It will be a cold day in hell when Bush, a war-criminal is considered the greatest Statesman of the world.
What do you like most about Bush?
- Thread starter Jo Canadian
- Start date
It will be a cold day in hell when Bush, a war-criminal is considered the greatest Statesman of the world.
Re: RE: What do you like most
Bless you Mrs. Rev, this has supplyed many fun visuals :twisted:
Reverend Blair said:
Bless you Mrs. Rev, this has supplyed many fun visuals :twisted:
And what are these so called duties of the Prime Ministers.
Why is our non involvement in Iraq considered cowardice. Our government considered Americas case and didnt think it was strong enough.
Why is our non involvement in BMD considered cowardice in the face of an enemy that does not use those kind of weapons.
I didn't know Rational thinking through situations is considered cowardice, or listening to the majority of the population conisdered a war crime.
We went to afghanistan because it seemed the right thing too do. We didn't go to Iraq because it didn't.
Why is trying to build our country before we help others build theirs seem so 'ick'
Why is our non involvement in Iraq considered cowardice. Our government considered Americas case and didnt think it was strong enough.
Why is our non involvement in BMD considered cowardice in the face of an enemy that does not use those kind of weapons.
I didn't know Rational thinking through situations is considered cowardice, or listening to the majority of the population conisdered a war crime.
We went to afghanistan because it seemed the right thing too do. We didn't go to Iraq because it didn't.
Why is trying to build our country before we help others build theirs seem so 'ick'
Re-iterating the Points
All very valid and, in my opinion, correct points, JomZ.
The duty of the Prime Minister is to protect the interests of Canada, first and foremost; any other country, with all due respect to international users of this Board, come after Canada, at least in terms of the responsibilities of the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, and his predecessors.
The Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien said "no" to joining the war in Iraq and the missile defence shield because (a) a majority of Canadians were, at the time, opposed to both programs, and (b) the missile defence shield, in particular, would have had facilities constructed on Canadian land wherein the Government of Canada would have had restricted or no access and authority.
In terms of Canada's interests, both endeavours were not appropriate at the time.
All very valid and, in my opinion, correct points, JomZ.
The duty of the Prime Minister is to protect the interests of Canada, first and foremost; any other country, with all due respect to international users of this Board, come after Canada, at least in terms of the responsibilities of the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, and his predecessors.
The Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien said "no" to joining the war in Iraq and the missile defence shield because (a) a majority of Canadians were, at the time, opposed to both programs, and (b) the missile defence shield, in particular, would have had facilities constructed on Canadian land wherein the Government of Canada would have had restricted or no access and authority.
In terms of Canada's interests, both endeavours were not appropriate at the time.
The guy is a walking laughing stock. He makes for a good political cartoon and is utterly pathetic.
Re: RE: What do you like most about Bush?
Duties concern national interests. Jack Granatstein can explain it to you in Mondays edition of the National post.
"Should Quebec set our foreign policy"
One point he states that Canada must work with like minded states for the protection and enhancement of democracy and freedom.
Another is to maintain unity.
Martin was initially supportive of missile defence until he saw Quebec's poll numbers. On Iraq and missile defence the poll numbers were initially supportive in English Canada. The missile defence issue was decided by a lack of leadership. Moral cowardice IMO.
Jonas writes about taking the wrong side of an issue is better than the liberals' smug form of moral cowardice masquerading as superior enlightenment.
He says that we have raised fence sitting to the level of a olympic sport. Canadians have made a virtue out of being risk-averse, non-judgmental and value-free.
JomZ said:
Duties concern national interests. Jack Granatstein can explain it to you in Mondays edition of the National post.
"Should Quebec set our foreign policy"
One point he states that Canada must work with like minded states for the protection and enhancement of democracy and freedom.
Another is to maintain unity.
Martin was initially supportive of missile defence until he saw Quebec's poll numbers. On Iraq and missile defence the poll numbers were initially supportive in English Canada. The missile defence issue was decided by a lack of leadership. Moral cowardice IMO.
Jonas writes about taking the wrong side of an issue is better than the liberals' smug form of moral cowardice masquerading as superior enlightenment.
He says that we have raised fence sitting to the level of a olympic sport. Canadians have made a virtue out of being risk-averse, non-judgmental and value-free.
That is complete BullS#it. Taking an unpopular and irrational stance is not better then considering your options. Its not like we are doing nothing to help fight the war on terrorism, we just did not take on these two programs because they were not deemed unfeasible and unnecessary.
We went to Afghanistan, we have enacted anti-terrorism laws (which are not that popular, but are deemed necessary), and are working closely with Homeland security to root out these terrorist cells.
The duties of the Prime Minister is to administer and govern based on the general public opinion on issues.
Yes Quebec was the highest opposition to missile defense but so was Ontario and B.C. THe strongest supporters of the program come from Newfoundland and Alberta.
Yes Quebec was also one of the highest oppositions against the war in Iraq but so were most of the provinces by 2/3s (except Alberta and to a lesser extent Saskatchewan)
Why is considering the options and taking into account the popular opinion on these issues a form of moral cowardice. We do not claim to be morally enlightened and superior. We just are more rational when it comes to taking on these undertakings and are more considerate of our electorate.
If America wants to build missle silos or invade which ever country they deem fit, then that is their perogative. Canada does not have too follow along like a kid brother.
PS. The national post is conservative biased so I dont consider there arguments relavent if they have taken a specific side, if it were in the Globe and Mail maybe.
We went to Afghanistan, we have enacted anti-terrorism laws (which are not that popular, but are deemed necessary), and are working closely with Homeland security to root out these terrorist cells.
The duties of the Prime Minister is to administer and govern based on the general public opinion on issues.
Yes Quebec was the highest opposition to missile defense but so was Ontario and B.C. THe strongest supporters of the program come from Newfoundland and Alberta.
Yes Quebec was also one of the highest oppositions against the war in Iraq but so were most of the provinces by 2/3s (except Alberta and to a lesser extent Saskatchewan)
Why is considering the options and taking into account the popular opinion on these issues a form of moral cowardice. We do not claim to be morally enlightened and superior. We just are more rational when it comes to taking on these undertakings and are more considerate of our electorate.
If America wants to build missle silos or invade which ever country they deem fit, then that is their perogative. Canada does not have too follow along like a kid brother.
PS. The national post is conservative biased so I dont consider there arguments relavent if they have taken a specific side, if it were in the Globe and Mail maybe.
Well JomZ you are right to ask, " Why is considering the options and taking into account the popular opinion on these issues a form of moral cowardice. " ??
You're right to bring up that point.
It is good to take into account all of the options
and take into account public opinion.
But at the time I think Bush was caught up in the
fervor of rejecting what he called shallow arguments.
In fact opposition to the war really did not gain
ground because of how it went about arguing its case
unfortunately. I wish the wiser ones who opposed
the war were able to drown out all of the dumber
ones making statements.
And Bush was caught up in the fervor of believing that
the status quo of Saddam in the Middle East
was only going to ferment more and more harm.
I only wished, to the consternation of my conservative
friends, that he had actually looked deeper into what
Senator Biden (Democrat senator from Delaware)
and John McCain (Republican senator from Arizona)
had said about the AFTERMATH of toppling Saddam.
You're right to bring up that point.
It is good to take into account all of the options
and take into account public opinion.
But at the time I think Bush was caught up in the
fervor of rejecting what he called shallow arguments.
In fact opposition to the war really did not gain
ground because of how it went about arguing its case
unfortunately. I wish the wiser ones who opposed
the war were able to drown out all of the dumber
ones making statements.
And Bush was caught up in the fervor of believing that
the status quo of Saddam in the Middle East
was only going to ferment more and more harm.
I only wished, to the consternation of my conservative
friends, that he had actually looked deeper into what
Senator Biden (Democrat senator from Delaware)
and John McCain (Republican senator from Arizona)
had said about the AFTERMATH of toppling Saddam.
I mean its hard too see the future, expecially with the optimistic outlooks by the administration. The whole "Americans will be greeted like liberators" like they were in Holland.
Opposition has a hard time growing when a strong majority supported the war even though they didnt know exactly what they were in for. I remember the first few days of the war and there were reports that signs at the NYSE were saying those who did not support the war in Iraq were unamerican.
Its group think it happens especially in stressful and fearful times. It was only a year and a half after september 11th we were just finishing major engagements in Afghanistan and now we were going to Iraq
Canada wasn't attacked our ally was, so we were able to be more rational to the response.
Opposition has a hard time growing when a strong majority supported the war even though they didnt know exactly what they were in for. I remember the first few days of the war and there were reports that signs at the NYSE were saying those who did not support the war in Iraq were unamerican.
Its group think it happens especially in stressful and fearful times. It was only a year and a half after september 11th we were just finishing major engagements in Afghanistan and now we were going to Iraq
Canada wasn't attacked our ally was, so we were able to be more rational to the response.
JomZ
Please forgive me - I seem to be on your case today but you raise such interesting points:
You said in an earlier post:
I didn't know Rational thinking through situations is considered cowardice, or listening to the majority of the population considered a war crime.
Were you referring to Canada's decision to forego any joint effort to invade Iraq with the American military?
That is Canada's right to choose - you were not attacked - and I don't hear anyone making derogatory remarks that Canadians should have stood by the U.S. military.
You also wrote:
If America wants to build missle silos or invade which ever country they deem fit, then that is their perogative. Canada does not have too follow along like a kid brother.
I also agree - but who has ever used that term about the Canadian military? Your historical military record in Canada is superb and has been proven around the world in many encounters - especially for a nation on the downside a bit of a huge population - yet because of the large land mass people seem to believe you have a surplus of people to expend.
What I want to ask you in light of the foregoing .....
Why do Canadians always make the snide remark about the U.S. joining WWII late in 1941. They weren't attacked, they weren't part of the British Empire and therefore weren't beholden as a protector of that sovreign nation, and their military was in a mess.
But Canadians often use that remark as if it is record of cowardice against the U.S. After they were attacked, there was no holding back but as I wrote earlier many Americans joined up in Canada and England to take part before the Pacific Theater opened up into chaos.
See it works both ways.... and now I better get on topic!
What do I like most about George Bush?
(1) That he treats his wife, children and parents with love and respect;
(2) That he has cute ears! :wink:
Neither points make a good president, but we aren't stuck forever which is something I really like about the USA.
Please forgive me - I seem to be on your case today but you raise such interesting points:
You said in an earlier post:
I didn't know Rational thinking through situations is considered cowardice, or listening to the majority of the population considered a war crime.
Were you referring to Canada's decision to forego any joint effort to invade Iraq with the American military?
That is Canada's right to choose - you were not attacked - and I don't hear anyone making derogatory remarks that Canadians should have stood by the U.S. military.
You also wrote:
If America wants to build missle silos or invade which ever country they deem fit, then that is their perogative. Canada does not have too follow along like a kid brother.
I also agree - but who has ever used that term about the Canadian military? Your historical military record in Canada is superb and has been proven around the world in many encounters - especially for a nation on the downside a bit of a huge population - yet because of the large land mass people seem to believe you have a surplus of people to expend.
What I want to ask you in light of the foregoing .....
Why do Canadians always make the snide remark about the U.S. joining WWII late in 1941. They weren't attacked, they weren't part of the British Empire and therefore weren't beholden as a protector of that sovreign nation, and their military was in a mess.
But Canadians often use that remark as if it is record of cowardice against the U.S. After they were attacked, there was no holding back but as I wrote earlier many Americans joined up in Canada and England to take part before the Pacific Theater opened up into chaos.
See it works both ways.... and now I better get on topic!
What do I like most about George Bush?
