Canadian speaks out about Iraq

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
I would be interested in a Canadians opinion about Hockey, Hunting Baby Fur Seals and Beer but on the issue of Iraq I could give a fsck what he has to say!
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,543
4,969
126
Another Canadian speaks out about Iraq: the guy from the link is wrong. ;)
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
heard that a guy in Mongolia was pro-Iraq war, too.
Do you have a link to that information or did you just pull it out of one of Red Dawn's posts.


Another Canadian speaks out about Iraq: the guy from the link is wrong.
And just how was he wrong? Did you read it all?

Bleep
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Bleep
heard that a guy in Mongolia was pro-Iraq war, too.
Do you have a link to that information or did you just pull it out of one of Red Dawn's posts.


Another Canadian speaks out about Iraq: the guy from the link is wrong.
And just how was he wrong? Did you read it all?

Bleep
Tell me you Corn Husking Homo, where did I ever post about a Mongolian, nevermind about his view regarding Iraq?
 

PaperclipGod

Banned
Apr 7, 2003
2,021
0
0
I thought it was a decent speech... until i got to the last paragraph:

I am not here as an unconditional friend of the American government. I am grateful to the governments of Jean Chretien and Gary Doer for enforcing the laws that permit me to speak freely today in my adopted hometown of Winnipeg, Manitoba. I am a Canadian and have never been more proud of being Canadain than I am right now. But while I am not an unconditional friend of any government, I am an unconditional friend of human liberty. It was the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants. I am not a pacifist. The pacifist is the tyrant's best friend. He wishes to pacify his population. And those who say they are opposed to the violence of tyranny but would never support violence to destroy it, they becoming the unwitting dupes and ultimately a dream come true for the Tyrant. Today our neighbor the USA is the tyrant's worst nightmare. God Bless America and God bless you and the many millions of Canadians who stand beside her.
A very eloquent ending.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
I thought it was a decent speech... until i got to the last paragraph:

I am not here as an unconditional friend of the American government. I am grateful to the governments of Jean Chretien and Gary Doer for enforcing the laws that permit me to speak freely today in my adopted hometown of Winnipeg, Manitoba. I am a Canadian and have never been more proud of being Canadain than I am right now. But while I am not an unconditional friend of any government, I am an unconditional friend of human liberty. It was the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants. I am not a pacifist. The pacifist is the tyrant's best friend. He wishes to pacify his population. And those who say they are opposed to the violence of tyranny but would never support violence to destroy it, they becoming the unwitting dupes and ultimately a dream come true for the Tyrant. Today our neighbor the USA is the tyrant's worst nightmare. God Bless America and God bless you and the many millions of Canadians who stand beside her.
A very eloquent ending.
Yeah - I think that capped it off nicely :D

/me tips a :beer: northward

CkG
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I would be interested in a Canadians opinion about Hockey, Hunting Baby Fur Seals and Beer but on the issue of Iraq I could give a fsck what he has to say!

i am sure it would be different if you agreed with what he had to say.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
I thought it was a decent speech... until i got to the last paragraph:

I am not here as an unconditional friend of the American government. I am grateful to the governments of Jean Chretien and Gary Doer for enforcing the laws that permit me to speak freely today in my adopted hometown of Winnipeg, Manitoba. I am a Canadian and have never been more proud of being Canadain than I am right now. But while I am not an unconditional friend of any government, I am an unconditional friend of human liberty. It was the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants. I am not a pacifist. The pacifist is the tyrant's best friend. He wishes to pacify his population. And those who say they are opposed to the violence of tyranny but would never support violence to destroy it, they becoming the unwitting dupes and ultimately a dream come true for the Tyrant. Today our neighbor the USA is the tyrant's worst nightmare. God Bless America and God bless you and the many millions of Canadians who stand beside her.
A very eloquent ending.
Yeah - I think that capped it off nicely :D

/me tips a :beer: northward

CkG
then of course we have eloquence red dawn style....

"Tell me you Corn Husking Homo, where did I ever post about a Mongolian, nevermind about his view regarding Iraq?

"I would be interested in a Canadians opinion about Hockey, Hunting Baby Fur Seals and Beer but on the issue of Iraq I could give a fsck what he has to say!"

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I would be interested in a Canadians opinion about Hockey, Hunting Baby Fur Seals and Beer but on the issue of Iraq I could give a fsck what he has to say!
Considering our government has repeatedly asked Canada for troops and financial support . . . apparently someone cares.

It was the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants. I am not a pacifist. The pacifist is the tyrant's best friend. He wishes to pacify his population. And those who say they are opposed to the violence of tyranny but would never support violence to destroy it, they becoming the unwitting dupes and ultimately a dream come true for the Tyrant.
Total BS . . . Jefferson was more likely referencing self-determination of people to revolt against persons or governments NOT the notion of selectively spreading democracy by deposing tyrants we don't like. Only the historically ignorant reference pacifism as a tool of the tyrant. Self-interest, ignorance, and greed are often tyrant's best friends. All three often factor in the acquiescence of those that will be conquered and those that will assist the conqueror. Pacifist NEVER join the tyrant . . . the ignorant and greedy ALWAYS join the tyrant.

