did indeed say democrats were nazis. That would equally tick me off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/filibuster.fight/" TARGET=_blank>Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said Democrats have abused the filibuster.

"The audacity of some members to stand up and say 'How dare you break this rule,'" Santorum said on the Senate floor Thursday.

"It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' "</A>

Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, "a terrorist organization" during a private meeting with governors Monday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-23-paige-remarks_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

Two quick ones. There are more.

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SonTestedShelter:
Durbins comments ticked me off so much. He should be kicked out of office. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's what he said in context (http://www.sj-r.com/extras/release/Gitmofloorstatement061405.htm) :

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor. [/list]
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course.
---------------------------------

Now explain to me why Senator Durbin was wrong.

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher): Karl Rove, was more then insulting with his comments on national security and non-conservatives. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karl Rove is not the head of your government. He was correct, the Moveon.org and Michael Moore were against the Afghan war stating there was no proof that Osama Bin Laden was against the attacks. History proved them wrong as it always does with these people.

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher): Karl Rove, was more then insulting with his comments on national security and non-conservatives. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karl Rove is not the head of your government. He was correct, the Moveon.org and Michael Moore were against the Afghan war stating there was no proof that Osama Bin Laden was against the attacks. History proved them wrong as it always does with these people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If anyone thinks for a second that Karl Rove isn't the master pulling the puppet's strings, as well as deveolping and implementing the administration's policies then they are in deep denial.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):If anyone thinks for a second that Karl Rove isn't the master pulling the puppet's strings, as well as deveolping and implementing the administration's policies then they are in deep denial. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rove is an election strategist and advisor to the President. There are many; he's one of teh best on elections and we should thank him for his help re-electing George Bush but Bush has his own ideas and always has.

[jon71]

Karl Rove is as dishonest as George Bush. Anyone at this point who believes anything either one of them says seriously needs their head examined.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Karl Rove is as dishonest as George Bush. Anyone at this point who believes anything either one of them says seriously needs their head examined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anything? Dishonest people tell the truth sometimes don't they? LOL It's funny the way Karl drives liberals nuts, just the mention of his name; he's just a good campaigner that's all.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Anything? Dishonest people tell the truth sometimes don't they? LOL It's funny the way Karl drives liberals nuts, just the mention of his name; he's just a good campaigner that's all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just name Clinton and watch Conservatives froth at the mouth.

Qikdraw

[jon71]

Kirk Ontario I finally agree with you. Yes Karl Rove, George Bush jr. or even Satan could tell the truth if it suits their agenda.

[Michjoe]

Karl Rove is just the latest example of what a dirty business politics has become. Do whatever is necessary to win. Paint the opposition as immoral, un-American, biased or weak. Little concern is given to the long term effects. The object is to win. Both parties are guilty. Rove is just the best at it now.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Anything? Dishonest people tell the truth sometimes don't they? LOL It's funny the way Karl drives liberals nuts, just the mention of his name; he's just a good campaigner that's all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just name Clinton and watch Conservatives froth at the mouth.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, he drove us nuts. But his place in history is our consolation.

[Ren]

Karl Rove is not as dishonest as George Bush. He created George Bush in his politcal incarnation, so he has to be more dishonest.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
Karl Rove is not as dishonest as George Bush. He created George Bush in his politcal incarnation, so he has to be more dishonest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't find George Bush dishonest. What you see is what you get. Clinton on the other hand...

[Qikdraw]

Kirk

You laugh at Democrats for speaking out against Rove.

Yet you speak out against Clinton, and thats ok?

Don't you find that a tad bit hypocritical?

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Kirk

You laugh at Democrats for speaking out against Rove.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They don't just speak out; they go crazy at the mention of his name. As for Clinton, he can be criticized but not irrationally. Clinton brought out a whole set of nutty conspiracy theorist on the right that were just as kooky as the ones on the left we see today ie Vince Foster being murdered etc.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
They don't just speak out; they go crazy at the mention of his name. As for Clinton, he can be criticized but not irrationally. Clinton brought out a whole set of nutty conspiracy theorist on the right that were just as kooky as the ones on the left we see today ie Vince Foster being murdered etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure there are some democrats who do that, but you can also point to things he has said and be miffed about that, and do it in a rational way.

As you say there are those wh put on Clinton things that just didn't happen. All that does is prove that there are radicals on both sides, but there are also rational people on both sides.

You can argue about Clinton's policies and if they were good for the country or not, but you can do the same with Bush and not be considered far right or far left for it.

You know whats coming don't you? One of my favorite quotes!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

That applies to democrat presidents, and also republican ones.

Qikdraw

[jon71]

I know this has been covered before but here goes. Clinton told one lie and that was a matter of personal embarrassment. Bush has told hundreds of lies (an exact list has been kept by a Dem. congressman, saying hundreds is not hyperbole) that have led to 1700 dead Americans. Lets compare.

Clinton: his affair kept comedians busy.
Bush: killed 1700 Americans, 11,000 wounded.

I know who I recognize as the better President.

[Ren]

Some conspiracy theories are rooted in truth. I'll give you a couple things to look up: PNAC and the Downing Street Memo.

It's all in there, and you'll see that people are being dishonored by this president, because of what was getting lined up for his conquest of Middle Eastern oil.

Somehow, even when things are proven to be true, this administration finds a way to weasel out of it.

[Qikdraw]

More money was spent going after Clinton, only to find he got a blow job, than was spent on the 9/11 Commission. Now THAT is morally treasonable to the American public.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Jon you don't actually believe that Clinton told just ONE lie? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[jon71]

You conservatives haven't come up with anything substantial and you certainly tried hard enough. Unprecedented levels of investigation and all you got was inappropriate nookie.

[Ren]

When you consider the actual damage that Bush has done to this country's reputation, to the environment, and to the middle/working/poor classes, I think it's galling to compare his lies to whatever Clinton lied about. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, he wasn't perfect, but the little guy was better off, our environment was getting cleaner, and we weren't entangled in wars of conquest under his leadership. With Bush, we, the people, have been thrown aside in the interest of big business and polluters. And, they have done much shadier things than Bill Clinton ever did to screw over not only the people of the US, but the world. Because our policies affect the world, and they're doing so negatively.

So, harp on Clinton and his sex life, or whatever your big complaint about him is, but if you had a conscience, you'd know that the argument comparing the two is blatantly foolish and insulting to all intelligent life forms.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
Some conspiracy theories are rooted in truth. I'll give you a couple things to look up: PNAC and the Downing Street Memo.

It's all in there, and you'll see that people are being dishonored by this president, because of what was getting lined up for his conquest of Middle Eastern oil.

Somehow, even when things are proven to be true, this administration finds a way to weasel out of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You might try reading the actual Downing Street Memo. Hitchens had a great piece on it this week. Funny how these 'smoking guns' aren't really guns or smoking.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121212/

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
You might try reading the actual Downing Street Memo. Hitchens had a great piece on it this week. Funny how these 'smoking guns' aren't really guns or smoking.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121212/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Downing street memo did not give us any "new" information, which is the Republican defence for ignoring it. However this is the first example of a senior official stating such information. As such it is important, and should not be ignored.

We've known this information since before Bush started the war, and that seems to be the Republican defence. That Bush always planned for war, and was searching for reasons to start it.

I find it funny that you use that arguement as an excuse to defend against the memo, but will deny that Bush planned for war long before he actually launched it.

You can't have it both ways.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

It's pretty clear Bush knew there would be a showdown with Iraq and that its President would again be foolish enough not to cooperate; he prepared for war and launched it when it could not be avoided. Getting rid of Sadaam and using force in the region has been good for the region and for America's long term interests.

Funny how the Left want to use the Downing Street memo against the President but ignores the fact the Brits and Americans genuinely believed Iraq had WMD and would use them. They can't have it both ways can they?

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
You might try reading the actual Downing Street Memo. Hitchens had a great piece on it this week. Funny how these 'smoking guns' aren't really guns or smoking.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121212/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Downing street memo did not give us any "new" information, which is the Republican defence for ignoring it. However this is the first example of a senior official stating such information. As such it is important, and should not be ignored.

We've known this information since before Bush started the war, and that seems to be the Republican defence. That Bush always planned for war, and was searching for reasons to start it.

I find it funny that you use that arguement as an excuse to defend against the memo, but will deny that Bush planned for war long before he actually launched it.

You can't have it both ways.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------------------------------------
If it wasn't for the majority in both the House and the Senate this memo would be the start of an impeachment proceedure againt Bush. Given two party representation, he would go down quicker then Nixon did.

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Getting rid of Sadaam and using force in the region has been good for the region and for America's long term interests. QUOTE]

The void created by the invasion in Iraq has done more to recruit new terrorists then any other single act. Terrorist recuitment is up and now the US Armed Forces can't find enough recruits to defend us. The increase in terrorists will do nothing but to further destabilize the Middle East and won't do a thing to make America safer.

personal attack removed

From one of the editors of NEWSDAY 6/26/06 "So White House minister of propaganda Karl Rove says Democrats are soft on terror. That's so typical of Republican chicken hawks who love to send other people's kids to war. They ignored Osama Bin Laden before 9/11, let him escape after it, and started an unwinnable war in Iraq that has killed 1,700 Americans, boosted recruitement of terrorists and dried up U.S. enlistments. Way to go..."

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Getting rid of Sadaam and using force in the region has been good for the region and for America's long term interests. QUOTE]

The void created by the invasion in Iraq has done more to recruit new terrorists then any other single act. Terrorist recuitment is up and now the US Armed Forces can't find enough recruits to defend us. The increase in terrorists will do nothing but to further destabilize the Middle East and won't do a thing to make America safer.

].[/color]

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you get your statistics on terrorist recuitment? Do you think there are hard numbers out there?

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Funny how the Left want to use the Downing Street memo against the President but ignores the fact the Brits and Americans genuinely believed Iraq had WMD and would use them. They can't have it both ways can they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its funny how the Bush administration ignored all the intelligence that said Saddam didn't have anything. This was well talked about with former and current intelligence peole, who also complained about Rumsfelds Office of Special Plans that created the worst case scenarios out of information. Information from people in the Intelligence feild KNEW were unreliable and out for their own agendas. Yet all that was ignored to focus on war.

The Downing Street Memo talks about how the intelligence was being cooked to force the issue. Bush may have beleived the information handed to him, but his advisors certainly did not.

Qikdraw

[Ren]

Umm, are you trying to present Christopher Hitchens as an impartial source on all of this? He quit The Nation because they opposed the war in Iraq. Come now, you can do better...

[Ren]

Qikdraw ---

The Bush Admin is the land of opposites. They ignored the evidence that Saddam had nothing. They ignored the evidence that al Qaeda was going to attack. They ignore the evidence about global warming and pollution. They ignore the evidence that evolution exists.

But they're rich and getting richer off their policies. So, for them and their supporters, ignorance is bliss.

[Ren]

Kirk --- Not everything on Earth should be about America's long-term interests. This country has to learn that it is important to be a global citizen, because dominance is unhealthy for the world. Bush has destabilized a region that was hardly stable to begin with and is now stuck in the quicksand. How is that good for our interests? Our interests should be peace and living responsibly. Bush wants none of that.