(1) That he treats his wife, children and parents with love and respect;
(2) That he has cute ears! :wink:
Neither points make a good president, but we aren't stuck forever which is something I really like about the USA.
unclepercy said:
:x Aaaaaaaaalrighty then, where in my opening statement did I ask for everyone to throw insults? Don't jump the gun buddy, I said "In all fairness..." Don't get me wrong, there will be those that would throw a barb in or two (I think Rev's was my fav), I'm sure it's hard to resist, even for me. But this thread was out of curiosity in seeing what kind of good quality anyone may find from the man who is having a hard time having any qualities of a respectable sort show through.
Think of it as a challenge for some.
Jo Canadian
I guess all the Clinton issues didn't make it up far enough to the CBC or if they did, they were discarded.
After that eight years of hell with Bubba (omitting his pecadillos),
Bush was probably an over-correction.
I would have preferred Rudy Guilliani and still do.
I guess all the Clinton issues didn't make it up far enough to the CBC or if they did, they were discarded.
After that eight years of hell with Bubba (omitting his pecadillos),
Bush was probably an over-correction.
I would have preferred Rudy Guilliani and still do.
Wednesday's Child said:
ooooooooooooooo:scratch: Now where'd that come from
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :lol:
WC
I dont mind the debate, I actually enjoy the whole opposing views as long as they are rationally thought out and reasonably backed up.
1)
As for;
I was referring to the points that zoofer made above.
Which I responded with, then zoofer responded with:
I responded with the facts that it was not only in Quebec, but in Ontario and B.C as well
Zoofer did not quite say it in his first post but I inferred the recent military irritants between Canada and the U.S. were the cause behind the cowardice remarks which made me respond with the Rational thought response.
2) As for my rant about the US invading whoever they deem fit, its when I get mad at stuff like that.
3)
Its not that I am saying America was cowardly in there actions in WWII I was trying to get across that America knew it was going to have to enter the war (Beyond just mere supply shipping) but wanted to be patriotic rather then nationalistic.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm
The site states that America knew that a war in the Pacific was inevitable, and therefore a war in Europe would follow. So its a grey area especially with the unprovoked attack Roosevelt spoke of.
I dont mind the debate, I actually enjoy the whole opposing views as long as they are rationally thought out and reasonably backed up.
1)
As for;
I was referring to the points that zoofer made above.
Which I responded with, then zoofer responded with:
I responded with the facts that it was not only in Quebec, but in Ontario and B.C as well
Zoofer did not quite say it in his first post but I inferred the recent military irritants between Canada and the U.S. were the cause behind the cowardice remarks which made me respond with the Rational thought response.
2) As for my rant about the US invading whoever they deem fit, its when I get mad at stuff like that.
3)
Its not that I am saying America was cowardly in there actions in WWII I was trying to get across that America knew it was going to have to enter the war (Beyond just mere supply shipping) but wanted to be patriotic rather then nationalistic.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm
The site states that America knew that a war in the Pacific was inevitable, and therefore a war in Europe would follow. So its a grey area especially with the unprovoked attack Roosevelt spoke of.
Jo Canadian
After 9/11 and I saw how Rudy Giuliani led the nation in the sorrow for his city.....I thought: I wish he had been elected president...
I knew little about Bush except he was more stable than Clinton who was on a continual sell off of the military - a personal thing of mine because I am from a military family.
Apparently Guiliani has been approached to run in the next election but it won't happen - he has made a lot of enemies over the years. New Yorkers are inclined to be blunt I guess.
It's just a dream I know.
After 9/11 and I saw how Rudy Giuliani led the nation in the sorrow for his city.....I thought: I wish he had been elected president...
I knew little about Bush except he was more stable than Clinton who was on a continual sell off of the military - a personal thing of mine because I am from a military family.
Apparently Guiliani has been approached to run in the next election but it won't happen - he has made a lot of enemies over the years. New Yorkers are inclined to be blunt I guess.
It's just a dream I know.
JomZ
Thanks so much for answering all my questions. I'm going to have to read up on this part of U.S. history as I seem to be missing a great deal which was brought out today ....
Thanks so much for answering all my questions. I'm going to have to read up on this part of U.S. history as I seem to be missing a great deal which was brought out today ....
I like that fact that he makes a major contribution to the world of comedy and satire every time he goes off script