Who should America invade next?

N

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
56
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Who should America in

By American standards theoritically they should invade themselves, and throw that evil, wicked, war criminal, human rights abuser, torture loving, a man with WMD,nukes dangerous, mentally ill man out of the Whitehouse. :wink:
 
moghrabi

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Re: RE: Who should America in

no1important said:
By American standards theoritically they should invade themselves, and throw that evil, wicked, war criminal, human rights abuser, torture loving, a man with WMD,nukes dangerous, mentally ill man out of the Whitehouse. :wink:
Click to expand...

You forgot moron, stupid, idiot, dumb ass, unbalanced, cocaine-head, crook, killer, maimer, torturer............
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Let's see.......the guy that runs Syria is supporting the insurrection in Iraq, has murdered the man most responsible for rebuilding Lebanon, as well as murdered most of the opposition in his own country.

The leader of North Korea is the last Stalinist, has starved to death a good portion of his country, is an absolute murderous lunatic, and is building nuclear weapons.

The leader of Iran wants nuclear weapons so he can use them against Israel.

George W. Bush is the freely elected leader of the oldest, and greatest democracy on earth.

Naw, I think Mr. Bush is WAY down on the list of tyrants that need execution.
 
N

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
56
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Who should America in

I don't think now that the support for Iraq invasion is waning, people in America would be happy with the much higher death tolls of their armed forces personnel if the Bush Crime Family were to invade Iran or North Korea.
 
moghrabi

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
RE: Who should America in

I don't think they can invade their own backyard. They are too spread out, too weak for another war, people and nations fed up with their lies.

I think Americans should learn how to mind their own frecking business and stay out of other nations matters.
 
A

Alberta'sfinest

Electoral Member
Dec 9, 2005
217
0
16
RE: Who should America in

America is looking out for itself by invading those countries. We are in an oil crisis, and if the US doesn't control the oil by bringing into power democratic states bound by trade agreements, oil producing countries will cut oil production when it no longer suites them. This would collapse the US economy and bring down the entire western world. The only country that is exempt from this is Canada, because we have our own supplies. They made up shit to invade the region in efforts to limit this capability of countries that don't like the US. It's smart for the US, but it's unethical and shows the lengths that the US will go to just to keep the dream alive for a few more years. The US should just be cutting it's demand for oil instead, but that would mean ending the dream of cheap easy living. Blood for comfort is not ok with the international community.
 
jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Despite Canada's comfort zone on oil supplies, they'll still get hurt if the American economy tanks ibecause Middle East oil is cut. Canada will survive and so will America did just like in the Great Depression, but it won't be easy.
 
J

jjw1965

Electoral Member
Jul 8, 2005
722
0
16
Re: RE: Who should America invade next?

Colpy said:
George W. Bush is the freely elected leader of the oldest, and greatest democracy on earth.
Click to expand...

We were never meant to be a Democracy but a Republic, all the brainwashing has everyone yelling freedom and democracy, democracy is majority rule.

"Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
-Ronald Reagan-

George Orwell wrote about "meaningless words" that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like "freedom," "democracy," and "justice," Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell's view, political words are "often used in a consciously dishonest way." Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word "democracy" as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, "There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect preexisting rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word "democracy" is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders' belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
~Rep. Ron Paul~
Click to expand...
 
Ocean Breeze

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Bush defends U.S. right to launch pre-emptive attacks


Compiled by Daily Star staff
Thursday, December 15, 2005


President George W. Bush said he would pre-emptively attack another country if he deemed it necessary hoping that Thursday's parliamentary election in Iraq would put pressure on the governments of Iran and Syria.

Bush's comments came as quiet fell across most of Iraq as a draconian security lockdown and an informal cease-fire by many Sunni Arab rebels stifled all but sporadic violence.

Bush, who embraced pre-emptive war as U.S. strategy after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, did not identify any potential targets but said the Iraqi vote would put pressure on the governments of Iran and Syria.

"We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom," he said.

