INVASION & OCCUPATION stop calling it a war!

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: INVASION & OCCUPATION stop calling it a war!

those nations involved were COERCED....... bribed or threatened......

Yeah? Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain and Italy were never threatened by the US.

:roll: Yeah, but they also forgot to mention the Brownnosing factor. If you make friends with the guy with the big stick he might not hit you, plus you might get leftovers if you're on his good side.

good point about the brownnosing /butt licking factor... (forgot that one. :wink:

 

[no1important]

It doesn't matter if Italy is pulling its troops out next year, because even Britain is pulling its troops out next year, and so may the US.

Yes it does. Plus the US is not going to pull out next year. Britain, Italy and Spain the governments and in Spains case the previous governments went to illegally invade a sovereign nation even though the public was against it.

Why would Canada want to be apart of torture, crimes against humanity and other atrocities that America commits?

I tell ya if you thought Hitler was bad, imagine if the Bush/Cheney crime family were in charge of Nazi Germany instead of Hitler, the damage they would of caused? They would make Hitler look like a common street thug.

 

[moghrabi]

It doesn't matter if Italy is pulling its troops out next year, because even Britain is pulling its troops out next year, and so may the US.

Yes it does. Plus the US is not going to pull out next year. Britain, Italy and Spain the governments and in Spains case the previous governments went to illegally invade a sovereign nation even though the public was against it.

Why would Canada want to be apart of torture, crimes against humanity and other atrocities that America commits?

I tell ya if you thought Hitler was bad, imagine if the Bush/Cheney crime family were in charge of Nazi Germany instead of Hitler, the damage they would of caused? They would make Hitler look like a common street thug.

:thumbleft:

 

[Ocean Breeze]

It doesn't matter if Italy is pulling its troops out next year, because even Britain is pulling its troops out next year, and so may the US.

Yes it does. Plus the US is not going to pull out next year. Britain, Italy and Spain the governments and in Spains case the previous governments went to illegally invade a sovereign nation even though the public was against it.

Why would Canada want to be apart of torture, crimes against humanity and other atrocities that America commits?

I tell ya if you thought Hitler was bad, imagine if the Bush/Cheney crime family were in charge of Nazi Germany instead of Hitler, the damage they would of caused? They would make Hitler look like a common street thug.

:thumbleft:

:thumbleft:

 

[jimmoyer]

Moghrabi, Hitler would have certainly done far more damage with nuclear power and would have continued the concept of the Master Race and the Police State, and the Pogroms and the Holocaust.

Hatred of Bush Amerika is certainly within your rights and there are many arguments for it.

Imagine if Hitler had gotten the power of the nuclear bomb then?

Instead the first country who got it was one that did not wish to own Germany or own Japan.

The moral dilemna was who's lives were we going to save?

I wonder what you would have done.
And whether you've read enough the context of history in which Truman had to decide.

As a little side note, I found it quite horrifying that the gas chambers were built for the practical reason of relieving the German soldiers from the personal horror of carrying out mass executions with a machine gun.

The Russian front where mass executions and mass burials occurred was wearing down the individual German soldier and the German commanders noted this with cold calculation.

I agree with you Moghrabi that America needs to renounce torture and get back to embracing habeus corpus.

 

[moghrabi]

RE: INVASION & OCCUPATION

Thank you Jim for picking me out of all the posters to reply to. Is it a privilege? I was not the one who compared Bush to Hitler on this thread but I did agree to it.

 

[jimmoyer]

You're not the only one to whom I respond.

You know that.

 

[moghrabi]

Re: RE: INVASION & OCCUPATION stop calling it a war!

You're not the only one to whom I respond.

You know that.

What I meant Jim is you started your reply with my name. It is a direct reply to me. But that is beyond the topic.

If Bush have the freedom to erect gas chambers and use his nuclear arsenal, I don't think he will hesitate. However, the world is watching him carefully, very carefully as a matter of fact because he is showing signs of instability.

 

[jimmoyer]

Meanwhile how careful are you watching others?

By the way, the scrutiny is good.

We have a President who has had the least amount of press conferences in the history of America. I admire the question and answer period institutionalized in some parliamentary systems.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

We have a President who has had the least amount of press conferences in the history of America.

ever wonder why????

 

[jimmoyer]

No. It was never a mystery to me.

I do think that the administration actually believed in the idea that question sessions are just a puffed up press moment to feed on an important leader who had more
important things to do than answer supercillious questions from the press.

This kind of hubris puffs itself up based on the fact that most press conferences are stupid and do have stupid questions, but there is the matter of having to answer stupid questions ---- it's a part of democracy.

 

[#juan]

We have a President who has had the least amount of press conferences in the history of America.

ever wonder why????

He can't think of anything to say. Literally.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

jimmy....... (IMHO)........one of the main reasons bushiester ....does not hold press conferences is that he cannot handle on the spot questions effectively. He needs everything scripted for him.

each live question/or question period he has held .......he blew it completely. He does not think on his feet as one would expect a true leader to do.

He can't even handle a debate .......without gizmos and prompts..

the chappie has serious problems..

 

[jimmoyer]

LOL !

Hey #juan, you jumped too fast.

My post on having something to say preceded your comment.

Man, what are doing, waiting like an ambush ?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

We have a President who has had the least amount of press conferences in the history of America.

ever wonder why????

He can't think of anything to say. Literally.

:lol: :lol: :thumbleft:

 

[jimmoyer]

et tu, Ocean Breeze ?

 

[ole_tex]

Re: RE: INVASION & OCCUPATION

They are resistance fighters not insurgants, terrorists or any other fancy name the bush crime family comes up with.

Looks like youse been puttin' all thems apples in one basket. It appears that you endorse those who launch suicide attacks and purposely execute the innocent Iraqi civilians.

These so called resistance fighters of yours don't care in attacking the coalition troop enemies that they are at war with. They instead prefer to purposely target defenseless civilians. Look up the stats. and compare how many US troops have died at the hands of your resistance fighters in relation to how many innocent Iraqi civilians lives they have claimed.

If they are fighting a war with the US Troops, why do your resistance fighters prefer to instead go after the Iraqi Citizens? Cat got your tongue?

If your definition of a resistance fighter is one who purposely targets killing innocent civilians instead of their enemy, then you endorse terrorism. Just for the record, your definition of a resistance fighter is remarkably identical to my definition of a terrorist.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: INVASION & OCCUPATION

They are resistance fighters not insurgants, terrorists or any other fancy name the bush crime family comes up with.

Looks like youse been puttin' all thems apples in one basket. It appears that you endorse those who launch suicide attacks and purposely execute the innocent Iraqi civilians.

These so called resistance fighters of yours don't care in attacking the coalition troop enemies that they are at war with. They instead prefer to purposely target defenseless civilians. Look up the stats. and compare how many US troops have died at the hands of your resistance fighters in relation to how many innocent Iraqi civilians lives they have claimed.

If they are fighting a war with the US Troops, why do your resistance fighters prefer to instead go after the Iraqi Citizens? Cat got your tongue?

If your definition of a resistance fighter is one who purposely targets killing innocent civilians instead of their enemy, then you endorse terrorism. Just for the record, your definition of a resistance fighter is remarkably identical to my definition of a terrorist.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :x

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: INVASION & OCCUPATION

They wander in sometimes, Ocean. The fancy themselves to be bull riders, but I doubt they've gotten closer to a real bull than the cab of an air conditioned truck in the rodeo grounds.

 

[PoisonPete2]

Re: RE: INVASION & OCCUPATION

It appears that you endorse those who launch suicide attacks and purposely execute the innocent Iraqi civilians.

Answer - I suppose it is so much cleaner to drop 300 pound bombs from US aircraft on innocent civilians. I would think it probable that your definition of American war hero would be my defininition of 'war criminal'.