[Ren]

Re: Terrorist Recruitment

Look up "terrorist recruitment increase" in a Google search. There are no raw numbers, but overwhelming evidence that indeed, the recruitment of terrorists, as a result of Bush's jaunt in Iraq, is causing an increase.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
Re: Terrorist Recruitment

Look up "terrorist recruitment increase" in a Google search. There are no raw numbers, but overwhelming evidence that indeed, the recruitment of terrorists, as a result of Bush's jaunt in Iraq, is causing an increase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But don't you understand? Overwhelming evidence is not proof! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
Re: Terrorist Recruitment

Look up "terrorist recruitment increase" in a Google search. There are no raw numbers, but overwhelming evidence that indeed, the recruitment of terrorists, as a result of Bush's jaunt in Iraq, is causing an increase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly there are no such numbers. Those joining the jihad are going to Iraq and not the USA to meet the Americans. It is like drawing poison from a wound. These are not largely Iraqis as evidenced by the nationalities of the dead but Syrians and Iranians who are fighting to prevent democracy and moderation establishing itself in Iraq.

[jon71]

Kirk you just admitted that Bush created more terrorists and terrorism than Bin Laden ever did and you still stick to the party line and say it's a good thing. Are you completely incapable of opening your eyes to the truth. Iraq was not a national security problem until Bush created this mess. Saddam was an s.o.b. but no threat.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Exactly there are no such numbers. Those joining the jihad are going to Iraq and not the USA to meet the Americans. It is like drawing poison from a wound. These are not largely Iraqis as evidenced by the nationalities of the dead but Syrians and Iranians who are fighting to prevent democracy and moderation establishing itself in Iraq. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is so wonderful that the Iraqis willingly had their country turned into a bloodbath so the we in the West could fight the War on Terror over on Iraqi soil rather than here, or say, an actual terrorist-supporting nation like Iran. Iraq was never planned (I assume) to be the place to gather the "poison" of Islamism. If it was, I'm not sure why it would be regarded as a good idea.

What's lost in this theory of KO's is that the White House and their ideologues seemed to honestly believe that after Saddam was overthrown, Iraq would be a docile, peaceful, pro-American state. That the total cost of reconstruction would be 1.8 Billion and most American troops would be home by Christmas of 2003.

The situation in Iraq today isn't the result of some brilliant White House plan (as the right wing keeps saying), but because the White House grossly misunderstood the socio-political situation in Iraq.

[hm0504]

I would like to propose that we also discuss on this topic what should be done to resolve the Iraq mess.

Frankly, I see no way out other than America and Britain and other Coalition members massively increasing the number of troops they have there to the tune of 400,000 to 500,000 ASAP. If the White House is right that the insurgency is in its "last throes", then the increase would be temporary. If the White House is not, then such numbers are needed to (hopefully)start winning the war again.

I don't believe retreat from Iraq is an option. For those who think it is, please explain what you think would happen to Iraq if that happenend.

[Ren]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

But don't you understand? Overwhelming evidence is not proof! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake. I plan to take an abacus over to Iraq during my summer vacation. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Ren]

The problem is that we didn't belong there in the first place, so it's rather unfair to ask those of us who know this is an illegal war what we would do now. Maybe Bush likes baseball too much and is waiting for a reliever to come in and do mop up duty.

A) I wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place.

B) Don't pin it on us to come up with an answer to a problem created by poor leadership and a bunch of cronies who wanted this to happen long before 9/11. Check out Project for the New American Century, if you don't believe me.

C) It makes no sense to ask people their thoughts, because this Congress and President don't listen to those who disagree with their shortsighted, illegal policies.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

But don't you understand? Overwhelming evidence is not proof! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake. I plan to take an abacus over to Iraq during my summer vacation. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I told you that 'overwhelming evidence' is just not good enough. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif If you can't provide numbers, then its just not happening according to Kirk. Then again if you had numbers he wouldn't believe that either...

Qikdraw

[namedun]

Has anyone heard this announcement of the possibility of this whole mess lasting 12 more years that was leaked out of some Washington office? I heard something on the news to this effect (it was CNN, and things are getting desperate when CNN shows stuff that hurts the right) but I've now forgotten where this information came from.

[namedun]

ahhhhh nevermind, it was the secretary of defense who's suggesting this will endure for 12 more years.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
ahhhhh nevermind, it was the secretary of defense who's suggesting this will endure for 12 more years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, it was. However to be fair, he was talking about it lasting 12 years if the Iraqi sercurity forces were used instead of US.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged the insurgency "could go on for any number of years."

Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Link (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/06/26/1105852-ap.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I would like to propose that we also discuss on this topic what should be done to resolve the Iraq mess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are partially right in saying we need more troops, however that is not all of it. We need a radical policy change, and implimentation on the ground.

Guantanimo, Afgani, and Iraqi jails are filled with people who have done nothing wrong. What happens is that someone rats out a neighbour or a business owner they don't like, then the US comes and takes them away. There is no proof other than one persons testimony, and the accused is presumed guilty. That needs to stop.

Troops need to deal fairly and respectfully with Iraqis they come across. I don't suggest they put their own lives at risk, but only use force when it is absolutely neccesary.

Before we send troops over there we should give them the basics of the culture and teach them rudimentry Arabic. At least enough to say "get on the ground", etc...

Women soldiers should be searching women, and their bags. Its a respect thing, and we only piss them off more if we don't.

Stop building up the 'green zone' and rebuild all of Iraq. Baghdad still doesn't have reliable water or electricity.

We need to start following International Law and the Geneva Convention.

We need to admit mistakes and work to change them.

Although the US is doing this already, we need to meet with insurgent leaders and find out what their grievences are, and actually listen to them, and work to change what they percieve as wrong.

We need to actually follow the "Hearts and Minds" philosophy and not just use it for sound bites.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
ahhhhh nevermind, it was the secretary of defense who's suggesting this will endure for 12 more years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He said it might take 12 years to defeat the insurgency. He did not say who would be doing the defeating and his suggestion was that the Iraqis would be taking on that role as they have been doing to some extent now--they just rescued Australian hostages last week who were being tortured by the lovely insurgents.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Kirk you just admitted that Bush created more terrorists and terrorism than Bin Laden ever did . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I told you where they were going: Iraq rather than U.S. soil. We simply don't know. These people hate the West and wish to destroy it. Their justification for the barbaric Madrid train bombing was the reconquest of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella back in 1492. Do you think withdrawing an American military base from Saudi would appease such deep and ancient hatreds?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Exactly there are no such numbers. Those joining the jihad are going to Iraq and not the USA to meet the Americans. It is like drawing poison from a wound. These are not largely Iraqis as evidenced by the nationalities of the dead but Syrians and Iranians who are fighting to prevent democracy and moderation establishing itself in Iraq. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, they ARE almost entirely Iraqis.

Further - this 'flypaper' argument is the most despicable justification for the war posible. If true, it means we deliberately created chaos and strife in a foreign land in order to attract even more attrocities to its population. There is a warm place in hell for anyone who would support such a position.

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Exactly there are no such numbers. Those joining the jihad are going to Iraq and not the USA to meet the Americans. It is like drawing poison from a wound. These are not largely Iraqis as evidenced by the nationalities of the dead but Syrians and Iranians who are fighting to prevent democracy and moderation establishing itself in Iraq. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, they ARE almost entirely Iraqis.

Further - this 'flypaper' argument is the most despicable justification for the war posible. If true, it means we deliberately created chaos and strife in a foreign land in order to attract even more attrocities to its population. There is a warm place in hell for anyone who would support such a position.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A warm place in Hell for protecting American lives? YOu are suggesting it is somehow unfair for Americans to meet the enemy abroad rather than at home where more American civilians could get killed?

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Just this week the actual head of our gov't, Karl Rove, was more then insulting with his comments on national security and non-conservatives. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sadly Karl Rove was correct. We have our own leftist terrorist sympathizers here in Canada. Just today we get Sacha Trudeau, son of the late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau--who was a personal friend of Comrade Castro, denounced Solidarity in Poland in the 1980s --

Sacha along with other notable Canadian leftists is supporting bail for a man who trained in Afghanistan with Osama and entered our country with illegal documents.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=n062781A

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">this 'flypaper' argument is the most despicable justification for the war posible. If true, it means we deliberately created chaos and strife in a foreign land in order to attract even more attrocities to its population. There is a warm place in hell for anyone who would support such a position.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

A warm place in Hell for protecting American lives? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. That's akin to "protecting" you daughter from rapists by unlocking the doors on the home of a family down the block and posting maps to it.

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:


A warm place in Hell for protecting American lives? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. That's akin to "protecting" you daughter from rapists by unlocking the doors on the home of a family down the block and posting maps to it.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To complete the analogy you'd have to tell us that the neighbour had paid the families of dead rapists for sacrificing their sons to the cause, encouraged rapists, harboured rapists and was one of few countries to praise the rape of 3000 innocent American girls. That would complete the story.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
complete the analogy you'd have to tell us that the neighbour had paid the families of dead rapists for sacrificing their sons to the cause, encouraged rapists, harboured rapists and was one of few countries to praise the rape of 3000 innocent American girls. That would complete the story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To complete your analogy, we'd have to unlock the doors to the house two doors down from neighbor you describe. After all, we are talking about Iraq.

When did Iraq attack the US?

Are you arguing that the people of Iraq deserve to be held in a deliberate state of chaos and strife that attracts foreign terrorists and creates them at home - the terrorist flypaper (http://festersplace.blogspot.com/2003/09/fly-paper.html) argument - because Iraq supported terrorism against the US? Because it threatened us with WMD's? Or because it had something to do with 9/11? Am I misunderstanding why you think they deserve such treatment?

Remember - Saddam is in prison where he belongs. Why do the Iraqi people deserve to be 'flypaper' for terrorists? Why doesn't anyone who would support afflicting them in such a way deserve to roast on a spit in Hades?

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:



Are you arguing that the people of Iraq deserve to be held in a deliberate state of chaos and strife that attracts foreign terrorists and creates them at home - the terrorist flypaper (http://festersplace.blogspot.com/2003/09/fly-paper.html) argument - because Iraq supported terrorism against the US? Because it threatened us with WMD's? Or because it had something to do with 9/11? Am I misunderstanding why you think they deserve such treatment?

Remember - Saddam is in prison where he belongs. Why do the Iraqi people deserve to be 'flypaper' for terrorists? Why doesn't anyone who would support afflicting them in such a way deserve to roast on a spit in Hades?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is holding the people of Iraq in a deliberate state of chaos. The insurgents are trying and they are good for 40 car bombs a day. The United States and the Iraqi government are there to restore order but you appear to be against that.

And how should Saddam ever receive justice without his removal from power?. If you had your way Saddam would be in power supporting terrorism abroad, flouting international law, encouraging America's enemies, and murdering his own people. YOu would rather we stood on the sidelines wringing our hands and hating ourselves for propping up his disasterous regime in the 1980s. Back then the regime could have collapse to the tragedy of millions but we kept it going hoping the worst could be avoided, the rise of an Islamic superstate in Iran could be prevented and that in the meantime things might change. They didn't Saddam continued to threaten his neighbours invading Kuwait in the early 1990's

Blame the US for what it does and blame it for what doesn't do is the approach of the Left. "My country always wrong" should be the bumper sticker. Sadly that's what you appear to support not the hope of 30 million people that has been brought with the removal of Saddam from power. It's time to support this war and this President.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

No one is holding the people of Iraq in a deliberate state of chaos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good, so you DO agree that the "Flypaper" thesis is wrong and evil. RIGHT?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The insurgents are trying and they are good for 40 car bombs a day. The United States and the Iraqi government are there to restore order but you appear to be against that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL, where did you get THAT idea? Where did you ever come up with the libelous statement that I want chaos in Iraq, I'm pretty sure I have been consistently against it.

Must be getting pretty desperate to be trying to change the subject by painting me as pro-terrorist and anti-American. Now, back on point. Flypaper - evil or good strategy. Is supporting the "Flypaper" strategy OK, or worthy an eon in Satan's Sauna?

-Mark

[KirkOntario]

I made it very clear that it is a GOOD strategy.

[Qikdraw]

Mark

If you disagree with Kirk, you're obviously anti-American, pro-terrorist, and anti or pro whatever suits his current propoganda piece.

I'm finally learning that Kirk cannot see reason, and its time for me to just ignore his blatantly anti-American views.

Qikdraw

[Ren]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

But don't you understand? Overwhelming evidence is not proof! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake. I plan to take an abacus over to Iraq during my summer vacation. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I told you that 'overwhelming evidence' is just not good enough. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif If you can't provide numbers, then its just not happening according to Kirk. Then again if you had numbers he wouldn't believe that either...

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'd do it in Roman numerals, because if I did it using Arabic numerals, he'd probably think the numbers were biased. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Ren]

Mark, you are too smart for this.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
Mark, you are too smart for this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I dunno. I just wanted Kirk to agree or disagree that he thinks it is OK for us to deliberately make the lives of innocent people miserable in order to make things easier for us. He agreed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
I made it very clear that it is a GOOD strategy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm just trying gain some insight into character.

The "Flypaper" strategy is NOT official policy of the US government. NO administration officials have endorsed it. It is clearly an evil and despicable idea. That some so called "pundits" have endorsed it just shows their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

Kirk is a fairly intelligent person, that he always insists on pushing back to the point of absurdity shows he isn't serious. Particularly by endorsing this absurd and evil "flypaper" strategy. This is proof of Troll behavior.

Case closed.

-Mark

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

A warm place in Hell for protecting American lives? YOu are suggesting it is somehow unfair for Americans to meet the enemy abroad rather than at home where more American civilians could get killed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would seem to me that you are strongly suggesting that the lives of Iraqi civillians are irrelevant compared to the lives of American civillians. Isn't that racist?

[Ren]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

The "Flypaper" strategy is NOT official policy of the US government. NO administration officials have endorsed it. It is clearly an evil and despicable idea. That some so called "pundits" have endorsed it just shows their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you think that since none of their other reasons for going to war panned out, that they're just trying out new theories till they can dupe the public into saying, "Yeah, yeah, that's it"? It seems to be the plan of those who control opinion and "law" in this country now --- sure, it lacks in integrity, but they don't seem to care.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

A warm place in Hell for protecting American lives? YOu are suggesting it is somehow unfair for Americans to meet the enemy abroad rather than at home where more American civilians could get killed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would seem to me that you are strongly suggesting that the lives of Iraqi civillians are irrelevant compared to the lives of American civillians. Isn't that racist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it is not.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

A warm place in Hell for protecting American lives? YOu are suggesting it is somehow unfair for Americans to meet the enemy abroad rather than at home where more American civilians could get killed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would seem to me that you are strongly suggesting that the lives of Iraqi civillians are irrelevant compared to the lives of American civillians. Isn't that racist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it is not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for your short, concise answer. Please elaborate.

[hm0504]

Who caught the President's speech on Iraq last night?

I sure am getting worried about my memory. In the speech, the President frequently referred to the need to go into Iraq because of 9/11. Dang it, if my ol' memory isn't playing tricks on me because I sure thought the original reason was WMD (not once mentioned in the speech). Sure, I recall (I think) the President back in 2002 often talking about Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, but then after the war (oops, did I say after, I mean the short period when most seemed to think the Iraq war was over), he clarified that he never intended to imply that Iraq was behind 9/11. Or maybe that is just a hallucination of mine.

Anyway, I just can't tell if my mind is playing some awfully mean tricks on me, or whether the President is just fooling himself and everyone else, or what. I mean I'm not doubting that today the war in Iraq is about, among other things, Islamist terrorism and 9/11; I just don't recall that it starting that way, just becoming that way because, after the Americans went in, the terrorists saw it is a golden opportunity for them.

Oh well, what do I know, I'm just confused.

[jon71]

One more example of Bush dishonesty.

[namedun]

I think Orwell could write something strikingly similar to animal farm about what has been going on in the united states for the past few decades.

[Ren]

hm0504-

The President is doing a great job at tricking people. I was railing against the war one day and a school nurse said to me, "Maybe you should take a look at those burning towers every day and you'd feel differently." I looked at her and said, "Why? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." She says, "It didn't?" I go, "No, those were Saudi nationals and others, but none of them came from Iraq. Iraq has nothing to do with this." Her: "Oh. I didn't know that."

She's 50 and she didn't know this! This is exactly what Bush wants. If he cared about the truth, it'd be a much more peaceful world right now. Read about the Project for the New American Century if you want to know why we're in this war. Look to the signatories of their manifesto - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, etc. - to see why we're in this quagmire of stupidity.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
hm0504-

The President is doing a great job at tricking people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Teflon may be wearing off. According to Zogby (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007) Bush's speech to shore up support for the way he is running the war resulted in a 1% decline in public support. His constant (and innaccurate) linking of Iraq to 9/11 did have an impact - more people are questioning whether he was telling the truth going into the war.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Mark

[Trailscout]

It is probably pointless to second guess the decision to invade Iraq.

I am just hoping that someone will emerge with a plan for equipping the Iraqis with a plan for assuming their own defence and thus free our troops for refocusing on the war on terrorism.

I also believe that part of our defence against terrorism involves increasing energy independence and moving away from fossil fuels, moving toward renewable energy and conservation.

Maybe we could take a look at overall US foreign policy and see how our actions overseas tend to inflame public opinion against us.

In the end it may be that some groups are determined to hate us no matter what we do and we will simply have to be eternally vigilent and work in close harmony with other nations who are faced with the same worries.

[Baron Lake]

Trail, I would suggest holding dubbya's feet to the fire for his actions and less-than-truthful statements indeed serves a purpose. If you mean such efforts have so far proven futile for the most part then yeah, ok....but hope springs eternal. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
b.l.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
It is probably pointless to second guess the decision to invade Iraq. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the only thing in your post that I disagree with. The government is supposed to be accountable to the people. This government hasn't been. This is wrong. This is so far against democracy its not funny. The PEOPLE are supposed to be the power in the nation, not the government.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am just hoping that someone will emerge with a plan for equipping the Iraqis with a plan for assuming their own defence and thus free our troops for refocusing on the war on terrorism.

I also believe that part of our defence against terrorism involves increasing energy independence and moving away from fossil fuels, moving toward renewable energy and conservation.

Maybe we could take a look at overall US foreign policy and see how our actions overseas tend to inflame public opinion against us.

In the end it may be that some groups are determined to hate us no matter what we do and we will simply have to be eternally vigilent and work in close harmony with other nations who are faced with the same worries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All this I agree with you on. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Although to be honest, I don't think it will happen for a long long time. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Qikdraw

[hm0504]

If the war on Iraq turns out to be a disaster (eg. Iraq becomes an Islamist state and the U.S. goes is grossly weakened economically because of trillions spent), then there will definitely need to be an open, thorough investigation of the motivations for the Iraq war to help ensure such catastrophes do not happen again.

(I'm assuming that if the Iraq turns out reasonably well, there's little chance of such an investigation because no one likes to argue with success.)

[Trailscout]

Qikdraw, Sadaam may have been bluffing that he had WMD, but we called his bluff and the war began.

Also the first Gulf War had put us in the untenable position having to choose between starving the Iraqi people with the failed oil for food program or going to war. We chose the latter. A lot of people in both major parties agreed that resuming the Gulf War was the lesser of two evils.

If the Democrats would stop running liberals as their presidential candidate and pick someone more moderate, but still committed to protecting domestic labor, protecting the environment and having a green energy policy, then they might actually win the election and accomplish some of the things we both want. It would be better if we have a southern democrat for president, someone with a familiar accent and who understands our ways. Most people don't want these big city Yankees in office. I thought that Clinton's success would have taught them not to pick Yankees the next time. Gore was at least from the South, but he was so full of blarney in his rants against GW, that no one would listen to him. It's a pity because he had a great position on environmental issues.

I realize that Lancaster Canada is only indirectly affected by all this, but when there's an elephant walking around in the room, all the mice have to look up once in a while.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Qikdraw, Sadaam may have been bluffing that he had WMD, but we called his bluff and the war began. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was GWB who was bluffing. The homicidal tyrant in Bagdad was telling the truth. Go figure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the Democrats would stop running liberals as their presidential candidate and pick someone more moderate, but still committed to protecting domestic labor, protecting the environment and having a green energy policy, then they might actually win the election and accomplish some of the things we both want. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>John Kerry was actually fairly moderate - not the liberal the Republicans made him out to be - he was a member of the DLC (the centrist or "conservative" organization of Democrats founded by Bill Clinton & Co.). Outside of Breux, Lieberman and Zell Miller, about the most conservative Democrat in office today is ... (wait for it) ... Hillary Clinton. But you will never see this acknowledged by the Rovians and the compliant media.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It would be better if we have a southern democrat for president, someone with a familiar accent and who understands our ways. Most people don't want these big city Yankees in office. I thought that Clinton's success would have taught them not to pick Yankees the next time. Gore was at least from the South, but he was so full of blarney in his rants against GW, that no one would listen to him. It's a pity because he had a great position on environmental issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> 1) Gore won. 2) Gore was NOT full of blarney. The "exaggeration" rap that Rove saddled him with and that the lazy and compliant media (http://tinyurl.com/dps6c) accepted uncritically was simply untrue. (http://tinyurl.com/afedx) I'll bet you can't name a single "tall tale" attributed to Gore that upon investigation can't be shown to be a misrepresentation of what he said - or simply the truth all along. Gore's problem wasn't that he was an exagerrater, it was simply that he wasn't a great communicator like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I realize that Lancaster Canada is only indirectly affected by all this, but when there's an elephant walking around in the room, all the mice have to look up once in a while. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I live in Lancaster, CALIFORNIA. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I AM Canadian, but have lived in the US for 4 years now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Qikdraw, Sadaam may have been bluffing that he had WMD, but we called his bluff and the war began. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark already answered this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also the first Gulf War had put us in the untenable position having to choose between starving the Iraqi people with the failed oil for food program or going to war. We chose the latter. A lot of people in both major parties agreed that resuming the Gulf War was the lesser of two evils. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually those weren't the choices we had, but its certainly one that is told now. The starving Iraqis weren't even in the picture until well after the war was started and Bush's reasons for war were proved to hace been false.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the Democrats would stop running liberals as their presidential candidate and pick someone more moderate, but still committed to protecting domestic labor, protecting the environment and having a green energy policy, then they might actually win the election and accomplish some of the things we both want. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that anyone promoting those policies is automatically branded a 'liberal', as if thats a bad thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It would be better if we have a southern democrat for president, someone with a familiar accent and who understands our ways. Most people don't want these big city Yankees in office. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But why? What is so different about your 'ways'? Just being against someone that has a different accent is pretty idiotic. Look at policies, not where someone is from or what they sound like. Your 'ways' are very much like everybody elses. Have a roof over your head, have a job to go to, make sure your children have a future. Those are the goals of every person, no matter where you come from, they can be boiled down to that. All you have to do is vote for who you think will actually give you that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought that Clinton's success would have taught them not to pick Yankees the next time. Gore was at least from the South, but he was so full of blarney in his rants against GW, that no one would listen to him. It's a pity because he had a great position on environmental issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark answered you on this as well, but I still don't understand why there is this 'Yankee' stuff going on. You obviosusly have not listened to what General Robert E Lee said.

“Abandon your animosities, and make your sons Americans.”"

When he was approached to continue the civil war that was his responce.

Lee knew that he was responsible for many deaths on both sides of the war, and felt that he should devote the rest of his life as reparation by becoming an educator. “I have a self-imposed task which I must accomplish. I have led the young men of the South in Battle; I have seen many of them die on the field; I shall devote the remaining energies to training young men to do their duty in life” (Shotgun’s Home of the American Civil War). After the war, the south was in a state of ruin. The people were emotionally and financially depressed. Lee felt that general education was the best answer for the south: “The thorough education of all classes of the people is most efficacious means, in my opinion, of promoting the prosperity of the South… We must look to the rising generation for the restoration of the country” (Freeman, 421). Soon after the war, Lee became the President of Washington College, which is now known as Washington and Lee University, where Lee is buried today.

Notice he said "restoration of the country" is the best way for the south to prosper? That means north and south need to work together to make this country great.

Vote for the best person who you think will put in the policies that will work for you, your family, your community, your state and your country, don't vote for a person just because they are from the south.

Lee quotes came from here (http://www.truepropaganda.com/Leewebpage.html).

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

I still don't understand why there is this 'Yankee' stuff going on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have any problem with having a southerner as president. Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were two of the most effective presidents of the last 50 years - whether you liked them or not. Although Jimmy Carter was not a very effective president, he is the man I most admire as a person for his character and integrity - he is a true Christian who has never used his faith to divide or take advantage of others. In an era when "morality" has come to mean narrow minded bigotry, intolerance and thinly veiled hatred, Jimmy Carter stands as a shining counter example.

-Mark

[Trailscout]

I personally don't have anything against Yankees, but the urban intellectual easterner often doesn't connect with the masses.

JFK was a notable exception. He was a great communicator. He made some terrible enemies in the Southern states, but he certainly motivated enough of the public in the country to vote for him.

Jimmy Carter was a little liberal for my taste, but I supported him twice. Most of the problems with his administration were Mondale and the party-loyal apparatchiks. But Jimmy is a good man. I am waiting on him to come fix my porch. Keep hoping he'll drive by in his truck and come running out with a hammer and nails.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:


If the Democrats would stop running liberals as their presidential candidate and pick someone more moderate, but still committed to protecting domestic labor, protecting the environment and having a green energy policy, then they might actually win the election and accomplish some of the things we both want. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If extremists would stop calling moderates "liberals" we wouldn't have this argument and we'd have someone interested in those causes.

[KirkOntario]

The interesting thing about the Iraq war is that western media so easily buy into the insurgents' strategy. The insurgents know they cannot win a military victory. There is not a single battle they have won. Their strategy is to inflict carnage on innocent people --which is why they blow up children outside schools, people lining up for jobs and behead innocent civilians trying to improve Iraqi life.

They do so because they cannot win a military victory they can only win a political victory: demoralize the US populace so that they withdraw and leave the good people of Iraq to darkness and chaos.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If extremists would stop calling moderates "liberals" we wouldn't have this argument and we'd have someone interested in those causes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>To understand this completely would require going all the way back to the root problem, which is: Liberals and Conservatives have not, will not, and cannot, ever agree on common definitions for Liberal, Moderate, Conservative and/or Extremist! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Trailscout]

There are plenty of people more conservative than I, perhaps others are more liberal than I.

It's the same with asking folks if they know any rednecks. Few admit to being one. They can always find someone more redneck than they are.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

Sorry Mr. Kennedy the troops don't want your 'support', not the kind of support democratic senators give to soldiers. They know it is hateful and puts the lives of fellow solidiers all over the world in peril.

[hw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Is there a reference you can point us to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)

New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Add this to the list Trailscout.

Straight from Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp)

[KirkOntario]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20050727/ts_usnews/bushbashingfizzles

Barone on the failure of Bush-bashing. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20050727/ts_usnews/bushbashingfizzles

Barone on the failure of Bush-bashing. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Little in that article was actual truth. A smidgin of truth, a cup of misleading statements, plus a pound of outright false statements and what do you get? Typical pro-Bush propoganda.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Sorry Mr. Kennedy the troops don't want your 'support', not the kind of support democratic senators give to soldiers. They know it is hateful and puts the lives of fellow solidiers all over the world in peril. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh huh. Sorry but Bush administration "support" is sadly lacking for the soldiers. It was the Bush administration that wants to take away vet benefits, and has tried many times to take away other benefits of soldiers, such as combat pay, and have only reversed it because of heavy political backlash.

I'd say Bush saying "Bring it on!" put more soldiers in danger than anything any Democrat has said. Daring your enemy to attack you is never a good thing.

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country." George Washington, 1789

I wonder why there is a recruiting problem....

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
Hermann Goering

Its interesting to see you promoting the policies that brought the Nazi party to power and committed attrocities.

See I believe in free speech, and living in a democracy that allows people a voice. Apparently you don't.

Qikdraw

[namedun]

Yeahhhhhh, when an article claims some general conspiracy is in effect that started with deposing Richard Nixon, I think you've got some grade A BS. Dick was the one with the conspiracy, not the democrats, he was caught in the act and resigned, end of story. Whatever you think W's intentions were, I think he's failing as a national leader anyway. The war is dragging out and he never had much approval from the public about his economic policies.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
Hermann Goering

Its interesting to see you promoting the policies that brought the Nazi party to power and committed attrocities.

See I believe in free speech, and living in a democracy that allows people a voice. Apparently you don't.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was there on 9/11 and I saw America attacked so I am a bit confused by your comment.

What does free speech have to do with anything? American exercise their right of free speech daily and they are the envy of many many other countries. And America voted last November. They refused to trust the democrats with the security and foreign policy interests of the United States. They were right.

[jon71]

51% if the public made a dumb choice and America is weaker and more at risk because of it. Instead of a real President we have a deserter and coward who also appears to suffer from self inflicted brain damage. He abandoned the war on terrorism and sent people to die for nothing in Iraq instead.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
I was there on 9/11 and I saw America attacked so I am a bit confused by your comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? Does that make you a better person somehow? Does that make your opinions more valid? Your statement there means nothing, yet you parade it out like it should. It was a tragedy for sure, but I could tell that all the way over here in California.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What does free speech have to do with anything? American exercise their right of free speech daily and they are the envy of many many other countries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does free speech have to do with anything? Well just your attempt at suppressing it, makes it important. From your words you seem to claim that anyone who is against this administration is causing soldiers to be in danger all over the world. That is an attempt to stiffle fee speech. Something that is exactly opposite of what America is supposed to stand for.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And America voted last November. They refused to trust the democrats with the security and foreign policy interests of the United States. They were right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its interesting to note that when the Ukraine went to the polls the US did not recognise the results of the first election, saying there were too many voting irregularities, they had to redo it. Its odd that while Ohio had many more irregularities than the Ukraine did, there is no call from this administration to do anything about it. Its also interesting to note news from Ohio, and how many people there who were directly involved in the elections are being investigated for corruption, and not just regular old corruption, but massive amount of corruption that goes all the way to the governor.

Methinks there is something rotten in the state of Ohio.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:What does free speech have to do with anything? Well just your attempt at suppressing it, makes it important. From your words you seem to claim that anyone who is against this administration is causing soldiers to be in danger all over the world. That is an attempt to stiffle fee speech. Something that is exactly opposite of what America is supposed to stand for.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And America voted last November. They refused to trust the democrats with the security and foreign policy interests of the United States. They were right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its interesting to note that when the Ukraine went to the polls the US did not recognise the results of the first election, saying there were too many voting irregularities, they had to redo it. Its odd that while Ohio had many more irregularities than the Ukraine did, there is no call from this administration to do anything about it. Its also interesting to note news from Ohio, and how many people there who were directly involved in the elections are being investigated for corruption, and not just regular old corruption, but massive amount of corruption that goes all the way to the governor.

Methinks there is something rotten in the state of Ohio.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a difference between suppressing free speech and criticizing those who exercise it without restraint. Suppression of free speech is only done by governmental or quasi-governmental bodies. Criticizing those who make reckless, inaccurate or downright false statements about Gitmo or Iraq is not suppression of free speech. Durbin, Michael Moore, and others DO endanger the lives of those fighting abroad.

As for your point about Ukraine versus Ohio, there is no evidence of fraud in Ohio. International observers not just Americans all agreed the fraud in the Ukraine was massive and an attempt by Russia to retain its influence over the Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians took to the streets in agreement.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
I was there on 9/11 and I saw America attacked so I am a bit confused by your comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? Does that make you a better person somehow? Does that make your opinions more valid? Your statement there means nothing, yet you parade it out like it should. It was a tragedy for sure, but I could tell that all the way over here in California.


Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I don't understand your response. No one suggeted they were a better person than you. You suggested I somehow supported Hitler or his methods in claiming the country was attacked when it was not attacked. That was pretty unfair comparison. I suggested the U.S.A. WAS attacked. I'd like to stick to the argument. I suggest you do as well.

[namedun]

Maybe I look at things from an extreme point of view, but I see a president failing in his duties, making bad and uninformed decisions. Today he supersceded the senate and decided to appoint an ambassador to the UN. A man who many respectable officials, including Colin Powel and other members of Bush's regime have voiced concerns over. Now Bush seeks to also have a republican filling the void in the supreme court, and in the same manner, information about this man's ethics is being witheld.
Today I turned on my tv and flipped to CNN. I was greeted by thousands of young men dressed in kahki uniforms chanting "USA!" as the image changed to Bush adressing them. Honestly the last time I saw an image like this was on the history channel, only the young men with such nationalistic ferver were all german, and the film was from 1931.

[Trailscout]

Presidential appointments during a recess of Congress are a common thing. I do not approve of Bolton, but the timing of his appointment is nothing new.

Those soldiers chanting "USA" probably have many Democrats and independents among them. Love of country knows no party affiliation.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
Maybe I look at things from an extreme point of view, but I see a president failing in his duties, making bad and uninformed decisions. Today he supersceded the senate and decided to appoint an ambassador to the UN. A man who many respectable officials, including Colin Powel and other members of Bush's regime have voiced concerns over. Now Bush seeks to also have a republican filling the void in the supreme court, and in the same manner, information about this man's ethics is being witheld.
Today I turned on my tv and flipped to CNN. I was greeted by thousands of young men dressed in kahki uniforms chanting "USA!" as the image changed to Bush adressing them. Honestly the last time I saw an image like this was on the history channel, only the young men with such nationalistic ferver were all german, and the film was from 1931. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you referring to the Boy Scout Jamboree? LOL


http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
The President won the election. He gets to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court and make appointments in his rep to the United Nations.
No ethical information has been witheld concering John Roberts. 15,000 pages of documents have been disclosed.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Is there a reference you can point us to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)

New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Add this to the list Trailscout.

