Nov. 19 - Add another phrase to our growing list of notable quotes! I might also add that the cowards blathered on and on but when it came to a vote, that being in favour of the immediate pullout from Iraq,
in the U.S. House of Representatives.
How inept are the Democrats? Their catcalls and a near fistfight resulted in such an uproar that the remarks that occasioned the response got more coverage than they might have otherwise:
Hmm, who's pathetic: the one who's bluffing and or the guy who the temerity to raise and call? If you don't even have a pair ...
Great move by the GOP. Putting withdrawal from Iraq to a vote before the Fall recess is similar to last year's move to force the question on re-instating the draft to a vote and, as with the draft, the overwhelming numbers opposing such a measure damaged the Democrats. I find it humourous that Rep. Pelosi complained there was no time for a debate -- what else has she and other Democrats been doing these past years? The biggest mistake any political party can make is to continually underestimate the intelligence of the electorate, and the dislike many believe the Democrats harbour for the U.S.A. is turning on itself and I doubt I'm the only one wondering if the Dems have so pervasive a death wish that they're determined to destroy themselves.
Yes, I am in a major "Take off the farking gloves already" mood today (and this is from someone who doesn't like voting Republican any more than she likes voting Democrat.) I want to extend my personal gratitude to Democrats [sarcasm alert] for doing their utmost to reduce the U.S.A. to a one-party state. I've witnessed first-hand up here how that turns out, and I really don't recommend it. But as long as the Democrats are determined to be irrelevant and limit themselves to posturing I'll be voting GOP. Damn you donkeys! What part of "elephants never forget" don't you understand? Yes, some stayed locked in a 60's mindset, but others grew up and a new generation is grimly aware that their future and lives depend on how Iraq plays out. They are chosing kick-ass over a chorus of Kumbaya, and they will be voting in coming elections.
Grr. The one number that eludes the angst-driven "2000 service personnel killed" folks (led by most of the MSM) are the number of Iraqis who have been killed, and that far outnumbers U.S. deaths. We are not the prime target and we are not enduring the largest number of deaths. The courageous Iraqis who volunteered to join the police, army and security forces (plus those who simply go to mosques and markets) are the primary targets and have the larger number of casualties.
Are there really those who wish to cut and run, leaving those valiant Iraqis at the mercy of the vengeful? I hope I speak for more than myself when I say that there is no way on this earth that I can allow us to betray them - and the people of our military and those of our coalition allies - by cutting and running.
Shiites were a target under Saddam's rule (as were Kurds and other ehnic minorities in Iraq) and they are a target now as Sunni insurgents - aided by al Qaeda - attempt to re-establish rule. The difference now is that Shiites and Kurds have a chance to live and prosper because we took Saddam down and - this is truly wondrous as well as being the best hope for the Mid-east as a whole - they are willing to share power with the Sunnis, something the Sunnis never contemplated when they - the minority in Iraq - enjoyed privileged status under Saddam.
To put it bluntly, when Old Europe erupts in flames (again) we just might respond by buying marshmallows.
A similar disillusion after WWI led to renewed isolationist sentiments in the U.S. and kept us out of WWII until the bombing of Pearl Harbour (and the breakdown of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, which reversed the position of the U.S. Communist Party and saw them agitating for a pro-war sentiment.) "Don't count us out" has a grim corollary: "Don't assume you can count us in." I don't see Americans rallying to defend Old Europe unless the United Kingdom exerts considerable pressure on us (and they alone have any credibility) but what I can't predict is how much Americans are connecting Canada to Old Europe. Certainly Chretien's membership in the Axis of Weasels is something that Americans will long remember, and hopes that Paul Martin might be able to remove that stigma have faded.
Canadians who assume that the U.S.A. will rush to defend Canada might do well to wonder how long it will take us to rush. The debate in the Senate and the House of Representatives may well be extensive and thorough, and the temptation to refer the issue to the U.N. will certainly be popular among some people.
Americans have had four years to assess who are our friends, enemies, and opportunist allies. People who fret about the CIA and conspiracy agendas are missing the real power: We, the People, of these United States. We expect considerably less from our politicans than we do from ourselves, and we can be formidable indeed when angered. We pay our diplomats to be diplomatic so that we simple folk need not be so, but when we decide that "enough is enough" our politicans listen or are replaced. Thus far most Americans are dismissive of much of the Old European and Canadian silliness, but that can turn into fury on a dime and believe me when I say that you won't like us when we're angry.
That brings us to the real question that has been looming larger and larger: why we would expend the blood of America's sons and daughters when some, i.e., Old Europeans and Canadians, won't let their little darlings be placed in harm's way. The answer is pure Darwinism and only Christian compassion can counter it. But then we Americans do have a reputation for being practical, you know?
1
No way on earth do I want me or any other Americans to end up with a tombstone that says or implies "died for france".
Canada? - Mixed emotions there. Fair number of good people there and so I hear, and maybe more importantly good fishing. I'd hate to be the president with a missile coming into Ottowa:
General: Cheyenne says there's a missile coming into Ottowa.
President: Well, Martin says we have to consult him before we violate his airspace - anybody got a phone book?
Tho more likely:
President: Screw that twit Martin, shoot the thing down.
Most likely tho is the president has already said "screw that twit" and the military would shoot it down without any concern over what Martin thinks.
Which of course would result in Martin raising holy hell over our invading Canadian airspace.
Posted by: Jay at November 19, 2005 02:22 PM (PIbeE)
2
The vote last nite exposed the Dems, great.
Posted by: Dex at November 19, 2005 04:23 PM (kO17P)
3
"People who fret about the CIA and conspiracy agendas are missing the real power: We, the People, of these United States. ...when we decide that 'enough is enough' our politicans listen or are replaced."
Recent polls show that most Americans do not trust Bush and think the Iraq invasion was a mistake. So, yes, it looks like they have just about decided that "enough is enough", and are ready to join the majorities in Canada, France, etc. I respect your fierce patriotism, Debbye, but most of your compatriots do not agree with you. Americans don't like having the wool pulled over their eyes, and when they realize they've been fooled, they get fighting mad. (Admittedly, being in the majority doesn't prove that one is right.)
Posted by: mijnheer at November 20, 2005 04:33 PM (QKBqr)
4
Mijnheer, the "Bush Lied!" meme is itself The Big Lie: repeat it often enough, and people believe it. You're exactly right to note that that doesn't mean they're right, because they're not.
Posted by: Dave J at November 21, 2005 12:22 AM (8XpMm)
5
Debby, It sounds like you see the Democratic party as the joke I see it as too. It isn't I am a big fan of the war in Iraq. I am not, but it wasn't for the typical reasons that the anti-war and 60's hippy types would propose. I was against going in there when there was no way in hell anyone was going to make that country work without an authortarian leader. Since I would really object to Bush putting his own dictator in there, I saw this war as a good opportunity to straighten out one jerk in power, and serve as an example to the rest of em. That it was...look at how Quaddafi took note and coughed up his WMD's.
No, I was not against taking out Iraq's Baath party in principle, it just was that there is no way to do what Bush was trying to do. He didn't realize just how hard a task he set for himself.
This war is a mess, but I am at least behind the US trying to do what they said they would do. AS a Canadian, I respect that. I respect the position of Dubya a hell of lot more than that of Chretien or Martin. Chretien didn't want to be involved because he would sell our sovereignity to the UN and HAS. If the UN gave a green light to this war, he would be in it. He had no thoughts of doing anything else because he felt that is what the polls stated. Don't have any balls or real thoughts Jean. Martin would have put is in the war, but wont admit it for love or god now.... Martin is a hypocrite..and a fair weather friend.
The US is the best friend Canada has, even though they don't always show it. It would be about time Canada showed a little class and approached the Americans as a neighbour who has his own mind. Our nations may not agree on the Iraq war but if a PM said " We disagreed on the war, but I wish the US well in trying to bring democracy to Iraq" Say something more than "give us our tariff money back you war grubbing bastards!"
Posted by: Mark at November 21, 2005 04:45 AM (asz3M)
6
The WMD lie argument is such a dead horse, yet the meek and the weak just keep flogging it, because they have nothing of any real truth to use.
It is the very effective ploy of the left to keep repeating a lie until that lie begins to gain followers and gets accepted as true by the meek and the weak.
That same ploy of repetion is used to good effect here in Canada. Look at how effective the daily drip by drip CBC propaganda is working at instilling fear of Harper and the CPC among the meek and weak here in Canada. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 21, 2005 10:03 AM (rmMzv)
7
First, the intelligence was there and there are clips of highly respected American leaders swearing to that fact on news video. Check this:
GOP.com
Secondly, you are suggesting that Saddam should have been permitted to continue gassing Kurd villages and plundering each the following day.
Third, you are suggesting the horrible behaviour of Saddam's military in the Kuwait plundering be excused.
Well, excuse me, but you are simply whipping a dead horse. TG
Do me a favour anyway...
Looking for you opinion on a couple of Wikipedia Pages. If you can spare a moment to have a look and maybe leave your impression, it would be very helpful for further edits.
BendGovt
And:
BendGovernment
TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 21, 2005 10:15 AM (rmMzv)
8
Cynthia A. McKinney - why am I not surprised. Think of Carolyn Parrish squared.
Posted by: John B at November 21, 2005 11:02 AM (ju7Wp)
9
TonyGuitar wrote:
"Third, you are suggesting the horrible behaviour of Saddam's military in the Kuwait plundering be excused."
Actually, the "looting of Kuwait" was a falsehood perpetrated by the Americans and the Kuwaiti Royal Household. If you recall, the daughter of the Ambassador lied under oath to the US Congress regarding the behavior of Iraqi Occupation Forces that were alleged to have thrown babies out of incubators at the hospital in Kuwait City. That all was a web of lies as matters turned out.
Something like the claims that Iraq had nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them so that mushroom clouds might appear over American cities.
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Posted by: Joe Green at November 22, 2005 05:08 AM (5dXW9)
10
Joe Green:
While the incubator story was planted, the Iraqis did loot Kuwait. That was evident when they cut and ran for the border and were gunned down by U.S. air power. The truck were full of looted crap.
Posted by: John B at November 22, 2005 10:41 AM (ju7Wp)
11
Debbye - I can only venture to guess that while you may be living in T.O. you aren't spending a lot of time here (or perhaps you're new) otherwise, I'd have hoped that some good old Canadian common sense would have rubbed off on you.
Regardless of your views on Iraq, the Dems, the Prez or anything else you opine about (for you are entitled to your opinion) I can't help but shake my head at your saddly typical American bluster. You lot are no more than hot air and swagger.
Your assertion that "People who fret about the CIA and conspiracy agendas are missing the real power: We, the People, of these United States," is laughable. The American people can't keep their attention on any single topic for more than the span of a CNN news report. Y'all wouldn't know what you really wanted until some one sold it to you in a 30 second spot.
You write, "Thus far most Americans are dismissive of much of the Old European and Canadian silliness, but that can turn into fury on a dime and believe me when I say that you won't like us when we're angry." But I ask you, what do we (the rest of the world) have to be afraid of? You can barely effect 'liberation' in Iraq. You're over-extended and begging the rest of the world for help. Remember not too long ago, Dr. Rice showed up with her hand out. Thankfully, our PM politely turned her down.
So tell me Debbye, with whom do you intend to express said 'anger'? Can we Canadians expect you and some greenbay packers fans at our doorsteps with your Starbucks lattes and 40 extra lbs to kick ass and take names? I would bet that if push came to shove, You, the People, of those United States, would be hard pressed to pull your fat asses off your couches, put down your McGriddles and put your money where your mouth has gone in this blog.
Posted by: Andrea at November 22, 2005 02:43 PM (OPhY1)
12
Fellow Canadians like Andrea almost make me wish I were American.