Iraq "will be a model for the Middle East. Freedom in Iraq will inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran," Bush said in the last in a series of four speeches in two weeks laying out his Iraq strategy.

Bush again accepted responsibility for faulty intelligence pointing to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that he used as the foundation for his decision to go to war in 2003.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I am also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities and we're doing just that," he said.

Still, "in an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long," Bush.

He called the decision to topple Saddam Hussein the right one.

"Saddam was a threat," said Bush, adding that Americans and the world are better off because he is no longer in power.

Bush hailed indications minority Sunnis were rallying to the political process and that rebels were abandoning hard-line militant groups.

Bush asked Americans to be patient and vowed not to rush to withdraw U.S. troops.

"As Sunnis join the political process, Iraqi democracy becomes more inclusive and the terrorists and Saddamists become marginalized," Bush said.

Back in Iraq, a traffic ban was in force for three days, borders were sealed and shops and businesses closed. Most Iraqis stayed at home ahead of the vote, leaving the streets to tens of thousands of police and troops on the lookout for bombers.

Violent incidents were concentrated in the north: a roadside bomb aimed at an Iraqi security patrol killed a child in Samarra, police said, a Trade Ministry employee was shot dead in the oil refining town of Baiji, and
Click to expand...


so the bloke is going to keep his "WAR" president status as it offers him (in his mind) the latitude he needs to further his own agenda. Well.......he has three yrs to carnage syria and Iran.....with the help of Israel. .....

Next to the likes of Hitler or Napolean..........has there been any leader that LOVED the WAR status as much as he does??? Or love WAR itself as much as he does.??? Gosh, war has "empowered "small brained men since civilization was "born"..

the US is just another nation in a series of many that have left disaster , death and destruction behind. .......and all for that exotic elation of POWER.
 
Ocean Breeze

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
One day before Iraq's historic parliamentary elections, US President George W. Bush defiantly defended his case for war and said he would preemptively attack another country if he deemed it necessary.

In remarks aimed at shoring up faltering US support for the conflict, Bush also accepted responsibility for relying on "wrong" intelligence about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons programs to order the March 2003 invasion.

Still, "in an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long," Bush said in the fourth and final speech in a series ahead of Thursday's elections.

The US president, who embraced preemptive war as US strategy after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, did not name any potential targets but said the vote would put pressure on the governments of Iran and Syria.

"We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom," he said. Iraq "will be a model for the Middle East. Freedom in Iraq will inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran."

Bush's job approval ratings have sunk sharply since his November 2004 reelection because of high gas prices, concerns about the economy and growing concerns about Iraq as the US death toll has risen beyond 2,140 soldiers.

The president said Sunni Arabs, who have fueled the bloody insurgency, were increasingly taking part in their country's politics after boycotting January elections and would turn out in large numbers.

Non-Iraqi extremists and Saddam loyalists "lack popular support, and over time, they can be marginalized and defeated by the security forces of a free Iraq," said Bush.

He also warned that violence would continue even after the vote, and he laid out how to measure progress toward the day when the United States can bring home its roughly 160,000 troops amid a growing chorus of calls for a withdrawal.

Bush said victory will have been achieved when extremists and Saddam loyalists are no longer a threat to Iraq's democracy, when Iraqi security forces are self-sufficient and when Iraq is not a "safe haven" for terrorists.

"These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq," said the president. "We cannot -- and will not -- leave Iraq until victory is achieved."

Bush acknowledged that the war had sharply divided the United States and that intelligence about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons programs had turned out to be false, but he sharply rebuked "irresponsible" charges that he had deliberately misled the country.

"These charges are pure politics. They hurt the morale of our troops," he declared, saying that even countries which opposed the war agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities," he said.

But US media have quoted French and German intelligence officials in recent weeks as saying that they repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, warned Washington that crucial parts of its case for war were flawed or outright false.

German intelligence officials warned their US counterparts that accounts from an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, a critical US source for charges that Iraq possessed mobile germ weapons labs, could not be confirmed and, in many cases, were deeply suspect, The Los Angeles Times reported in November.

