View Full Version : Progress in Iraq
" Two of the Democratic party’s most influential strategists have been transformed into hate figures of the American Left after daring to support President George W. Bush’s tactics in Iraq.
Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, military analysts at Washington’s liberal Brookings Institution, declared themselves as unlikely allies of Mr Bush when they wrote an article in the New York Times titled “A War We Might Just Win".
The article was a godsend to the Bush administration, which is embroiled in a struggle with the Democrat-controlled Congress to retain control of the war - the single most important issue for the president in his final 18 months in office.
The piece was written following an eight-day visit to Iraq by the authors. It concluded that Americans needed to understand “we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms”. "
LINK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/25/wdemocrats125.xml)
" Whatever may have been the situation is 2003, today Iraq is the main front in the war against Islamist terror and fanaticism. Our enemies have made it so.
Of the two simultaneous missions under way - maturing a responsible government and advancing our own strategic interests - the latter is far more important. In fact, it's vital. And on that track, we're making stunning progress. …
Al Qaeda is on the verge of a humiliating, devastating strategic defeat - rejected by their fellow Sunni Muslims.
If we don't quit, this will not only be a huge practical win - it'll be the information victory we've been aching for.
No matter what the Middle Eastern media might say, everyone in the Arab and greater Sunni Muslim world will know that al Qaeda was driven out of Iraq by a combination of Muslims and Americans.
Think that would help al Qaeda's recruitment efforts? Even now, the terrorists have to resort to lies about their prospective missions to gain recruits. "
LINK (http://corner.nationalreview.com/)
I wonder what kind of "propaganda" two liberals who have been against the war for all this time can provide.
Liberal propaganda says Iraq is a failure and will not work, thus the need to withdraw immediately. Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack are two liberals who are arguing for the U.S. to stay because they are winning.
Seems to me those two liberal propagandists aren't doing a very good job pushing the normal liberal talking points on Iraq.
It's called traitors. They should be taken outside and shot.
adigirl
08-26-2007, 05:38 PM
lol That's a bit extreme. They do live in a free country. How many republicans are saying they should pull out and they are not winning the war? I'm just curious.
The United States of America is a free country leading another into dictarship. Forcing their beleifs and government into a country that, coincidentally, has huge oil reserves.
Westender 3
08-27-2007, 12:44 AM
"I wonder what kind of "propaganda" two liberals who have been against the war for all this time can provide."
Well there's one big fat lie!
Some Quotes from Kenneth Pollack,
What should the United States do about Iraq? Hawks are wrong to think the problem is desperately urgent or connected to terrorism, but right to see the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein as so worrisome that it requires drastic action. … The United States has no choice left but to invade Iraq itself and eliminate the current regime. [Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002]
Given Mr. Hussein’s history of catastrophic miscalculations and his faith that nuclear weapons can deter not him but us, there is every reason to believe that the question is not one of war or no war, but rather war now or war later–a war without nuclear weapons or a war with them. [New York Times, 9/26/02]
FOX HOST: What about nuclear? What’s his — how long before he’ll have it?
POLLACK: I think the best estimates are that he probably will take four to six years, unless he can buy fissile material on the black market. If he can get it on the black market, it’s probably a matter of months. [Fox News’s On The Record With Greta Van Susteren, 9/30/02]
I think it’s very important that the president receive a very clear statement of support by the Congress, by the representatives of the American people. What we’re embarking on is potentially a very big military operation, and what’s more, the military operation itself might be the easiest part of what we’re doing. [NPR, 10/2/02]
Increasingly, the option that makes the most sense is for the United States to launch a full-scale invasion, eradicate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild Iraq as a prosperous and stable society-for the good of the United States, the Iraqi people, and the entire region. [The Threatening Storm, 2002]
Given Saddam Hussein’s current behavior, his track record, his aspirations and his terrifying beliefs about the utility of nuclear weapons, it would be reckless for us to assume that he can be deterred. Yes, we must weigh the costs of a war with Iraq today, but on the other side of the balance we must place the cost of a war with a nuclear-armed Iraq tomorrow. [New York Times, 2/21/03]
[T]he president’s plan is almost certainly the last chance to stabilize Iraq. It is the last chance to save Iraq would probably be a more accurate way to put it. [Brookings, 1/29/07]
Media Falsely Labels O’Hanlon And Pollack ‘Vocal Critics’ Of Bush Administration (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/media-ohanlon-pollack/)
As for O'Hanlon,
O’Hanlon admits he is a war supporter: “As you rightly reported,” O’Hanlon told Greenwald, “I was not a critic of this war. In the final analysis, I was a supporter.”