If you want to talk short attention spans, how about the drop in the Liberal polls after the Gomery report? Lasted all of, what, 72 hours? Anyone in Canada still talking about the Supreme Court decision that ruled Quebec's ban on private health insurance unconstitutional, and what it means for medicare? Which native crisis flitted in and out of the news last week, and how many more does it take before we fix the complete fucked-up fiasco that is Indian Affairs? And do you remember that Martin was, at one time, pro-Iraq war and pro-missile defence?
We have absolutely no reason to throw stones at the Americans on attention spans; they'll make a nice mess of broken glass.
The rest of your drivel's not even worth responding to.
Posted by: Ian in NS at November 22, 2005 09:31 PM (v+aYr)
13
I will remember for a very long time that I actually like McGriddles. The rest of McDonald's food sucks, but they do do breakfast well...
Debbye, 'puter probs again? Maybe a PayPal button will help us all help you to get a decent upgrade. I don't have anything that I can afford to part with right now meself, but I'd be willing to spread the word. We want more Debbye!
Posted by: Tuning Spork at November 22, 2005 11:07 PM (FqtX8)
14
I've never posted here before, but I enjoy coming over here and I enjoy the site.
I see my friend Tony Guitar posts here (a fellow vet).
I wanted to explain something to Andrea.
You know, Andrea, regretfully, a measure of what you say is true when looked at from one side.
However, there is something you need to take into consideration before you come to the kind of conclusions you've articulated above.
While Canada has been very circumspect in the use of its military, trying to marginalize participation as much as possible, America has not.
In the United States, we have had very large complements of troops in virtually every Western conflict, beginning with World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc. We've had police actions in countries all over the world.
The upshot is that we have people who have served in the military in virtually every generation, from our dying World War II vets to the people returning home from Iraq.
There are literally multi-millions of people who swell the ranks of our VFW, American Legion posts and other organizations whose members consist of former military. There are also millions of us who never bother to join such organizations, but who share the fact of military experience with the ones who have. Generally, family members are in agreement with the political positions advanced by their spouses, fathers and grandfathers who have served.
You need to understand that although it's politically incorrect and politically sensitive to say this, the fact is that many, many millions of Americans have killed combatants on the battlefield. Americans have killed enemy combatants on land, water, and air. We are not talking here about poseurs or people with affectations or useful idiots.
So we have huge numbers of people that have either served in combat or supported those who are in combat.
As a consequence, permeated through all strata and generations of Americans are people who look at American enemies with a very stern eye. The kind of qualities required to face enemies in combat can be scarring, physically, emotionally, and psychologically. However, it also creates a certain capability that is never, ever lost.
In as much as there are no generations of Americans who do not have people with this kind of outlook and capacity, we would hope that our good friends and our extended relatives in Canada would remember that these qualities are part of our burden, but also part of our ability.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas at November 23, 2005 06:30 PM (jAiAq)
15
Oh, I'm just here for the chuckles.
How can someone justify America's current "we're the only superpower left so we get to police the world however we see fit, nyah nyah" attitude by citing a long history of warmongering? The last time I checked, America didn't have a monopoly on going to war - yet you don't see us (Canada) or "old Europe" joining you in your recent invasions.
(I'm a little shaky on Canada's war history - it's really not something to be proud of - but I'm pretty sure we've fought in all those wars too, excluding Vietnam and America's most recent agressions)
Nietzsche once said "When one goes to hunt monsters, one must be careful not to become a monster." So yes, there is a burden to bear, a duty to uphold - that of showing the rest of us a just and moral path to peace. But sadly, it seems that America lacks the ability to fufill this duty. Is this how the rest of the world should expect their "leader", a "beacon of freedom" to behave? I would hope not, for the is something seriously wrong with humanity if this is "acceptable behaviour".
To date, how many WMDs have been discovered in Iraq? How many Al Queda cells have been found? Are you even sure that Al Queda had anything to do with 9/11? And, if you're not 100% sure, how can you say that killing people in another country is justified? How are you any better than them?