The same daily quoted a former senior French intelligence official on Sunday as saying that Paris tried for months to warn the CIA that there was no evidence to support a US allegation that Iraq had tried to purchase nuclear weapons material in Africa.
Click to expand...

spoken like a true "dictator" ........fascist or neo fascist or???

somewhere he has lost the perspective that his job is for the US population. NOT for furthering HIS own personal agenda.--or carving his own face on history's map.
 
Karlin

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Re:Bolivia, or Canada

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2415212005
"Bolivia clashes with US over coca crops"
"this little-known Yungas region has become South America's latest drugs battlefront, bringing the United States and Bolivia on to a collision course."

The USA's War on Drugs might take the next invasion south . They could scrap with Venezuela on the way!

------

But for their money, the USA should invade Canada next.

WE have the oil, we have the trees and cows, and we are close.

It won't cost as much to transport the troops and equiptment to Canada as one of those Arab nations.
Soldiers tired from Iraq duty could almost commute to work, er, I mean war.

They could get free health care while they are occupying us.

But, alas, they will likely go for Iran. Iran is making the biggest stink.
Compared to Paul Martin's efforts to rile the Americans, Iran makes it look as though we are barely trying. Maybe Jack 'Layton will come out with something outrageous soon - where is Carolyn Parrish when we need her? ["moron!"]

I got it - Lets BAN those new Ford Everest SUV's, their biggest one yet, on the basis of global warming. We could limit engines to 100hp. That will get them coming at us!!
 
Durgan

Durgan

Durgan
Oct 19, 2005
248
0
16
Brantford, ON
www.durgan.org
Lord, Ya gotta love those Newfies!!

President George Bush was in the Oval Office wondering which country to invade next, when his telephone rang.

"Hallo, President Bush" a heavily accented voice said. "This is Archie, up 'ere at de Harp Seal Pub in Badger's Cove,
Newfoundland. Canada, eh? I am callin' to tells ya dat we are officially declaring war on you, eh!"

"Well Archie," George replied, "This is indeed important news! How big is your army?"
"Right now," said Archie, after a moment's calculation "dere's myself, me cousin Harold, me next-door-neighbor Mick, an' de whole dart team from de pub. That makes eight eh!"

George paused. "I must tell you Archie, that I have ONE MILLION men in my army waiting to move on my command."
"Holy jeez," said Archie. "I'll have ta call ya back!"

Sure enough, the next day, Archie called again. "Mr. Bush, the war is still on! We have managed to acquire some infantry equipment!"
"And what equipment would that be Archie?", George asked.
"Well sir, we have two combines, a bulldozer, 3 fishing boats, 2 harpoon boats, a trawler wit radar an' Harry's farm tractor."

President Bush sighed. "I must tell you Archie, tha t I have 6,000 tanks and 14,000 armoured personnel carriers. Also I've increased my army to one and a half million since we last spoke."
"Lord T'underin' Jaysus, by", said Archie, "I'll be getting back to ya."

Sure enough, Archie rang again the next day. "President Bush, de war is still on! We have managed to git ourselves airborne! We up an' modified Harrigan's ultra-light wit a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, an' four ol' boys from the Legion have joined us as well!"
George was silent for a minute then cleared his throat. "I must tell you Archie that I have 10,000 bombers and 20,000 fighter planes. My military complex is surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I've increased my army to TWO MILLION!" ]
"Jeysus, Mary and Joseph," said Archie, "I'll have ta call youse back."

Sure enough, Archie called again the next day. "President Bush! I am sorry to have to tell you dat we have to call off dis 'ere war."
"I'm sorry to hear that" said George. "Why the sudden change of heart?"

"Well, sir," said Archie, "we've all sat ourselves down an' had a long chat over a bunch of pints, an, come to realize dat dere's no way we can feed two million prisoners."


NEWFIE CONFIDENCE CANNOT BE SHAKEN!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom