murraysovereign Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Then send some troops to Iraq to fight. They're already busy in Afghanistan, fighting the "War on Terror" - remember that one? Just 'cause your boss decided to start up a bar fight on the side to settle an old grudge, don't expect us to drop what we're doing and dive in with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 It's cool, murray, really. It's an immoral and illegal war, and we shouldn't expect anyone else to want to be involved with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 BTW - If you define "Legal" as specifically authorized by a UN Security Council Resolution, all of our actions directed towards thwarting the slaughters in Bosnia/Kosovo were illegal. What if some renagade nation had actually sent troops into thwart the genocide in Rwanda without UN authorization? Oh the immorality that would have ensued... It's odd that "Sanctioned by the UN Security Council" is the functional equivalent of "moral" for some people. By that rationale our interventions in the Eastern Bloc were immoral. The ends being pursued and the tactics involved are what determines the morality or lack thereof in a millitary campaign, not the stamp of approval from the UN or any other authority. In fact, this especially true when considering the composition of the security council, being as China and Russia alone killed off something on the order of 60 million of their own citizens this past century. UN authorization - neccessary , perhaps. Moral - hardly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 And...Canada can just send us a check for the free security that they've been provided for the past 200 odd years and call it good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 You don't need protection from a threat that isn't there. When was the last time in the past 200 years that Canada has been attacked by any foreign power? When has Canada failed to bend over at the "suggestion" of the US gov't that they do something? Didn't Canada send thousands to die in World War II? Your "security" sounds like "protection" of the Sicilian variety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Maybe Allison doesn't mean illegal in the sense of not having UN "authorization" (whatever that is... I think the UN can only grant greater legitimacy by authorizing a military action). Maybe she means illegal in the sense of no declaration of war being made, something that's required by the Constitution. I think that's a murky, gray-area subject, since nation-states aren't what The Terrorists belong to, but certainly the Constitution does not allow for the fighting of an open-ended war with a penciled-in list of enemies and a blank check for a budget, like the good ol' GWOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 And...Canada can just send us a check for the free security that they've been provided for the past 200 odd years and call it good. Maybe time for a quick history lesson here, JayB - in that "200-odd years" you cite, the only country that has ever attacked Canada is... (insert drumroll graemlin here) ... the United States of America. For most of that 200-odd years the USA constituted the single greatest - and arguably the only - threat to Canada's security. So don't hold your breath waiting for that cheque, OK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 it's "check" you unpatriotic bastard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 No, no... a "check" is where you drive someone head-first into the boards. Or in the US context, it used to refer to mechanisms and structures in the Constitution that constrained the different branches of government, as in "checks and balances". But then, you seem to have got rid of those in recent years, haven't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Or in the US context, it used to refer to mechanisms and structures in the Constitution that constrained the different branches of government, as in "checks and balances". But then, you seem to have got rid of those in recent years, haven't you? One teaspoon conservation supreme court, a touch of john ashcroft, and a whole lotta dumbya is a winning recipe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 lets not forget that it was canadian troops that burnt down the white house in the war of 1812 we'd do it again too if you got us riled up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 not to mention the super secret plan to sink florida by having all the fat quebec tourists run to the same side of thye state at the same time and jump up and down until it capsizes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Speaking of Quebec, I do believe it was the 800lb gorilla to the south of you that captured Toronto and beseiged Montreal, only once we saw it we decided we didn't want it and stuck you with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 wouldn't it be nice if the media instead of pushing it's leftwing/rightwing agenda just brought the truth. were all fed so many lies by those with hidden political motives that who is to say what the truth about Sadaam and Bin hiding is. about WMD's the fact is Sadaam used them on his own people and if he had the opprotunity to use them on us ill bet he would Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Then send some troops to Iraq to fight. They're already busy in Afghanistan, fighting the "War on Terror" - remember that one? Just 'cause your boss decided to start up a bar fight on the side to settle an old grudge, don't expect us to drop what we're doing and dive in with you. Actually, I agree with Murray. Canada did come to help us in Afghanistan, as did the French. For that, we must not be ungreatful. The French, however, are a special case. Not content to just step aside, they actively thwarted our Iraq efforts at every turn....and NOT for moral or ultruistic reasons! Chirac had some serious $$$$$(Francs, Euro's, Dinars don't appear on my keyboard) going on with his good buddy Saddam. And in case you haven't noticed, Chirac is trying to set himself and France up as the leaders of the new European Union. But to Canada, I DO believe our nation owes a thankyou re their help fighting The War on Terror. ....and you Canuks have some mighty good snipers too! Including a confirmed killed AQ member from over 4000 meters! Nice shooting!! I guess he got a little carried away by Canadian standards and actually posed for a photo with the deceased. Got sent home for that one...not very civilized! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 the following article is the kind of news fairweather does not want you to see because it shows we shouldn't be over there: Poll reveals hostility to US and support for rebel cleric By Anne Penketh Diplomatic Editor 17 June 2004 The Bush administration's last remaining justification for the invasion of Iraq has been demolished by a private poll revealing that only 2 per cent of Iraqis regard the occupying forces as liberators. The poll results are devastating for both President George Bush and Tony Blair, who are fond of saying that future generations of Iraqis will thank them for liberating their country. Tony Blair has consistently said that history will prove him right for engineering the downfall of a cruel tyrant, even if weapons of mass destruction were not found. [..] http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=532337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 18, 2004 Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 It's cool, murray, really. It's an immoral and illegal war, and we shouldn't expect anyone else to want to be involved with it. YOU! Get out of the gene pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 18, 2004 Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 lets not forget that it was canadian troops that burnt down the white house in the war of 1812 we'd do it again too if you got us riled up Tell you what. Why don't you send some Canadian hockey player/logger/redneck down here to represent for you. I'll break his fucking neck, and then you can all sit down and be humble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 18, 2004 Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 Well then if only 2% of the Iraqis want us there we should subjugate the little bitches instead of making nice to them. Take off the gloves so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 lets not forget that it was canadian troops that burnt down the white house in the war of 1812 we'd do it again too if you got us riled up Tell you what. Why don't you send some Canadian hockey player/logger/redneck down here to represent for you. I'll break his fucking neck, and then you can all sit down and be humble. suuuuuuuuuuure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 18, 2004 Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 Bring it tweak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjd Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Fuck Canada! Invade Canada! http://www.moviesounds.com/sp/joinarmy.wav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 And the reason that no one has attacked Canada in the last XXX years may have something to do with the said nation being in close proximity to a heavily armed nation to the south and not so much to do with the mighty deterent provided by the Canadian armed forces. Maybe. Ditto for shipping lanes, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 or maybe it's to do with the fact we are nice country and well-liked by the world. no one hates us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 You have the luxury of utter irrelevance. You could declare war on all of humanity and no one would notice, much less care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.