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."
Mohandas K. Gandhi
The world's largest democracy was liberated by the force of a nonviolent movement . . . not arms.

"Gandhi was inevitable. If humanity is to progress,
Gandhi is inescapable.
He lived, thought and acted,
inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward
a world of peace and harmony.
We may ignore Gandhi at our own risk."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Fortunately, the overwelming majority of participants (on the just side) of the Civil Rights movement chose nonviolence. On balance, I would say the pacifist won.

Pacifism != Passivism
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would be interested in a Canadians opinion about Hockey, Hunting Baby Fur Seals and Beer but on the issue of Iraq I could give a fsck what he has to say!
Considering our government has repeatedly asked Canada for troops and financial support . . . apparently someone cares.

It was the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants. I am not a pacifist. The pacifist is the tyrant's best friend. He wishes to pacify his population. And those who say they are opposed to the violence of tyranny but would never support violence to destroy it, they becoming the unwitting dupes and ultimately a dream come true for the Tyrant.
Total BS . . . Jefferson was more likely referencing self-determination of people to revolt against persons or governments NOT the notion of selectively spreading democracy by deposing tyrants we don't like. Only the historically ignorant reference pacifism as a tool of the tyrant. Self-interest, ignorance, and greed are often tyrant's best friends. All three often factor in the acquiescence of those that will be conquered and those that will assist the conqueror. Pacifist NEVER join the tyrant . . . the ignorant and greedy ALWAYS join the tyrant.

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."
Mohandas K. Gandhi
The world's largest democracy was liberated by the force of a nonviolent movement . . . not arms.

"Gandhi was inevitable. If humanity is to progress,
Gandhi is inescapable.
He lived, thought and acted,
inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward
a world of peace and harmony.
We may ignore Gandhi at our own risk."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Fortunately, the overwelming majority of participants (on the just side) of the Civil Rights movement chose nonviolence. On balance, I would say the pacifist won.

Pacifism != Passivism
So what do you think Jefferson and his unilateral action againt the barbery pirates? Europe was content to pay them off at the time.

 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
considernig they don't have the power to do anything but scream and shout, who cares.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Jefferson was more likely referencing self-determination of people to revolt against persons or governments NOT the notion of selectively spreading democracy by deposing tyrants we don't like. Only the historically ignorant reference pacifism as a tool of the tyrant. Self-interest, ignorance, and greed are often tyrant's best friends. All three often factor in the acquiescence of those that will be conquered and those that will assist the conqueror. Pacifist NEVER join the tyrant . . . the ignorant and greedy ALWAYS join the tyrant.
that is interesting since the vast majority of dictatorships(including iraq) in the 20th century were born from socialist states.

Originally posted by: charrison
So what do you think Jefferson and his unilateral action againt the barbery pirates? Europe was content to pay them off at the time.
Jefferson tried to put together a coalition, the bigger states in europe were opposed but many of the smaller ones were for it(sound familiar anyone?) without the support of britain and france, a coalition did not form, so the US went with what allies it could gather and went ahead(still sound familiar anyone?)

Jefferson reasoned that paying tribute as the europeans did(they paid until 1830) would only perpetuate the problem(it seems even then america realized appeasment never works)


Jefferson caught a lot of flak from europe and his political enemies at home, even from members of his cabinet(again a familiar ring) particularly after the capture of the philidelphia. but stayed the course and saw things through.

it seems G.W. is carrying on a fine tradition.



 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
that is interesting since the vast majority of dictatorships(including iraq) in the 20th century were born from socialist states.
List the 50.49% of dictatorships (which I assume you consider a vast majority) during the 20th century and the preceding socialist state.

Jefferson reasoned that paying tribute as the europeans did(they paid until 1830) would only perpetuate the problem(it seems even then america realized appeasment never works)
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan . . .

it seems G.W. is carrying on a fine tradition.
I would wager GWBush couldn't detail two policies of Jefferson without a three-day tutorial, Cliff Notes, and a teleprompter. Even Jefferson's flawed policies have more merit than anything Bush has mustered thus far.



 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
List the 50.49% of dictatorships (which I assume you consider a vast majority) during the 20th century and the preceding socialist state.

the USSR (the union of soviet socialist republics), nazi germany(natzional sozialeste translated= national socialist) germany, spain under franco, vichy france, italy under mussolini, china, north korea, cuba, baath socialist syria, baath socialist iraq etc...etc...etc...there are plenty more. communism differs from socialism only in implementation.

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan . . .
interesting, how would our relations with those countries fall under the heading of "appeasment"? what concessions are we buying them off with?


Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc I would wager GWBush couldn't detail two policies of Jefferson without a three-day tutorial, Cliff Notes, and a teleprompter. Even Jefferson's flawed policies have more merit than anything Bush has mustered thus far.

jefferson's policies worked while the europeans kept paying tribute almost 20 years after he accomplished what he set out to do, where is the "flaw" in that on Jefferson's part?

if you were smarter than GWB is, you would be president and he would spend his time posting on messageboards. the george bush i watched beat al gore in all three presidential debates seemed more than somewhat clever without a teleprompter.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,543
4,969
126
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
List the 50.49% of dictatorships (which I assume you consider a vast majority) during the 20th century and the preceding socialist state.

the USSR (the union of soviet socialist republics), nazi germany(natzional sozialeste translated= national socialist) germany, spain under franco, vichy france, italy under mussolini, china, north korea, cuba, baath socialist syria, baath socialist iraq etc...etc...etc...there are plenty more. communism differs from socialism only in implementation.

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan . . .
interesting, how would our relations with those countries fall under the heading of "appeasment"? what concessions are we buying them off with?


Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc I would wager GWBush couldn't detail two policies of Jefferson without a three-day tutorial, Cliff Notes, and a teleprompter. Even Jefferson's flawed policies have more merit than anything Bush has mustered thus far.

jefferson's policies worked while the europeans kept paying tribute almost 20 years after he accomplished what he set out to do, where is the "flaw" in that on Jefferson's part?

if you were smarter than GWB is, you would be president and he would spend his time posting on messageboards. the george bush i watched beat al gore in all three presidential debates seemed more than somewhat clever without a teleprompter.
Fascism is not Socialism! It is the opposite of Communism, don't get confused by the term "socialist".
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,829
548
126
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
List the 50.49% of dictatorships (which I assume you consider a vast majority) during the 20th century and the preceding socialist state.
the USSR (the union of soviet socialist republics), nazi germany(natzional sozialeste translated= national socialist) germany, spain under franco.....
Your posts are usually a joke, but this one takes the honor..... Franco overthrew the REPUBLIC leaded by Manuel Azaña..... Republic, now repeat, Republic.....

Also, can you read the part I marked in bold? Franco was completely anticommunist / antisocialist ....
In case you can't read, here it is again: Franco was completely anticommunist / antisocialist .... That is what kept him in power, as was an "allied state against communism"


Have you ever read him something written by Franco? You haven't obviously.... The perfect example ot the tool / parrot / robot that repeats what is told to say without even looking further than the name....
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I would be interested in a Canadians opinion about Hockey, Hunting Baby Fur Seals and Beer but on the issue of Iraq I could give a fsck what he has to say!

i am sure it would be different if you agreed with what he had to say.
I didn't read it as I stated I don't care what a Canadian has to say about Iraq.

BTW for the umpteenth time, when Bush said that Iraq had Stockpiles of WMDs, an active Nuclear weapons program and direct links to Al Qaeda I supported his "Excellent" adventure. Now that these seems to have been predicated on extremely dodgy Intel I believe that I along with many others were duped into supporting the invasion and occupation ot Iraq.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc List the 50.49% of dictatorships (which I assume you consider a vast majority) during the 20th century and the preceding socialist state. the USSR (the union of soviet socialist republics), nazi germany(natzional sozialeste translated= national socialist) germany, spain under franco, vichy france, italy under mussolini, china, north korea, cuba, baath socialist syria, baath socialist iraq etc...etc...etc...there are plenty more. communism differs from socialism only in implementation.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan . . .
interesting, how would our relations with those countries fall under the heading of "appeasment"? what concessions are we buying them off with?
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc I would wager GWBush couldn't detail two policies of Jefferson without a three-day tutorial, Cliff Notes, and a teleprompter. Even Jefferson's flawed policies have more merit than anything Bush has mustered thus far.
jefferson's policies worked while the europeans kept paying tribute almost 20 years after he accomplished what he set out to do, where is the "flaw" in that on Jefferson's part? if you were smarter than GWB is, you would be president and he would spend his time posting on messageboards. the george bush i watched beat al gore in all three presidential debates seemed more than somewhat clever without a teleprompter.
Fascism is not Socialism! It is the opposite of Communism, don't get confused by the term "socialist".
To give Shadowhawk the benefit of the doubt, he is both right and wrong here. The basic economic tenets of the theory of fascism could be described as socialist in nature.
However, it would be ludicrous to describe Fascism as socialism in fact because Fascism was famously without a fully coherent theory, and famously strayed far from even that theory it had, and also because what fascism was really about, in fact, was central control by a few, whereas socialism would proscribe control by the many. For more information I would recommend the many excellent works by Stanley Payne.

This would not tend to support a theory that dictatorships stem from socialist governments.

Nazi Germany, which most would say was not fascist but a catagory in its own right, also displayed socialist tendancies. Again, though, it would be wrong to catagorise it as a socialist form of government - the original adoption of socialist in the name was nothing more than a cynical ploy to share some of the popularity of other true socialist parties at the time, just as the occasional socialist leaning policies it implemented were merely sops to the population - i wont say electorate. Again, Nazism was mainly a clothing for a regime of personal dictatorship, and most of the policies it implemented, as well as its internal structure, were more about keeping Hitler in power than anything else.

To sum up, while both these regimes exhibited socialist tendancies, and have often been cited as socialist (although mainly by those who define themselves by being 'anti-socialist') it would be no more true to call them socialist than it would be to call Ronald Reagan socialist.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY