Toronto Freedonia's gone to war

"Immoral Combat!"

*Cues up techo beat*

 

Bush.. he's the kinda guy that you'd expect to be in the locker room slaping people with wet towels.

 

LOL!!!

Except he never took gym in school, his rich Daddy got the butler to take the classes for him!!

 

Nah... see this is how it is. Most people work towards power, or it may be awarded to them. Some, though, get it as a graduation gift.

Bush Sr: "Here you go son, the United States of America"

Bush Jr: "Can't I get canada aswell!" *pouting*

 

He'll be trying. He's coming to Ottawa May the 5th, no doubt war will be on the top of the agenda.

For all of you earlier debating the comparisons of Hitler and Saddam, I should point out that that the "axis of terror" is a historical reference to world war II. Axis The original axis of terror was Germany, Italy and Japan. The US is using the term so that people do see Saddam as a Hitler in the making.

 

Adolf; *Waves angry fist*

"Verfluchen Sie Sie Saddam! Sie habben meine Idee gestohlen! Ich werde belangen!"

Wil;

"Now now Chancellor, did Tiberius take you to court?..."

 

It's kinda sad. Sad that people think they way they think at times. However, this is a free world, and people have the basic right to think and act they way they want. They can choose what they want to do when they want. Support or oppose things that happen in the world. The joy of being a human, probably the most intelligent creture ever to walk the Earth, is the fact that the mind is so developed that we can be as individual as we wish. Even better is when we can each live in a country where we can like what we want and hate what we don't, without the fear or imprisonment, torture or death.


Go ahead.....move to Iraq, North Korea, half of Africa or a few other places and see if that'll work. Free will? Right to live? Choice? I doubt any of those phrases translate in a few languages, as they are strickly forbiden. Ask a Kurd what happened in 1992.

So think what you want. Feel what you feel. I may be too old to enlist, but I'll be the first one out there fighting and dying just so you can live free. I don't have to like what you think, but I'll die giving you the right to think it. 500,000 Americans and 39,00 Canadians died in WW2, keeping a fanatical dictator from trying to own the world. A dictator that came to power by beating up and killing all who disliked him. A dictator who sabotaged the uppers above him to come into power. A dictator who decided he alone had the right to decide who was of pure race and who was not. A dictator that discouraged free thinking and promoted censorship. A dictator that slowly started to invade and control other lands and territories. Sound familar?

Sorry for those that don't like the fact that we feel we have to stand up for those oppressed and killed these past many years. But we sort of put it on a national monument we have - "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Maybe, one day, we'll turn our backs when a ruthless killer invades a country and the country cries for help. Seems like when we help in the past, is doesn't mean **** as we end up being hated anyway. That's okay. We can deal with it. We're the USA.

And you're not.


Semper Fi. Do or die.

 

JediJeff, post proof or retract.

 

JediJeff,

FACT

116,000 Canadians have died fighting for freedom in WWI, WWII, Korea, etc... do not think we have not shed our own blood, do not think we don't give a ****.

OPINION

I might get flamed for this, but I think the ends do justify the means. This war was started for frankly illogical, corrupt and rather stupid reasons. The Bush Administration is frankly rather Nazi-esque itself. i.e. seeing the U.S. govn't already start divying up Iraq to companies is rather sick.

But IMHO, this war, while being done under false pretense, will accomplish what needs to be accomplished. The people of Iraq will be better off after Saddam is gone.

BTW JediJeff, if you still think we're ****less cowards that just mooch or whatever, I invite you to read each and every name of those 116,000 some odd men and women at Veteran's Affairs...

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=collections/books/listing

-Glenn

 

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO AN INQUISITIVE CITIZEN

www.whatreallyhappened.com

While I don't fully believe everything on the above site, it does offer a questioning viewpoint on many aspects of this war.

If others have similar sites, I'd be interested in checking them out. Post or PM me, if you'd like.

 

okay. this is a retraction of the statement i made but not the sentiment behind it.

i don't know what else to say at this point.

its not fair to the others on this board...and so it has been deleted.

however that doesn't change who i am or what i feel...
take that as you will.

-Christina

 

errr, in the effort to calm emotions, I've completely removed this post, I remain silent... :-\

 

if a phalstar remains quiet, does anyone hear his internal dialog running

 

Oviously there are going to be arguement about the war. Myself and one of my best friends always argue about the state of war..

And that took me forever to type because my cat attacked my feet.

 

Ah, lets just invite Saddam to York Central Hospital...

*Tired groan*

 

So much grief has happened in the past 2 and a half years. Ever since Bush cam einto office all he spouts out is "WAR WAR WAR!".. someone really should have just taught him the card game..

On the topic of Bush, how many years till he can get kicked out of office?

 

Elywyn,
PPOR
You posted to JediJeff to get off his soapbox of moral indigination and then promply got on the box yourself.

If you post something like "go war it's the only way" or putting down present U.S. policies because of Vietnam. Post proof of quote or show proof of the links between Vietnam war policies and present war policies or retract it.

(sorry for the edits, must learn to spell...)

 

At the same time, I would like to respond to JediJeff's post as I think it is misleading so I am going through it paragraph by paragraph. This may take several posts, please be patient.

JediJeff posts:
"Even better is when we can each live in a country where we can like what we want and hate what we don't, without the fear or imprisonment, torture or death."

If so then why are protesters being imprisoned? USA Today
Second paragraph, JediJeff posts:
"Choice? I doubt any of those phrases translate in a few languages, as they are strickly forbiden. Ask a Kurd what happened in 1992."

Then why didn't US respond when the Kurds were attacked by chemical weapons by Saddam?Kurds attacked Instead, the US continued it's foreign policy of supplying arms to Saddam. (See same link.) This war is not about the Kurdish minority in Iraq.

See next post for more...

 

Sorry to interrupt, folks. I know this is a pretty charged topic, but can we attempt to keep it civil if not friendly? For one, we are a community here. And from a practical standpoint, calling people names rarely encourages them to lend credence to the points of your argument.

Thanks,

~L

 

I agree Cristalia, no name calling.

Con't response to JediJeff's post.

Paragraph three, JediJeff posts:
" 500,000 Americans and 39,00 Canadians died in WW2, keeping a fanatical dictator from trying to own the world. A dictator that came to power by beating up and killing all who disliked him. A dictator who sabotaged the uppers above him to come into power. A dictator who decided he alone had the right to decide who was of pure race and who was not. A dictator that discouraged free thinking and promoted censorship. A dictator that slowly started to invade and control other lands and territories."

Followed by in paragraph four:
"Maybe, one day, we'll turn our backs when a ruthless killer invades a country and the country cries for help."


Actually, this is a re-write of history on your part Jeff. The US foreign policy in the first part of the century was very neutal. When Canada went to war in 1914, the US did not join. France was decimated and it remained neutral. It did not join in until three years later in 1917 after the Luisitania liner was attacked and it's personal interests were threatened.Luisitania

Further, The US ignored the cries of help from the Jews by turning boats away in 1939 even for humanitarian reasons.holocaust More information in detail can be found here. St.Louis
Again it remained neutral when Canada and other nations went to war until 1942 after it's personal interests were attacked. Pearl Harbour

See next post...

 

Con't response to JediJeff's post.

Also in paragraph four, JediJeff posts.

"Sorry for those that don't like the fact that we feel we have to stand up for those oppressed and killed these past many years. But we sort of put it on a national monument we have"

Then links it to this photograph monument

I find this misleading as well. In Kuwait the cause was just and in Afganistan the threat was clear. The Afganastan was given a limited amount of time to bring forth Al Qaeda members and Osama and refused causing US (with Canada) to attack.

Neither standard applies to Iraq. US is claiming it is topling an unjust regime (one it supported) and neutralizing a threat of doomsday weapons that haven't been found. They do not have UN support and did not set a clear time limit.

By doing so, what the US objectives may not be achieved. By attacking Iraq they are loosing all sympathy for what happened on 9/11. Instead, US foreign policy appears very aggressive and it may cause more terrorist attacks on US soil or cause martial law to be declared. This would restrict all the democratic American freedoms you hold dear. US bills Further bills if becoming law, would be able to hold those it considers a threat without a lawyer, or even admiting that they are holding them. Essentially, people accused of being a national threat could just "disappear". anti-terrorism bill

Personally, I question the democracy in both US foreign policy and it's latest anti-terrorism bills. It is possible to be pro-American or pro-democratic and all the political freedom they stand for and not be pro-war.

 

I've said it before. I'll say it again.

The reason why I cannot support this illegal action on the part of the US is that they are being hypocritical and saying two different things at once.