Straight from Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fighter planes are not considered Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now here is some really shocking news: Iraq has NOT had proscribed WMDs for years! Even the White House now understands this! [1] Wow! Also, the White House (Rice) says "I want to be very clear: we don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that (WMDs were moved to Syria) has taken place". [2]

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

[2] http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,107946,00.html

[hm0504]

Here's an interesting opinion piece:
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric...5/07/31/1154103.html (http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2005/07/31/1154103.html)

Personally, I cannot help but wonder if the White House has already concluded that it cannot win in Iraq. In other words, that there is no way Americans will want to bear the cost of winning ($400 Billion a year for 10 to 20 years, 450,000 troops continually stationed there for 10 years, bringing back the draft, etc.).

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Here's an interesting opinion piece:
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric...5/07/31/1154103.html (http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2005/07/31/1154103.html)

Personally, I cannot help but wonder if the White House has already concluded that it cannot win in Iraq. In other words, that there is no way Americans will want to bear the cost of winning ($400 Billion a year for 10 to 20 years, 450,000 troops continually stationed there for 10 years, bringing back the draft, etc.). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The article is full of the usual hyperbole. The insurgency is doomed. It is a Sunni insurgency without a vision for the future, without a poltical philosophy without much backing other than meddling Syria and Iran. The Iraqis did some much need sabre rattling this week at their troublesome neighbours who fear success of a democratic Iraq. The U.S. will ratchet down it's operation, more troops and security will come online in Iraq and the insurgency will end in a few years.

[namedun]

I imagine neighboring countries are more afraid of the US trying to install it's own puppet or heavily influence the future Iraqi government than they are of Iraq becoming democratic. The public is so religious that being democratic is only going to influence the SECT of Islam that controls government policy. I think the whole "Democracy revolution" in the Middle East is really just some North American rhetoric, and perhaps a legitamization for the current war.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
I imagine neighboring countries are more afraid of the US trying to install it's own puppet or heavily influence the future Iraqi government than they are of Iraq becoming democratic. The public is so religious that being democratic is only going to influence the SECT of Islam that controls government policy. I think the whole "Democracy revolution" in the Middle East is really just some North American rhetoric, and perhaps a legitamization for the current war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The government of Syria is a brutal dictatorship that fears democracy. The theocratic thuggery of Iran feels the same way. Islamic fundamentalists such as Osama bin Laden and Zarquari have specifically denounced democracy as 'unIslamic'. The demonstrations and Lebannon, Iran and the elections in January were all serious threats to the established order.

[jon71]

Why would the neighbors fear Iraq. Aside from being an impoverished third world country Iraq is morphing into Iran. That claim is one no intelligent person ever fell for.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Why would the neighbors fear Iraq. Aside from being an impoverished third world country Iraq is morphing into Iran. That claim is one no intelligent person ever fell for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Morphing into Iran? How would that be?

[jon71]

By becoming an extremist theocracy undet Shiara law.

[hm0504]

Check out today's CNN video about an ex-Marine and Iraq war veteran running for the U.S. House, he has some interesting comments on the Iraq war:
http://www.cnn.com

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
By becoming an extremist theocracy undet Shiara law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what extremist articles are you referring to in the written draft constitution(which isn't even completed yet) for the democratically elected, multi-racial, mult-religious new Iraq?

[KirkOntario]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...005080101453_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html)

For the "Bush Lied" crowd. Iran is 18 months, no make that 6 months, no make that 5 years, no make that 10 years away from the nuclear bomb. Why not just scrap the intelligence agencies and set up a department of "Who knows?" That would be more accurate. These guys failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[KirkOntario]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050804/wl_canada_nm/canada...sa_immigration_col_1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050804/wl_canada_nm/canada_canada_usa_immigration_col_1)


Remember all those Americans who were going to move to Canada if Bush won?....Didn't happen. Maybe they looked up our tax rates and read about our corrupt one party federal government.Bush rocks!

"In the days after President Bush won a second term, the number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site shot up sixfold, prompting speculation that unhappy Democrats would flock north.

But official statistics show the number of Americans actually applying to live permanently in Canada fell in the six months after the election."


http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe they ... read about our corrupt one party federal government. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm... is a corrupt one party federal government worse than, or better than, a corrupt two party federal government? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe they ... read about our corrupt one party federal government. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm... is a corrupt one party federal government worse than, or better than, a corrupt two party federal government? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IN 1993 when the Liberals took power in Ottawa the average Canadian earned 90 cents of what the average American earned. Not it is 75 cents and the middle class --due to high taxes--has not moved ahead in 13 years.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050804/wl_canada_nm/canada...sa_immigration_col_1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050804/wl_canada_nm/canada_canada_usa_immigration_col_1)


Remember all those Americans who were going to move to Canada if Bush won?....Didn't happen. Maybe they looked up our tax rates and read about our corrupt one party federal government.Bush rocks!

"In the days after President Bush won a second term, the number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site shot up sixfold, prompting speculation that unhappy Democrats would flock north.

But official statistics show the number of Americans actually applying to live permanently in Canada fell in the six months after the election."


http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the obvious answer is that Americans who can't stand Bush and were semi-seriously thinking of moving to Canada have gotten over their original impulse. Indeed, the American polls show that a lot of Americans who supported Bush in November 2004 are having major second thoughts. BTW, the rate of Americans moving to Canada has been declining for years.

Second, in Canada, what used to be a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party -- the Progressive Conservative party -- has now been taken over by the religious right, and is now renamed the "Conservative" party. Why leave the U.S. for a country where one of the two major parties is dominated by the religious right. The good news for Canada is that religious conservatives don't seem to have much chance of ever forming a government. The bad news is that, unfortunately, there is no credible opposition alternative to the Liberal party.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Second, in Canada, what used to be a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party -- the Progressive Conservative party -- has now been taken over by the religious right, and is now renamed the "Conservative" party. Why leave the U.S. for a country where one of the two major parties is dominated by the religious right. The good news for Canada is that religious conservatives don't seem to have much chance of ever forming a government. The bad news is that, unfortunately, there is no credible opposition alternative to the Liberal party. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct. They had second thought. Life is better in the US than Canada which is why immigration from the US to Canada has been slowing down.

That is about the silliest thing I've heard said about the Canadian Conservative party. Religion plays very little role in Canadian politics. There simply are not the numbers. Nor is it possible to 'take over' a party in Canada. We will see in time if they can form a government. They came very close in June 2004.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Second, in Canada, what used to be a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party -- the Progressive Conservative party -- has now been taken over by the religious right, and is now renamed the "Conservative" party. Why leave the U.S. for a country where one of the two major parties is dominated by the religious right. The good news for Canada is that religious conservatives don't seem to have much chance of ever forming a government. The bad news is that, unfortunately, there is no credible opposition alternative to the Liberal party. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct. They had second thought. Life is better in the US than Canada which is why immigration from the US to Canada has been slowing down.

That is about the silliest thing I've heard said about the Canadian Conservative party. Religion plays very little role in Canadian politics. There simply are not the numbers. Nor is it possible to 'take over' a party in Canada. We will see in time if they can form a government. They came very close in June 2004. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference between life in the U.S. and life in Canada are negligible compared to the range of differences in life within each country. In other words, living in New York state is not that much different than living in Ontario. But living in New York, comparatively, is lot different than living in Texas.

About, the only major difference from a daily life perspective is that it is a tad colder in Canada during the winter.

The religious right form a slight majority of the Conservative members of Parliament. In the rest of the House, the proportion, 15%-20% is inline with general Canadian demographics.

[Boreas]

"I think the obvious answer is that Americans who can't stand Bush and were semi-seriously thinking of moving to Canada have gotten over their original impulse. Indeed, the American polls show that a lot of Americans who supported Bush in November 2004 are having major second thoughts. BTW, the rate of Americans moving to Canada has been declining for years."

I think the bigger issue is the cost to emmigrate to Canada. It is one thing to say that you are going to move to another country on impulse. It is another thing entirely to actually move. It is very expensive to move to Canada and is a long legal process. Only the very serious will actually make the move based on a president they don't like.

Of course though, moving to Canada would be a good choice! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[PascoDoug]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is one thing to say that you are going to move to another country on impulse. It is another thing entirely to actually move. It is very expensive to move to Canada and is a long legal process. Only the very serious will actually make the move based on a president they don't like. Of course though, moving to Canada would be a good choice! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I leave the U.S. it'll be for Croatia. The Naturist Coast http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas: Only the very serious will actually make the move based on a president they don't like.

Of course though, moving to Canada would be a good choice! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Left aren't serious. It all about money for them. It's too good in the States to move to Canada.

[Nu]

Based on recent posts, it seems the thread name has changed from "Blasting U.S." to "Blasting Canada" !

[Hooked]

*yawn*...ahem, I mean, *YAWN*

[gormenghast20]

Isn't the age of sexual consent in Canada 14? I think that statement alone speaks volumes....

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Isn't the age of sexual consent in Canada 14? I think that statement alone speaks volumes.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true and I think the age should be raised in Canada. That said, in reality, Canada teens on average have sex a little later in life than those in the United States.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Isn't the age of sexual consent in Canada 14? I think that statement alone speaks volumes.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiousity, speaks volumes about what?

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PascoDoug:
If I leave the U.S. it'll be for Croatia. The Naturist Coast http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tee hee....you mean you wouldn't want our snow and such?

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
The Left aren't serious. It all about money for them. It's too good in the States to move to Canada. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you serious? That is what the left usually says about the right.

I suspect that I am looking at this from a different perspective than you.

You don't seem very happy with your own country. Why do YOU stay?

[hm0504]

Yes, KirkOntario, if Canada bothers you so much and the U.S. has so much appeal, I think for your own well-being, you should emigrate, don't you?

[vintagecarguy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, KirkOntario, if Canada bothers you so much and the U.S. has so much appeal, I think for your own well-being, you should emigrate, don't you?



Albinus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please!
no thanks....I think you guys up north might miss him.We have plenty of both radical left and rights down here already.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Yes, KirkOntario, if Canada bothers you so much and the U.S. has so much appeal, I think for your own well-being, you should emigrate, don't you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather change Canada and make it a better place.

Here's the U.S economy versus the Canadian economy on jobs.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a...c5E&refer=news_index (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&amp;sid=al4GdRm0gc5E&amp;refer=news_inde x)

http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.200...inessBN/ctv-business (http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050805.wjobless0805/business/Business/businessBN/ctv-business)

[namedun]

It's interesting how we always want to change our civilization isn't it? Maybe it's the civilization itself that isn't working.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
It's interesting how we always want to change our civilization isn't it? Maybe it's the civilization itself that isn't working. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We want to change it because the fundamental question is "What is the good life?" or "How ought one to live?"

[gormenghast20]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Isn't the age of sexual consent in Canada 14? I think that statement alone speaks volumes.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiousity, speaks volumes about what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaks volumes on the direction society is going "up there"....14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to pick their own socks out, let alone decide if it's right to have sex and with whom (an overstatement, obviously, but you get my drift). America may have problems, but no country has done more for the world than us...it's not even close! Canadian teens may start sex later than American teens, but it's the sanctioning that's the problem...as far as I can see, anyways.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Isn't the age of sexual consent in Canada 14? I think that statement alone speaks volumes.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiousity, speaks volumes about what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaks volumes on the direction society is going "up there"....14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to pick their own socks out, let alone decide if it's right to have sex and with whom (an overstatement, obviously, but you get my drift). America may have problems, but no country has done more for the world than us...it's not even close! Canadian teens may start sex later than American teens, but it's the sanctioning that's the problem...as far as I can see, anyways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only is 14 the age of consent. There is no restriction on who the 14 year old is involved with unless there is a position of trust involved. Thus if a 40 year old man is involved with my 14 year old daughter I can do nothing about it. In the name of 'equality' they lowered the age of consent to sodomy as well to 14 --before it was 18. We also have no restrictions whatsoever on abortion: the law was struck down in 1988, yet we are prisoners of a healthcare system where I have to wait 5 months to get an MRI yet my dog can have one tomorrow (private medical clinics here are illegal).

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Isn't the age of sexual consent in Canada 14? I think that statement alone speaks volumes.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiousity, speaks volumes about what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaks volumes on the direction society is going "up there"....14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to pick their own socks out, let alone decide if it's right to have sex and with whom (an overstatement, obviously, but you get my drift). America may have problems, but no country has done more for the world than us...it's not even close! Canadian teens may start sex later than American teens, but it's the sanctioning that's the problem...as far as I can see, anyways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to me, based on the statistics I see, that focusing on intelligently dealing with a problem is far more effective than focusing on legislation.

Consider the the HIV rates of some countries:
Canada -- 0.3%
Germany -- 0.1%
Netherlands -- 0.2%
United Kingdom -- 0.2%
United States -- 0.6%

Note that the HIV rate in the U.S. is 2-5 times higher than the other wayward countries on the list. Now it should be noted in fairness that the U.S. stats are driven higher because HIV rates in Bible-belt states are much higher than in more secular, liberal states. I agree that that this speaks volumes.

Finally, I should add that Canadian law does NOT say anyone 14 or over can have sex with anyone under any circumstances. The law specified that there must NOT be any relationship of trust or dependency. Here's a quick summary:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> According to the Canadian Criminal Code, consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over is legal, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with any person under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 years of age but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 years old and less than two years older than the complainant.

In 1988, Bill C-15 amended the Criminal Code in order to create offences called “sexual interference” and “invitation to sexual touching” that prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual conduct with either girls or boys under the age of 14, irrespective of consent. Introduced at the same time, the offence “sexual exploitation” also makes it an offence for an adult to have such contact with boys and girls over 14 years of age but under 18, where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and child. Currently under consideration is Bill C-15A, which, once enacted, will create an offence of “luring” via the Internet to prevent the use of the Internet in crimes against children </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[gormenghast20]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Isn't the age of sexual consent in Canada 14? I think that statement alone speaks volumes.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiousity, speaks volumes about what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaks volumes on the direction society is going "up there"....14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to pick their own socks out, let alone decide if it's right to have sex and with whom (an overstatement, obviously, but you get my drift). America may have problems, but no country has done more for the world than us...it's not even close! Canadian teens may start sex later than American teens, but it's the sanctioning that's the problem...as far as I can see, anyways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only is 14 the age of consent. There is no restriction on who the 14 year old is involved with unless there is a position of trust involved. Thus if a 40 year old man is involved with my 14 year old daughter I can do nothing about it. In the name of 'equality' they lowered the age of consent to sodomy as well to 14 --before it was 18. We also have no restrictions whatsoever on abortion: the law was struck down in 1988, yet we are prisoners of a healthcare system where I have to wait 5 months to get an MRI yet my dog can have one tomorrow (private medical clinics here are illegal). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've heard from other about the healthcare system...here in the U.S. if you don't have medical insurance you're a bit screwed. I have it, I pay around $120 per month for it. The vision plan is totally useless...not sure about the dental part of it...the medical is ok, but it's a typical HMO in that the basics are taken care of but you'll pay out your *** for anything else. Regarding your daughter: I doubt that you'd do nothing in that particular situation...just try and not get caught! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[hm0504]

More stats, this time graphical, comparing U.S. and Canadian teen pregnancy rates:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/preg/images/Chart1.gif

Generally, the U.S. teen (15-19) pregnancy rate is over twice that of Canada.

[jon71]

The infant mortality rate of Canada is half that of the U.S. Of course the infant mortality rate in the south is three times that of the rest of the country. I love America but Canada is certainly superior on certain points.

[namedun]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to pick their own socks out, let alone decide if it's right to have sex </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?!!!! Just tell me. Don't say "BECAUSE" give me a real answer!

[namedun]

also <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We want to change it because the fundamental question is "What is the good life?" or "How ought one to live?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what gives you the idea that there is only ONE good way to live?

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Speaks volumes on the direction society is going "up there".... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I happen to like the direction society is taking "up here". Of course there are things I don't like, and I think that our politicians (of all stripes) all need to grow up. Never-the-less, very important discussions are happening and some very good changes are being made.

I am very glad I don't live in a country where a naked staue needs to be covered because some politician is offended by bare female breasts.

I think the issue is way bigger than what the rules are anyway. If our age of consent is lower than yours, and your teens are having sex earlier than ours, something else is happening.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
It seems to me, based on the statistics I see, that focusing on intelligently dealing with a problem is far more effective than focusing on legislation.....Now it should be noted in fairness that the U.S. stats are driven higher because HIV rates in Bible-belt states are much higher than in more secular, liberal states. I agree that that this speaks volumes.

Finally, I should add that Canadian law does NOT say anyone 14 or over can have sex with anyone under any circumstances. The law specified that there must NOT be any relationship of trust or dependency. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thank you Albinus for your eloquent reply. I was also going to respond to that post and could not have done such a good job.

[hm0504]

Ooooh, I love stats. Here's some on life expectancy:

Country All, Male, Female
=========
Canada 80.1, 76.73, 83.63
U.S. 77.71, 74.89. 80.67

The U.S. life expectancy is generally 2 or 3 years less than in Australasia and European countries. Also note that the U.S. spends around 40% more on health care than these other countries.

BTW, most of my stats come from the CIA's fact book -- normally a fine and reliable organization except when forced to lie by the White House.

BTW2, please note that my intention of making these posts is simply to respond to opinions put forth that Canadian morality and health care suck with respect to the U.S.'s. I do agree that America is a great country and I'm thankful for the role it has played in guarding democracy over the past 65 years.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:

Thank you Albinus for your eloquent reply. I was also going to respond to that post and could not have done such a good job. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Still_Boreas http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

[KirkOntario]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=200508...101000&w=RTR&coview= (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005080610100002809255&amp;dt=20050806101 000&amp;w=RTR&amp;coview=)


I would be nice if some of the US economic boom fueled by wise tax cuts Bush instituted would spill over into Canada.

[gormenghast20]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to pick their own socks out, let alone decide if it's right to have sex </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?!!!! Just tell me. Don't say "BECAUSE" give me a real answer! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?!!!! Because they're not mature enough!

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
I'd rather change Canada and make it a better place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kirk, one of the best commentators on American culture was a foreigner, Alexis de Tocqueville (http://www.adti.net/)

We can benefit from your perspective even if you remain in The Great White North.

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to pick their own socks out, let alone decide if it's right to have sex </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?!!!! Just tell me. Don't say "BECAUSE" give me a real answer! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The portions of a teenager's brain that governs critical thinking, judgement, etc. is not fully developed. They need adult role models and parents to help them make the transition to adulthood including help with decisions about sex.

[hm0504]

The U.S. recent economic "growth" is a short term (eg. several year) illusion created by unprecedented massive deficit spending. I'll hand it to President Bush that when he does things, he does them in a big way.

Here's more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6620-2005Apr21.html

[namedun]

"They need adult role models and parents to help them make the transition to adulthood including help with decisions about sex."

I've never disputed that they need help in transition. I'm all for help. What I don't consider help though, is "you're too young, you don't understand". Children as young as 14 have these urges for a reason, they're at an age at which they ARE ready for sex, but society would rather postpone this, with too many negative results. I think sex has been built up as an emotional monument, rather than a pleasurable act. Consequently, even though contraceptives are relatively easy to use, especially with sex education, I hear this vague (and frankly weak)arguement about emotional readiness and the consequences.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
The U.S. recent economic "growth" is a short term (eg. several year) illusion created by unprecedented massive deficit spending. I'll hand it to President Bush that when he does things, he does them in a big way.

Here's more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6620-2005Apr21.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The deficit has nothing to do with economic growth. As President Kennedy said in the early 60's cutting taxes is the way to do it. Yes that did increase the deficit, as well as other gov't spending but the deficit is going down due to the massive revenues that are now flowing into the US treasury courtesy of the weathiest Americans who pay the lion's share of taxes.

[Trailscout]

Our society makes it difficult for young people to marry. Parents can recognize when their child has selected a good mate and help the young couple marry and fulfil their natural desires for each other in a constructive way.

In the old days it was very common for young couples to live with one of their parents while they continue to learn life skills.

Our present system of 30-year-old bachelors and maidens is not natural.

[gormenghast20]

Teenage years are fraught with emotional conflict as the transition from child to adult is made and children need to be protected and guided, rather than encouraged to participate in homosexual and heterosexual sexual experimentation, with possible life-threatening consequences.

Whilst not being oblivious to the fact that many children are sexually active, it is utterly outrageous that 12 to 16 year olds, most of whom will not have reached puberty, should legally be able to give their consent to older children who want to exploit them sexually.

In addition, with such legislation in place, parents will not easily be able to prevent the sexual exploitation of their children.

Besides concerns about children contracting HIV/Aids, the vulnerable immature reproductive system of adolescent girls is at risk of being prematurely damaged by prematurely engaging in sexual activity. According to reports, teenage promiscuity can increase a girl's vulnerability to cancer by as much as five times.

[namedun]

I think the largest concerns are to protect the younger from the older in the event that the younger child is "confused". This is a very large grey area. How much does the child know about std's, the effects of having children, and yes, some emotional issues. The law, being an incredibly fallable human creation, can't deal with grey areas, and so we just slap a number down and call that the age of consent.
Personally, if two fourteen year olds want to have sex, I have no problem so long as they know the facts. This is where sheltering does no good. I would have no problem at all if we didn't have to worry about society's well being, which of course I frown upon.
There is also a simple fact that you are not arguing just with me on this. You are arguing with millions of years worth of evolution. If two young people feel the urge to have sex, it is mostly likely because these urges have succeeded in continuing humanity for those millioins of years.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
The portions of a teenager's brain that governs critical thinking, judgement, etc. is not fully developed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alas, the same is true of far too many adults.

-Mark

[NudeAl]

You know the birds and the bees haven't changed in hundreds of thousands of years. It wasn't all that long ago our society was more understanding of the human condition. In fact I seem to recall in the 1800's an awful lot of very young teenage girls would routinely marry men several decades older than themselves. I'm not advocating this but merely pointing out we in this age and time are trying to regulate behavior by our standards and humanbeings cannot always be guided by logic. Especially when it comes to matters of the heart.