A rushed, cherry-picked trip: O’Hanlon admitted that they spent approximately “between 2-4 hours” in every area they visited outside Baghdad, “and much of that was taken up meeting U.S. military commanders, not inspecting the proverbial ‘conditions on the ground.’” “They spent every night ensconced in the Green Zone in Baghdad,” adds Greenwald.
Pentagon “choreographed” the trip: In the op-ed, the analysts boast, “We just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel.” But O’Hanlon admitted: “The predominant majority were people who we came into contact with through the itinerary the D.O.D. developed. … For the most part, the conversations were ones arranged by D.O.D”
Unrepresentative view of Iraq: “If someone wanted to argue that we were not getting a representative view of Iraqis because the ones we spoke with were provided by the military, I would agree that this would be a genuine concern,” said O’Hanlon. “By no means did all of the Iraqis agree with the view of progress in Iraq.”
O’Hanlon: Iraq Trip Relied On ‘The Itinerary The Defense Department Developed’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/12/ohanlon-greenwald/)
Pollack wrote a book called "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" for crying out loud.
Ya know we now have the internets for a little fact checking. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
Sorry for the long post but Speedy you're full of chit.
Well read my signature.
Parrots just repeat what they think is smart, and poop all over the place.
And I think the poop started this thread.
But now he won't reply..... and if he does, it'll just be a personal attack on us or canada, or just some witty comeback that only he finds funny /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: T-pot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The United States of America is a free country leading another into dictarship. Forcing their beleifs and government into a country that, coincidentally, has huge oil reserves. </div></div>
More proof, indeed, that Canada leads the world in potheads!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/purpbanana.gif (this is a dancing purple joint, man)
All from the website "thinkprogress", one of the biggest liberal and partisan sites on the 'net.
Great source, Westender! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
I'll link to Rush Limbaugh's site to prove the war is going swimmingly, okay???? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Westender merely destroyed a strawman of his own making, and he's all giddy about it.
Did I say those two gentlemen were critics of the war since its inception? Nope! However, as soon as they turned against the war CNN and NPR were stepping all over each other to interview them.
Well done, Westender! You slayed the bogeyman of your imagination!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/high5.gif
Westender 3
08-27-2007, 05:41 PM
"I'll link to Rush Limbaugh's site to prove the war is going swimmingly, okay?"
You already did when you linked to two right wing rags.Liar. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wavey.gif
You're angry. It's okay, it will pass /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wavey.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
I suppsoe these two have been war supporters since day one?
"Top Senate Democrats have started to acknowledge progress in Iraq, with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee yesterday saying the U.S. troop surge is producing "measurable results."
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan highlighted improved security in Baghdad and al Qaeda losses in Anbar province as examples of success — a shift for Democrats who have mainly discounted or ignored advances on the battlefield for weeks.
"The military aspects of President Bush's new strategy in Iraq ... appear to have produced some credible and positive results," Mr. Levin said in a joint statement with Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, after a two-day visit last week to Iraq."
LINK (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070821/NATION/108210076/1001)
Doh!!!!
Westender 3
08-27-2007, 07:12 PM
"after a two-day visit last week to Iraq" /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
Those same 'two-day visits' you were posting reports from anti-war people last year!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
Westender 3
08-27-2007, 07:52 PM
Happen to have a link or any proof to that statement,liar? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Happen to have a link that shows I'm lying? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Westender 3
08-27-2007, 10:24 PM
Uh,yeah,see above. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
West ender, like i mentioned before. Once speedy is proven wrong he resorts to name calling and sarcasm. He started already /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Much like yourself /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
If you can't stick it to the father, try sticking it to the daughter. I bet she caries WMD's under her skirt!
Iraqi forces detained the suspected leader of a terrorist cell network believed to be funded by Saddam Hussein's eldest daughter, who is wanted by Iraqi authorities on terrorism charges, the U.S. military announced Monday.
She has been living in Jordan under the protection of the royal family.
Does this mean the US is going to "look for WMD's" in Jordan next, or is Iran first on the list?
Madmax
08-28-2007, 09:43 AM
Progress in Iraq = more USA solders or airmen, kill friendly soldiers.
Damn and i thought the GOOD Ol US OF A was so great and a very reliable force to be reckoned with.
Well they are a force to to be reckoned with, but just watch out for the crazy yahooossss that seem to not know what they are doing.
