1
   

Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:31 pm
Rick writes
Quote:
That's not the topic what I'm talking about Foxfyre - the profit of the War On Terrorism is what I mean.


Well the only monetary profits I know of are going to the contractors who are coming from just about everywhere to help rebuild--in some cases build--a working infrastructure in Iraq.

The only 'profit' from winning the war on terrorism, I believe, will be that perhaps the Netherlands and Canada will not experience a 9/11; people in Israel and the U.S. and Spain and England and Indonesia can go to sporting events and shopping malls or just drive or stroll down the street without fear of being blown to smithereens. Numerous countries will witness the monetary and aesthetic benefits of freedom and more democratic forms of government creating new, beneficial friends and trading partners in the world's community.

Utopia perhaps, but for a long time I have believed much more is possible than what we currently know and experience.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:36 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Kicky, you'd be in a better mood if you got some better reading material. Idea


You're right. I should start reading People Magazine and The National Enquirer. Then I'd be blissfully ignorant like most of the rest of America. Idea
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:37 pm
Cav wrote
Quote:
Lucky for us, most of the Russian mail-order brides end up in the States. Just when you thought the cold war was over....


Do Russian mail-order brides still dress in the drab brown dresses and clunky masculine looking shoes with captions under them "NO CHOICE" that we used to see in advertisements back in the 80's here?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:47 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Cav wrote
Quote:
Lucky for us, most of the Russian mail-order brides end up in the States. Just when you thought the cold war was over....


Do Russian mail-order brides still dress in the drab brown dresses and clunky masculine looking shoes with captions under them "NO CHOICE" that we used to see in advertisements back in the 80's here?


Not on TV. They're all sexed up and raring to go.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:48 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Virtually every nation in the world, including Canada, Germany, France, and the rest of the entire U.N., believed Saddam had WMD at the time the U.S. invaded Iraq.



Quote:
The Homefront
Although by February 2003 United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the United States continued to push for an end to Saddam Hussein's regime and lobbied other nations to join in that effort. Jean Chrétien declined to join, saying Canada would not participate in a war against Iraq without UN approval.


snip

Quote:
Chrétien gave one of his characteristic responses accompanied by one of his quintessential shrugs when asked what he meant by wanting to have "clear evidence" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven," Chrétien told reporters.


apparently we didn't get proof


the proof quote by Chretien is classic - funny, but sadly true. No proof.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 05:56 pm
I think there was proof ebeth; at least sufficient proof to convince everybody. It was common knowledge that Saddam had used WMD. Did he still have them in Iraq at the time of the invasion? That we haven't proved. But as he had stonewalled the inspectors for twelve years and had given far less than full cooperation to prove he didn't have them, I think everybody believed he still had them.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:06 pm
In a retaliatory poll 41% of American teenagers think all Canadians are GAY
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I think there was proof ebeth; at least sufficient proof to convince everybody.

We know you think so, Fox - but dont try to retroactively make it seem like the whole world did, too.

I gave you the German foreign minister explicitly saying he was not convinced. Ebeth here dug up a quote from the Canadian PM saying he wouldnt act as long as clear evidence was lacking. How can you still go on claiming that "everyone" believed Iraq still had WMD?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:08 pm
That is hilarious Craven.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:13 pm
kickycan wrote:
That is hilarious Craven.


I second that motion.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:16 pm
I know. It was a good find, good find.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:19 pm


LOL!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 06:25 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
nimh wrote:
Its not that they necessarly thought Iraq didn't have WMD - I'm sure they thought it likely. After all, we knew Iraq still had had WMD a few years before, even if most of them had been destroyed by the inspections regime. But they thought that, in order to OK war, hard evidence was needed that Iraq still had them, and refused to disarm. And the evidence Powell presented was deemed perplexingly unconvincing.

Whether you use the word believed or "thought it likely" it means pretty much the same thing to me. Tony Blair made a very compelling speech about how 9/11 changed his thoughts about how he felt about what he "believed". I'm sure you remember it. Feel free to disagree with the decisions made but I think it is disingenuous to deny others this rationale (connection between 9/11 and Iraq).

I'm not denying that the link, real or imagined, has been a rationale for Blair; its been one for Bush too. Their bad. Completely irrelevant to the argument here though.

Fox was claiming that not just B&B, but "virtually every nation in the world", including "Germany, France, and the rest of the entire U.N", "believed Saddam had WMD at the time the U.S. invaded Iraq".

At the time the U.S. invaded Iraq: she couldnt have been clearer in his assertion. "The issue then was never whether WMD existed--everybody believed they did". Now the very same assertion has been put forward here earlier by Sofia and then Tarantulas, hence my impatience. Because its plain bull. That was very much exactly the issue.

France, Germany, Canada did not want to join or OK a war that was based on a mere suspicion of what was "likely" - they wanted evidence that they could believe. I'm sure you were kidding about not seeing the difference between those two things, right? They wanted to be able to go home and tell their people that war was unavoidable and necessary, not because they had some kind of suspicion about it, but because the evidence they were shown convinced them. It didn't. Looking at the "proof" Rumsfeld and Powell brought to the table, Fischer said "I am not convinced. This is my problem and I cannot go to the public and say, well, let's go to war", because "I don't believe in that".

I mean, I'm sorry that you really believed at the time that it was absolutely proven that Saddam still had WMD. It was what your President told you. It must have been a shock to find out he was wrong. But out here, there was lots of scepticism then already. I can imagine that it's nicer to think, well, everybody believed what I believed, back then - there was no way to know better. But thats just not true.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 07:27 pm
Craven, that was flat out hilarious, eh!
(Jer, are you sure it's eh! not eh? ?)

Actually Nimh, I'm as guilty as the others you mentioned of saying things like "everybody thought he had them". And by your definition I was indeed mistaken. I don't like your definition of "thought" and I think you're missing the context. In my opinion, you are missing the not so fine line between "thought he had them" and "knew he had them". Considering he (1)had them before, (2)never fully cooperated with the inspectors and (3) didn't account for everything we "knew"... I think it is only natural to "think" he "probably" still has some. I know that Bush claimed far better intel than he had; but it isn't as if everybody and their brother didn't have plenty of intel before that. Even if they were certain Bush's intel was BS, and positive that war was uncalled for because there was no new credible evidence, that doesn't mean they didn't "think" he had them.

Now I fully understand that "think" wasn't nearly solid enough to go to war for a lot of the world's leaders. There is no need to go into why. Perhaps its just semantics but I find the statement "everybody thought he had them" a bit of an exaggeration just like "everybody likes sex" is a bit of an exaggeration. In my opinion it is close enough. Obviously no one knew he didn't or 1441 wouldn't have been unanimously voted in. Reading that document certainly makes one think they "thought" he had them. No? Dissenters were all pushing for more inspections… no one said stop the inspections. Why? After 1991 it would be a fool's bet to presume Saddam innocent. We all had different takes on what constitutes a threat… what should constitute a trigger… whether or not inspections would neutralize the situation… whether or not etc, etc etc, but I really don't believe anyone wondered why the subject was on the floor. We all thought he had WMD.

I bet we could go back and forth on this for the rest of our lives. Aside… I'm curious NIMH= Netherlands Is My Home?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 07:43 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Aside… I'm curious NIMH= Netherlands Is My Home?


Yeah, fess up you freaky Dutch ditloid!
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 07:54 pm
nimh = not in my holland Wink
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 08:01 pm
No, it's me Habibe, or shouldn't I tell?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 08:16 pm
You're pretty sharp, Osso... I been meaning to say that to you. Sometimes amazingly so.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 08:27 pm
No-it's me, habibi, eh.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 08:27 pm
Affectionately thought of as, Whoa-it's you, eh! :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 03:23:01