(notice I say "people" not "civilians" or "combatants". There's no difference. The commandment is "THOU SHALL NOT KILL." 4 words. Easy to understand. It's not "THOU SHALL NOT KILL - except in the following cases: enemy combatants, terrorists, etc." Think about this the next time Dubya mentions his spirituality, or says something about God.)
Do you remember when Colin Powell did his interview with 20/20 a few months back? And how he basically admitted that he knew his speech to the U.N. (the one where he was all like "Let's go get Iraq cause they're so evil!") was a bunch of lies?
I would bet you don't remember.
BUT - I would bet you DO remember that Bush is sending 2 (count'em - 2!) thanksgiving turkeys to Disneyland, as opposed to some local farm. I bet you DO remember the plots to last seasons "Lost", "Grey's Anatomy", "24" and "ER". I bet you DO remember who Nicole Kidman took as a date to last years Oscars. And, I bet you remember who won the last Indy 500, who lost in the last 30 superbowls, and where you were when OJ was in his white bronco. Dollars to donuts, I would bet it.
But enough of that rant.. To the question that Debby poses:
why we would expend the blood of America's sons and daughters when some, i.e., Old Europeans and Canadians, won't let their little darlings be placed in harm's way. To be quite blunt, no one is asking you to expend the blood of your son's and daughter's - personally, I feel sorry that they're growing up in an environment where a career in killing is encouraged (Hey! That kinda reminds me of a story I once heard about a group of people who convinced their young that if the died fighting the enemy they would be greeted by 70 virgins in heaven! Now ain't that crazy!) In fact, if you listened to the rest of the world for a second (instead of acting so unilaterally), you might hear us saying, "Hey America. Stop. No, seriously, please, just stop. You're acting a little rabid. Stop. Deep breaths. Do you need a time-out? Cause.. You're starting to act like you might go postal." And it worries us! It's scary as hell when the most powerful (cough*most*cough-cough*nukes*cough) country in the world is so caught up in their own rightousness that they fail to see how wrong they are.
Posted by: Ron near Guelph at November 23, 2005 11:11 PM (JK/pP)
16
"How can someone justify America's current "we're the only superpower left so we get to police the world however we see fit, nyah nyah" attitude by citing a long history of warmongering?"
When the US adopts a proactive foreign policy, we're "aggressive imperialists." When we don't, we're "reactionary isolationists." Take your pick: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
"...you don't see us (Canada) or "old Europe" joining you in your recent invasions."
InvasionS, plural? Let's see, the last invasion prior to Iraq was Afghanistan and, yes, there are Canadian troops there as well as forces from "Old Europe" (German and Dutch at the moment I'm sure of, likely others as well). You were aware of that, right? Before that, Kosovo and before that, Bosnia, both of which Europe did SUCH a damn good job of before we got involved, didn't they?
"I'm a little shaky on Canada's war history - it's really not something to be proud of"
What are you talking about? Absolutely it's something to be proud of. Canada was in charge of an entire beach during the Normandy landings, nearly on a par with the US and Britain. Canada has a noble military history, but for someone like you, who seems to regard all things military as equally base and evil, I suppose that would sound like an oxymoron.
"Are you even sure that Al Queda had anything to do with 9/11?"
Well, now there's a question that simply rules out any consideration of you as someone with whom one might have a reasoned and rational disagreement. Not only did Al-Qaeda claim responsibilty for 9/11, it bore all of their hallmarks: massive, simultaneous coordinated destruction is what they do (see, e.g., the East African embassy bombings). I was in DC that day and saw the smoke from the Pentagon with my own eyes. I probably don't even want to know who you think might have been the "real killers."
"The commandment is "THOU SHALL NOT KILL."
No, actually it's not. The literal translation from Hebrew is "Thou Shalt not MURDER." If you think all killing is morally equivalent, I'm afraid there's simply no other way to describe you than deranged.
"I would bet you DO remember [insert various trivial pop culture references]..."