Speedy the arrogant parrot, hmm sounds like a call name for one of the pilots that speed down and shoot friends on the ground and then say. I did not know they were there... Opps.
The war was over in record time. It's securing the peace that has been the issue.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speedy the arrogant parrot, hmm sounds like a call name for one of the pilots that speed down and shoot friends on the ground and then say. I did not know they were there... Opps. </div></div>
You mean something like this?
"NATO said Wednesday that it killed too many Afghan civilians during fighting last year against resurgent Taliban militants, but that the Western alliance was working to change that in 2007. "
Canada is in Nato! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/03/world/main2327324.shtml)
"Canadian troops shot and killed an Afghan National Police officer and injured four others Sunday and then shot and injured two more officers riding a scooter 40 minutes later in an incident reminiscent of the fatal shooting of a young Afghan boy by a Canadian soldier Tuesday."
LINK (http://beebea9.blog.ca/2006/08/27/stevie_has_his_own_war~1074816?comment_ID=1602724)
"On Tuesday, a single bullet fired by a Canadian soldier killed a young Afghan boy and injured another about two hours after a Canadian soldier was killed and three injured in a suicide bombing in Kandahar."
LINK (http://beebea9.blog.ca/2006/08/27/stevie_has_his_own_war~1074816?comment_ID=1602724)
See, this is where I can see little benefit to Canada leading the world in potheads.
Madmax
08-28-2007, 09:58 AM
Canada is not NATO are you smoking crack again?
NATO is made up of several nations and CANADA was not part of that war, but america was for sure bombing civilans.
And as for those officers, well they probbaly deserved it as they were shooting at the soldiers first.
Now as for the afgan boys, well it is sad that america had to put those people at a risk in which Canadian soldiers had to face such decisions that involved some very tragic accidents based upon american intelligence.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Canada is not NATO </div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
"The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington on April 4, 1949 establishing NATO. This military alliance was designed to promote the stability of the North Atlantic area and to safeguard the freedom of its people, based on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and international law.
Canada has been a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation since its foundation"
LINK (http://www.international.gc.ca/foreign_policy/nato/menu-en.asp)
The Canadian educational system in all its glory! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Madmax
08-28-2007, 10:11 AM
Like noted it is not NATO only part of the group made up by America and other nations in which Canada had no part in the war your talking about. They simply only followed american intelligence and look where it got them... NO WHERE REALLY FAST.
Ummm...Canada is in Afghanistan.
Reviled by most Democrats, President Bush’s 20,000-troop surge is working. Indeed, news of this policy’s success is emerging from an unlikely source: Democrats.
Despite other misgivings on Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) admitted to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week: “We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it’s working.”
“The surge has resulted in a reduction of violence in many parts of Iraq,” Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) told journalists. “More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq.”
“The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq…appear to have produced some credible and positive results,” Senate Armed Forces chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said in a joint statement after visiting Iraq with his committee’s ranking Republican, Virginia’s John Warner.
Senator Jack Reed (D., R.I.) told Charlie Rose: “My sense is that the tactical momentum is there with the troops, and we’ve had some success in terms of blocking insurgents moving into Baghdad.”
“The troops have met every assignment,” said Senator Bob Casey (D., Pennsylvania). “They’ve beaten the odds time and again. They’ve done everything we’ve asked them to.”
Iraq war foe, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.), recently returned from there a changed man. “We are making real and tangible progress on the ground, for one, and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region,” he’s said. Baird now opposes military-retreat timetables.
After visiting Iraq last month, Rep. Jerry McNerney (D., Calif.) favors more operational flexibility for U.S. commanders. “I’m more willing to work to find a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying,” he said.
Rep. Tim Mahoney (D., Fla.) believes the surge “has really made a difference and really has gotten al Qaeda on their heels.”
LINK (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Y2I5YmViN2VjNzM2NmFlOWM4NDM1ZDU2ZTY0M2ViYmM=)
Madmax
08-28-2007, 10:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ummm...Canada is in Afghanistan.</div></div>
Yes only to show the Americans all of the wrongfullness the American Intelligence really is and to help make sure the Americans know what civilization is all about and that it is not about killing friends or civilans.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">to help make sure the Americans know what civilization is all about and that it is not about killing friends or civilans. </div></div>
But as the news reports show, Canada has been quite good at killing innocent civilians; they are especially adroit at murdering Afghani children in cold blood.
Canada is certainly a leader in this respect.
I like Canada, and I like you /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Madmax
08-28-2007, 10:36 AM
Wait you forgot it was American Intelligence which led the Canadians down that path of killing innocent people.