[Trailscout]

I wish we could go back to the days of early marriage, with the proviso that the young couple lives with parents.

Today we expect our kids to leave us at 18 and postpone sex and marriage until 30 or so. That is so wrong on all counts.

[namedun]

I am stunned...for once it seems that I actually agree with something Trailscout says. I would like to move further back beyond marraige.....but...hey, what you said Trailscout was still in the direction I'm thinking as well.

[Trailscout]

A friend of mine was lucky enough to have this. He married at 18 to a good steady farm girl. His parents lived nearby and were a source of guidance as the young couple matured. They had a couple of children and had grandparents and other relatives to help relieve the mother of some of the burden.

For a long time I questioned his decision, but I was on my own with a long string of relationships that didn't work and I lived far from my family. Meanwhile my friend and his wife grew up together with the support of their family network. My friend advanced in his company and they paid for him to take courses until he eventually got a degree and a position of great responsibility within his company.

Meanwhile I struggled with college payments, student loan debt and a long string of bad jobs.

I've heard it said again and again that a fellow shouldn't marry until he is through with school and has a good income. I know how well-meaning that advice is, but such a strategy assumes that the young man is out on his own with no support network, no prospects for work, no money. None of that would be true if he stayed in his own family and community.

A lot of people who wait until they have enough money are too old or too wrapped up in their careers to begin raising children.

And we wonder why our society is so messed up!

[namedun]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
A friend of mine was lucky enough to have this. He married at 18 to a good steady farm girl. His parents lived nearby and were a source of guidance as the young couple matured. They had a couple of children and had grandparents and other relatives to help relieve the mother of some of the burden.

For a long time I questioned his decision, but I was on my own with a long string of relationships that didn't work and I lived far from my family. Meanwhile my friend and his wife grew up together with the support of their family network. My friend advanced in his company and they paid for him to take courses until he eventually got a degree and a position of great responsibility within his company.

Meanwhile I struggled with college payments, student loan debt and a long string of bad jobs.

I've heard it said again and again that a fellow shouldn't marry until he is through with school and has a good income. I know how well-meaning that advice is, but such a strategy assumes that the young man is out on his own with no support network, no prospects for work, no money. None of that would be true if he stayed in his own family and community.

A lot of people who wait until they have enough money are too old or too wrapped up in their careers to begin raising children.

And we wonder why our society is so messed up! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH MAN! For once I totally agree with you! Society has long been encroaching in on the lives of humans. Now it's getting to be that you're not only spending a really large chunk of every day at work or school, but people are losing key elements in their lives (like love and children) all because they are supposed to further their carears.

[KirkOntario]

Here's the advice of the ancient Greek poet Hesiod to get the house, servant, ox and plough before marrying.

"First of all, get a house, and a woman and an ox for the plough -- a slave woman and not a wife, to follow the oxen as well -- and make everything ready at home, so that you may not have to ask of another, and he refuses you, and so, because you are in lack, the season pass by and your work come to nothing. Do not put your work off till to-morrow and the day after; for a sluggish worker does not fill his barn, nor one who puts off his work: industry makes work go well, but a man who putts off work is always at hand-grips with ruin. " The Works and The Days.

[Trailscout]

Kirk, the young man that Hesiod counseled does not seem to have stayed at home. He is on his own and that particular situation does warrant working for a little while first.

In Hesiod's day, a young man could become a good provider before his twentieth birthday. In our Western culture, try to achieve this before thirty, if you can.

A man who puts off marriage too long in the pursuit of wealth loses his chance at the greatest treasure on Earth.

[jon71]

How about recognizing that this is not a one size fits all matter. Different paths may succeed for different people based on any number of variables. The closest to a universal is that the more well informed someone is the better their chances of things going well.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Kirk, the young man that Hesiod counseled does not seem to have stayed at home. He is on his own and that particular situation does warrant working for a little while first.

In Hesiod's day, a young man could become a good provider before his twentieth birthday. In our Western culture, try to achieve this before thirty, if you can.

A man who puts off marriage too long in the pursuit of wealth loses his chance at the greatest treasure on Earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just being facetious. I always thought it was funny Hesiod recommends getting an ox before getting a wife.

[David77]

Unlike the past, the man and wife both work outside the home to support the family.

[hm0504]

I'm glad to see the discussion moving towards underlying reasons rather than knee-jerk legislation.

I do think that there is a deep cultural and spiritual problem here and I think NudeAl and Trailscout have made some very salient points.

One of the cultural issues that I think ultimately undermines society is the incessant need to continually be financially wealthier and wealthier. I find it fascinating how politicians, economists, and other obsess over how monetarily rich we are getting compared with our neighbours, that we must ensure we are making more money than we did last year.

Is this pointless rat-race to spend and consume more and more really so important that is vastly supercedes what should be our real goals of healthy lives and healthy relationships? I'm all for being productive, creative, and so forth, but it seems there's a certain balance missing in modern society too.

[Captain Zen]

There is one thing Canada will never have. KO.
With all the lawlessness and fun there is still something. They will never have a good neighbor.

And unless you are approached by a young girl of unknown age, ready to breed, with nature's force of lust to copulate in her eyes, just ripe for seeding, unless you have not sexperienced that, at any age, younger and older, 40- 50- 60, then stay out of judgements over such relations.
It is good for the young girl to have a mentor who is wiser and richer than most young men who have not made it yet. Instruct the teener in life and help it in all the small ways she needs. With the consent of the parents and normal involvement with interaction between all ages, races and genders. Teach them how to regain and retain level, honor and health. Teach them to find a decent man who will not posses her or tell her what to do.
Love in freedom knows no age.

[nudistmatt]

wow, I've been gone for a few months and already this is 600+ posts!

Sorry for my absence, I'll try to be more active.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91059-13442533,00.html?f=rss

Here's the true Clinton legacy as viewed by Chinese consumers. This is what he is remembered for.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91059-13442533,00.html?f=rss

Here's the true Clinton legacy as viewed by Chinese consumers. This is what he is remembered for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting that people consider having an affair with an intern to be such a big sin, yet at the same time think it is okay to go to war on false pretences. Frankly, I consider Bush's war to be more of a problem. Going to war on false premises is wrong in my opinion and a far bigger sin. I do not interpret Jesus' teachings to include declaring war......and Bush is supposed to be Christian.

To go back to the topic of the thread, this is one reason why others "blast the US"

[jon71]

Amen to that still-Boreas. How much better off would we be if Bush was too busy getting tail to send close to 2000 Americans to die for nothing. Incidentally I do not consider Bush to be a Christian. He is a fundamentalist and they are mutually exclusive.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Amen to that still-Boreas. How much better off would we be if Bush was too busy getting tail to send close to 2000 Americans to die for nothing. Incidentally I do not consider Bush to be a Christian. He is a fundamentalist and they are mutually exclusive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now there is a picture! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I do agree with you.

My church taught me very different values. Not to mention, I am a woolly thinking, left leaning social worker!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Captain Zen]

It always makes me laugh when I see things like this:
US tells China to use power responsibly
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1147355
Noting rising protectionist pressures in America fueled by a huge trade deficit with China, Zoellick said Beijing "cannot take access to the U.S. market for granted."

The US, a young inexperienced cowboy force wielding nation telling a civilisation of millenia, many times its size, what to do!

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91059-13442533,00.html?f=rss

Here's the true Clinton legacy as viewed by Chinese consumers. This is what he is remembered for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting that people consider having an affair with an intern to be such a big sin, yet at the same time think it is okay to go to war on false pretences. Frankly, I consider Bush's war to be more of a problem. Going to war on false premises is wrong in my opinion and a far bigger sin. I do not interpret Jesus' teachings to include declaring war......and Bush is supposed to be Christian.

To go back to the topic of the thread, this is one reason why others "blast the US" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think most intelligent people would realize the Chinese manufacturer choosing to name the new condom brands after Clinton and Lewinsky is just clever marketing, not some political statement. From the same web page, here's a related story about just how hard it is to get Chinese workaholics thinking about sex:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91059-13443883,00.html

[Captain Zen]

http://www.michaelparenti.org/HiddenHolocaust.html

When compared to other nations, we discover we are not as Number One-ish as we might think. The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than in thirteen other countries. And in life expectancy, 20-year-old U.S. males rank thirty-sixth among the world's nations, and 20-year-old females are twenty-first. The additional tragedy of these statistics is that most of the casualties are not inevitable products of the human condition, but are due mostly to the social and material conditions created by our profits-before-people corporate system.

I take this report with a few grains of salt, think numbers may be exagerated, anybody can comment???

[Captain Zen]

The USA is a country with rich people and beggars. The rich exploit and the poor must beg them for hand outs. Under beautiful names like charity, grants, donors and whatever, I found out that there are foundations and organisations to help a beggar how to beg, how to ask for a hand out, they call it "proposal writing", there are schools and seminars for beggars, but you must pay to learn how to beg, see:
http://www.fdncenter.org/marketplace/catalog/product_tr....jhtml?id=prod590006 (http://www.fdncenter.org/marketplace/catalog/product_training.jhtml?id=prod590006)

Proposal Writing Seminar in Orlando Oct 14

Foundation Center <FCM@email.fdncenter.org> to MARKETPLACE

A strong proposal can spell success.
Space is limited—register today!
Get the grantmakers' perspective on successful proposals, plus the latest techniques from experts in the field. Learn proposal writing fundamentals with our popular Proposal Writing Seminar. Based on our best-selling book, this full-day course has helped more than 26,000 grantseekers build, strengthen, and polish their proposal writing skills. It can help you as well! Coached by professionals who have built their careers on writing successful grant proposals, this course will benefit everyone on your fundraising team.

SPECIAL OFFER:

[Captain Zen]

I find it an disgusting immoral system and much prefer the social system of Europe where nobody can earn much too much because he has to pay tax and that money goes to help the poor.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">nobody can earn much too much </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What a curious phrase!

[Captain Zen]

Whatever money you earned and then put in a bank or a hole in the ground that goes not back to circulate in society is too much.

[missouriboy]

Well, I was wondering who gets to decide how much is "too much." By that definition, then, savings are disallowed, right? What is the time frame for spending it all, as in, "Is it OK to have any left over when you get your next paycheck?"

[Captain Zen]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10459.htm

Who Did You Torture During The War, Daddy?

Or, We Are All Torturers Now

By Ted Rall

09/29/05 "ICH" -- -- NEW YORK--Never miss the Saturday paper. Because it's the skimpiest and least-circulated edition of the week, it's the venue of choice for lowballing the stories the government can't completely cover up. September 24's New York Times, for example, contained the bombshell revelation that the U.S. government continues to torture innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

An army captain and two sergeants from the elite 82nd Airborne Division confirm previous reports that Bagram and other concentration camps in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan are a kind of Torture University where American troops are taught how to abuse prisoners who have neither been charged with nor found guilty of any crime. "The soldiers told Human Rights Watch that while they were serving in Afghanistan," reports The Times, "they learned the stress techniques [sic] from watching Central Intelligence Agency operatives interrogating prisoners." Veterans who served as prison guards in Afghanistan went on to apply their newfound knowledge at Abu Ghraib and other facilities in U.S.-occupied Iraq.