What a tolerant and open-minded Canadian you are, demontrating your thoughtfulness and sophistication through crude sterotypes of stupid Americans. This is the "ignorance differential" at work yet again: most Americans may be somewhat ignorant of the rest of the world, but they at least KNOW that they're ignorant, whereas much of the rest of world is equally ignorant about the US, but seems to THINK they know everything about it from having eaten at McDonald's or seen the latest crap put out by Hollywood.
As for where I was when OJ was in his white Bronco, I was on a train from London to Edinburgh. I would guess I knew about it as quickly as I did because the Brits are really FAR more obsessed with ridiculous celebrity nonsense than are most Americans outside New York and LA.
"In fact, if you listened to the rest of the world for a second (instead of acting so unilaterally)..."
You really do live in a world where "unilaterally" means the same thing as "without the permission of France," don't you? Please tell me which countries count for the purposes of considering military action to be multilateral and which don't? I'd truly, genuinely, like to know, because so far I get the impression that the only ones that matter are those that disagree with us.
Posted by: Dave J at November 24, 2005 01:04 AM (CYpG7)
17
Dave j, Not only is your history shakey, but so is your *present*
France and other European countries held back in joining with the put-down of Saddam because of selfish commercial reasons.
France was making money hand over fist, using Iraq. They and other countries were willing to look the other way when whole villages were being gassed to death by the use of a warfare gas.
You argue by inference that we all look away and let the Kurd villages be gassed one by one? Don't forget Kuwait and Shiite killings too!
All that comment space you used up and your argument simply can not hold water at all.
Consider this..
Sunni Islamic Kingdom
In my opinion, Florida based NewsMax has some fairly wild sales and promotions qualities, yet there are also some very good news items to be found as well.
See if this short piece gives you any ideas about where
Mad fundamentalist Sunni bombers could [possibly] be coming from. Nothing concrete now. Just filling out the picture a bit. We see so little about Saudi Arabia.
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Monday, Nov. 14, 2005 9:53 a.m. EST
Saudi Teacher Jailed for Praising Jews
[Other Headlines]
@Give Thanks to Those Who Bravely Serve
@Alito Ad Flap Centers on Strip Search Ruling
@Sam Johnson Blasts Iraq War Naysayers
A teacher in Saudi Arabia was sentenced to 40 months in jail and 750 lashes for discussing the Bible and praising Jews.
Secondary school teacher Mohammed al-Harbi, who will be flogged in public, was taken to court by his colleagues and students, according to the Saudi newspaper Al-Madina.
He was charged with promoting a *dubious ideology, mocking religion, saying the Jews were right, discussing the Gospel and preventing students from leaving class to wash for prayer,* the newspaper disclosed.
Last week a U.S. State Department report criticized Saudi Arabia for its religious intolerance, saying religious freedoms *are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam.*
The report cited the plight of another teacher brought up on charges:
*During the period covered by this report, a schoolteacher was tried for apostasy, and eventually convicted in March of blasphemy; the person was given a prison sentence of three years and 300 lashes.*
An earlier report by the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom named Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest violator of religious liberties, according to the Washington Times.
In Saudi Arabia the public practice of any religion other than Islam is forbidden, only Muslims can be Saudi citizens and non-Muslims cannot enter Mecca, Islam’s holy city.
==============================
The Sunni Saudis seem to be deathly afraid of Christianity or Democracy as threats to their absolute rule.
Could the Saudis be feeding insurgent bombers to both Iraq and Lebanon, to keep the focus off Saudi Arabia?
Do you think, given their endless wealth, the Saudis may be offering bombers the promise that their family will enjoy lifetime pensions besides the usual 72 virgins?
Possible incentives?… Reasonable speculations?
NewsMax.com
TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 24, 2005 12:54 PM (rmMzv)
18
Sorry Dave. Don't be too taken aback.
It's *just here for the chuckles, Ron* who seems not to realize that the war against terrorism or to be more exact, dictatorship, is underway and it is very real. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at November 24, 2005 01:30 PM (rmMzv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