All last Fall the argument from the US was: Iraq must disarm. Iraq is not being truthful on what weapons they have. Iraq has ignored UN legislations since 1992 to disarm. Iraq is not destroying the weapons as quickly as they can or should. Etc. etc etc.

Now on any of those points I can agree with the US, even if I thought they were pushing the agenda faster than the rest of world wanted.

But what did Dubya do a few weeks ago? He did not give Iraq an ultimatum to disarm. No, he gave Saddam an ultimatum to leave. The US/UK troops that are in the country right now are not finding / removing / destroying so-called "weapons of mass destruction". They are going in with the single intent to remove Saddam from government and place a US puppet regime in his place.

That is the illegal action. It breaks the entire charter of the United Nations to respect the sovereignity of nation states. What if Bush decides he doesn't like the way Canada is run, with all those MPs and such? Will he invade us next?

The precedent that is being set by this action is frightening. The arrogance of the current US government towards the rest of the world is astonishing. As long as that kind of overt political power continues to act unchecked, the world is a far more dangerous place than the kind this action is supposed to be protecting us from.

 

Responses:

But before I start - In no way, shape or form did I intend to offend a single person on this forum, or anywhere in Canada. Not at all. If any of you were offended by my post, please except my sincere apology.

Now - responses. Phalstar - at no point in my post did I call anyone a coward. I simply stated that people in most free countries have the right to support or oppose things. And these rights do not exist in Iraq or other dictator countries. It is the very nature of these countries that free thought is surpressed. I made a direct reference to the many Canadian citizens that gave their lives to stop a beast in Europe, for I thank them like I thank my vets. I can live free and say what I want because so many men and women I never knew died for the future, not the present. I help a vet whenever I can, and I hope you all do as well.

And to Shmi - 1) Why are protestors being imprisoned? For the simple law breaking. The First Amendment says (and I am only stating it here just in case you do not know. If you know, I'm not being a smart ass) that Americans have the right to peacefully assemble. What the protestors did was disrupt traffic, and that is not a peaceful assembly. The day after they did that here in Chicago, the anti-war group held another rally, and they followed the route they were instructed to follow, without messing up traffic. No arrests. 2) - Kurds attacked. One simple question, Shmi - should we sit back and continue to let him kill people? Maybe we waited too long, but we now understand it has to stop. 3) - What rewrite? To be honest, that statement was a little backhanded slap at the French, who hate the US at every turn. But yeah, our policy was stand offish. Until a country asked for help, we did not give it. But the moment our interest is in jeopardy, we are Sammy on the spot. And yes, we turned away the boat, as did Canada. Why did the countries turn away those 939? Who knows. 4) - WWII. Here's our timeline (somewhat) in regards to that war. <opinion>I guess we were wrong for being neutral then, and now that we AREN'T being neutral, we are wrong again.</opinion> 5) You said "I find this misleading as well. In Kuwait the cause was just and in Afganistan the threat was clear. The Afganastan was given a limited amount of time to bring forth Al Qaeda members and Osama and refused causing US (with Canada) to attack. Neither standard applies to Iraq. US is claiming it is topling an unjust regime (one it supported) and neutralizing a threat of doomsday weapons that haven't been found. They do not have UN support and did not set a clear time limit." Time limit? How about 12 years of failing to follow UN resolutions? You can see many in there they did not follow. 6) Freedom of Speech. Let's face it - the Constitution is 200+ years old (1787, off the top of my head). Technology has changed to the point that those freedoms and liberties need to be changed. I believe it, and I don't have an issue of Big Brother watching me if it keeps me safe. Those opposed have something to hide, IMO. And to be nice, I will no insert my rant on the ACLU here. Trust me, you don't want to here it. 7) People just disappearing. That, Shmi, is just an over exaggeration of the law made by you and others. You cannot make a staement like that.

More later.

Woofer - puppet regime? Did we not remove the ruling party of Afghanistan just a short time ago? And how was the new leader put in power? Not by us, but by a free election. No puppets there, and none in Iraq.

Back to our regularily scheduled program.

I hope I gave some proof and backing to what I feel and say. My email address in in my user account. I will not flame if you don't flame, and I am willing to hear your side if you are willing to hear mine. In the end, we may agree to disagree. But that is the grea

 

Ok everyone, time to take a deep breath.....
with that said everyone has a right to their
opinion. Let us try and be civil to each other here please.

 

Darn. And I was just going to post that Jeff should come up to Canada instead so that we could buy him a real beer.