[hm0504]

UK claims Iran supplying IED weapons to anti-British Shia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4314186.stm

Also saw this very good article by Gwyn Dyer a while ago about the upcoming war with Iran:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/08/08/opinion/commentary/8705200005.txt

[hm0504]

Here's an article from Defense News that echoes many of my thoughts about the Iraq war...
"Undeclared Iraq Civil War Signals Worse to Come":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/message/60549

Basically, it looks as if the U.S. invasion of Iraq is making Iran the big winner. The U.S. will likely have good relations with the Kurds who have oil but an autonomous Kurdistan may destabilize Turkey which happens to be the only way to export the Kurd's oil.

Anyway, with Iran kicking the U.S. and UK in the shins with a mixture of political, religious, military/police infiltrations, etc., may I refer you to the prior post mentioning Dyer's article.

[hm0504]

Specialist bomb-makers targeting British troops in southern Iraq are being trained by an elite arm of Iran's armed forces, UK defence sources say:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4333246.stm

[hm0504]

"Wipe (Israel) off the map" says President of Iran:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm

Guess, now that Iran has Iraq in its pocket, it is ready to move on to another front.

[hm0504]

Prewar CIA report doubted claim that al Qaeda sought WMD in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/iraq.intel/index.html

Ooooh, five posts in a row! I think that's a personal record for me!

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Prewar CIA report doubted claim that al Qaeda sought WMD in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/iraq.intel/index.html

Ooooh, five posts in a row! I think that's a personal record for me! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right but other reports said the opposite. And we all know they were trying to acquire them. But heck I guess an intelligence agency run by the Left would ignore this report eh?


http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453686.1305555557.html

[jon71]

Are you saying that the current excuse for the war is that Saddam was guilty of wishful thinking about having w.m.d.'s.

[Naturist Mark]

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Lying with intelligence (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer8nov08,0,256814.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)
WHO IN THE White House knew about DITSUM No. 044-02 and when did they know it?

That's the newly declassified smoking-gun document, originally prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002 but ignored by President Bush. Its declassification this weekend blows another huge hole in Bush's claim that he was acting on the best intelligence available when he pitched the invasion of Iraq as a way to prevent an Al Qaeda terror attack using weapons of mass destruction. [/list]

-Mark

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Prewar CIA report doubted claim that al Qaeda sought WMD in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/iraq.intel/index.html

Ooooh, five posts in a row! I think that's a personal record for me! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right but other reports said the opposite. And we all know they were trying to acquire them. But heck I guess an intelligence agency run by the Left would ignore this report eh?


http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453686.1305555557.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I click on the link, I get a report entitled "Al Qaida acquires Russian surface-to-air missiles" and has nothing to do with Iraq. Is this the right link, KirkOntario?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
When I click on the link, I get a report entitled "Al Qaida acquires Russian surface-to-air missiles" and has nothing to do with Iraq. Is this the right link, KirkOntario? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Darn it Albinus! You aren't supposed to actually READ the links. Just take his word for it!

-Mark

[hm0504]

This post is really in reply to a conversation about the level of troop deployments in Iraq on the "CIA and Torture" topic, but I didn't want that one to go too far off course.

In that topic, I had mentioned the large number of American security contractors in Iraq (of which about 400 or so have died so far) -- a number not included in the American military casualties.

Anyway, Americans are, of course, not the only security contractors in Iraq. This UPI report puts the number at about 40,000 and suggests a pay of about $8000 per month (a tad higher than the monthly pay of a U.S. soldier (Private, Corporal, Sargeant) which is about $2000 to $3000 per month (correct me if I am wrong)). [1]

The way I figure it, Americans are spending about as much on the 40,000 private security contractors as on their 160,000 troops in Iraq.

[1] http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051107-120721-6325r

Oh yeah, the Serbian Red Berets mentioned in the story are the ones connected with war crimes against Muslims in Bosnia. What a brilliant move! Yup, that post-war Iraq planning is working out real well.

[Qikdraw]

American troops are among the worst paid out of any industrialised nation. Its a disgrace.

Neither democrats nor republicans seem to be in any rush to change that either. Its an insult to those serving our country.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
American troops are among the worst paid out of any industrialised nation. Its a disgrace.

Neither democrats nor republicans seem to be in any rush to change that either. Its an insult to those serving our country.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Really? Then why is military recruitment actually exceeding targets?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-10-military-goals_x.htm

[jon71]

Remember we are talking about one or two good months after the worst recruiting year ever. No surprise, opposition to the war is growing dramatically. One of the most conservative, hawkish Democrats in the house is now opposing the war. Military families and vets are increasingly against the war. I would strongly discourage anyone who loves America from joining the military until after the Iraq war is over.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
American troops are among the worst paid out of any industrialised nation. Its a disgrace.

Neither democrats nor republicans seem to be in any rush to change that either. Its an insult to those serving our country.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Really? Then why is military recruitment actually exceeding targets?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-10-military-goals_x.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe because they figure that the U.S. is going to be withdrawing from Iraq before they're ready to be deployed and not invading another country for a long, long time.

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
American troops are among the worst paid out of any industrialised nation. Its a disgrace.

Neither democrats nor republicans seem to be in any rush to change that either. Its an insult to those serving our country.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Really? Then why is military recruitment actually exceeding targets?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-10-military-goals_x.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither your response, nor your link, have anything to do with what I posted. So why did you post it?

Qikdraw

[jiajia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Remember we are talking about one or two good months after the worst recruiting year ever. No surprise, opposition to the war is growing dramatically. One of the most conservative, hawkish Democrats in the house is now opposing the war. Military families and vets are increasingly against the war. I would strongly discourage anyone who loves America from joining the military until after the Iraq war is over. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would strongly discourage anyone who loves America from joining the military until after the Iraq war is over. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And then join the military for... what? Social reasons?

I'm against this "war" too, but come on, why not let the military be... well, military?

[Naturist Mark]

Are you a Terrorist (http://truthout.com/docs_02/04.06D.JVB.Patriot.htm) ?

You might be if you question the policies of the government. <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>WHO'S A TERRORIST?

You think you know who the terrorists are? They are extreme fanatical Muslims from other lands, right? Think again. A terrorist could be anyone who tries to influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion, if their actions break any laws and are dangerous to human life, presumably including their own. A 1960's anti-Vietnam War protester would fit this definition.

Section 802 of the Act, borrowing from the definition of international terrorism contained in 18 USC 2331, creates the federal crime of "domestic terrorism."

Among other things, this section states that acts committed within the United States "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" can be considered acts of domestic terrorism if they "appear to be intended" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

This provision applies to United States citizens, as well as aliens.

One must ask what kind of legal standard this is. "Appear to be intended"? How does one determine that? This leaves tremendous latitude in the hands of zealots and paranoiacs. If a Senator wrote Ashcroft that he wanted documents from him, for all we know Ashcroft might think that the Senator was breaking the law and appeared to intend to influence policy.

This is not as far-fetched as you might think, given Ashcroft's interpretation of executive privilege. He appears to think (!) that any public request for information from him is an illegal incursion on his "right" to secrecy. In addition, with the Administration's views of what constitutes national security, who knows but that it even might view such a request as "dangerous to human life."

In commenting on this provision, Nancy Chang of the Center for Constitutional Rights writes: "Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that 'appear to be intended ... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.' Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience - even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent - could be construed as 'dangerous to human life' and in 'violation of the criminal laws.' Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as 'domestic terrorists.'"

Notice, further, that there is no requirement of imminent danger in this clause. In other words, you could tear down a fence, such as the protesters in Vieques, Puerto Rico did to oppose government nuclear testing there, and if somebody fell and bumped his head - or perhaps if it was only possible that someone might --, this could be grounds enough to call you a terrorist. [/list]

So if you dare to dissent, be sure you don't break or even bend any law, no matter how minor. If you jaywalk - you are a terrorist. If you litter - are a terrorist. If you run a stoplight - you are a terrorist.

-Mark

[hm0504]

Clearly, the definition of terrorism needs to be well-defined. Thank goodness the U.S. has Ann Coulter:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter070402.asp

Fortunately in my province of Ontario, we don't have such ridiculously broad definitions of who the terrorists are; we know who they are -- the optometrists!:
http://heeney.ca/news/

[hm0504]

CLEVELAND, Ohio (AP) -- Federal authorities arrested an Islamic religious leader Friday as they began the process of deporting him for his ties to terrorist groups:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/25/imam.deportation.ap/index.html

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
CLEVELAND, Ohio (AP) -- Federal authorities arrested an Islamic religious leader Friday as they began the process of deporting him for his ties to terrorist groups:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/25/imam.deportation.ap/index.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the allegations in the CNN article are correct, I have no problem with the deportation of Mr. Damra - if he truly did raise money for a known terrorist group with the knowledge that it would be used for terrorism.

Islam demands philanthropy, and many terrorist groups falsely raise money disguised as charities. Supporting a charity which we later learn was a front for funneling funds to terrorists should not be held against anyone. The same has happened to many Americans sending relief for "Irish widows and orphans", only to find that their dollars went to creating more widows and orphans. But if the article is correct Mr. Damra was preaching that terrorism was the "ONLY path to liberation" and knew exactly what he was supporting.

-Mark

[hm0504]

The Saudi Royal family funds to the hilt radical mosques around the world including some in Canada and the United States.

Where do they get the money? Apparently, according to my senior White House sources, money for Islamist extremism comes from illegal drugs (Saudi Arabia must be lush with marijuana and cocaine plants!). Of course, there are those who dare to disagree:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27327

[KirkOntario]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/051126/480/txev10211261853 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/051126/480/txev10211261853)


Love this photo of Cindy Sheehan and no one at her book signing. What if they gave an anti-war protest and no one came? LOL OOps..I think they already have.

[usuallylurk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/051126/480/txev10211261853 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/051126/480/txev10211261853)


Love this photo of Cindy Sheehan and no one at her book signing. What if they gave an anti-war protest and no one came? LOL OOps..I think they already have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ho ho ho.

Let me refresh your memory just a little bit.

New York City. Republican convention. The streets of New York.

And we don't see too many "pro-war" rallies these days, now, do we?

Congress now has the message. Does the name "Murtha" strike a bell?

[usuallylurk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:

When I click on the link, I get a report entitled "Al Qaida acquires Russian surface-to-air missiles" and has nothing to do with Iraq. Is this the right link, KirkOntario? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It probably is. Some people are still foundering under the delusion that Iraq had something to do with September 11.

Then again, there are some people who still believe that Nixon was innocent, some believe that Clinton and "Monicagate" were treasonous actions, and some believe that if you voted for Kerry, you were voting to have our soldiers killed in the field.

There are even some who still think that JFK was murdered by one man named Oswald.

Now here's a link that isn't so funny -- because it happened in my area =

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usuallylurk:Then again, there are some people who still believe that Nixon was innocent, some believe that Clinton and "Monicagate" were treasonous actions, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall any extreme characterizations of Bill Clinton's crimes -for which he plea bargained a disbarrment for 5 years --as 'treasonous'. That sort of language we heard applied to the unindicted Karl Rove on the non-crime Plamegate affair that pretty much fizzled.