So like noted American Intelligence for what it is worth (which is not very much) is to blame for the entire mess.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Wait you forgot it was American Intelligence which led the Canadians down that path of killing innocent people.</div></div>
Where's the proof? Got a link?
Do you rely solely on American intelligence because "Canadian intelligence" is an oxymoron?
Madmax
08-28-2007, 10:42 AM
Yeah i got a link and it = GWB.STUPID-INTELLIGENCE.USA.GOV.COM
Don't you read the papers and media coverage about the USA's involvement with their so called superior intelligence.
Your saying our intelligence is a MoronBeast subjected to contradictions.
The only thing Canada contradicts is the USA's intelligence and i must say it is not a very long winded argument on Canada's part as they don't have time to argue with a nothing intelligence possed by Americans, in this case Canada always wins.
So, you have no evidence Canadian forces were relying on U.S. intelligence...I'm shocked.
Shocked, I tell you.
Moving on...
Madmax
08-28-2007, 03:09 PM
Shocked no you should not be shocked as the evidence is all around you.
Commas no you should not use commas.
Soundbear
08-28-2007, 07:46 PM
Put in more cops, violence goes down.
Right.
Makes perfect sense. And it works.
The trick is to know that the violence will STAY down AFTER the cops leave.
Tell us how that will be accomplished.
DoubleXL
08-28-2007, 10:44 PM
The title of this topic is an oxymoron
That is true.
Speedy, you pasted 4-5 links of Canadians killing innocent people.
Americans have been on trial for the treatment of prisoners. It is easy to mistake any Afghan for a terrorist. I'd be a bit nervous and trigger happy there too.
They have 5-10 year old, gearing up and learning to shoot rifles. So whos the say the kid didn't point a gun at the Canadian solider?
Anyway moving on, There was a video of an American soldier kicking around the head of an Iraq'i that had been decapitated.
Look at other wars, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Dropping a nuclear bomb killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Canada has 4-5 links of killing innocent people, that could have been a case of mistaken identity. And you use that to compare to what the US has done since BUSH SR. Administration?
Clinton was a pole smoker, but atleast he did some good by lifting the embargos off of Iraq.
Madmax
08-29-2007, 08:30 AM
Yeah speedy look at that. The good ol US of A is nothing but baby killers and women killers for over 60 years or more.
What has Canada done?
Only watched and seen what anguish the USA has done to the world and the peace they so well promote is just a bunch of crap.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What has Canada done? </div></div>
You said a mouthful there!!
Madmax
08-29-2007, 04:38 PM
We are a peace loving, law abiding, country.
Canada rules, USA drools
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We are a peace loving, law abiding, country</div></div>
Tell that to the scores of Afghan mother and fathers whose kids you've killed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Canada rules, USA drools </div></div>
Great one!!!
I remember hearing that one when playing hockey against Canadian teams when I was seven years old.
Glad to see maturity isn't a high priority in the 'true north not very strong and half -free'
Madmax
08-29-2007, 07:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We are a peace loving, law abiding, country</div></div>
Tell that to the scores of Afghan mother and fathers whose kids you've killed. </div></div>
I never did such a thing, goes to show that american side of you again always blaming someone else.
Madmax
08-29-2007, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Canada rules, USA drools </div></div>
Great one!!!
I remember hearing that one when playing hockey against Canadian teams when I was seven years old.
Glad to see maturity isn't a high priority in the 'true north not very strong and half -free'</div></div>
Well it goes to show that America still can't beat Canada in Hockey as 90% of the American teams are made up with a majority of Canadian players, why that is?, because americans just can't play Hockey well enough to win a game.
Oh and they also compose of other foreigners on those thems.
USA drools cause they can't play by the rules anywhere in the world on any platform.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Well it goes to show that America still can't beat Canada in Hockey as 90% of the American teams are made up with a majority of Canadian players, why that is?, because americans just can't play Hockey well enough to win a game.</div></div>
Number of Olympic Gold Medals in hockey since 1960:
Canada: 1
USA: 2
Oh, Canada! For the first time, Americans were taken with the top two picks in the NHL draft.
First, the Chicago Blackhawks, trying to rebuild a once-proud franchise after four consecutive losing seasons, selected Buffalo, N.Y., native Patrick Kane with the No. 1 pick Friday night. Then the Philadelphia Flyers picked left winger James vanRiemsdyk, a member of the U.S. National Team Development Program from Middletown, N.J.
"It's good to have the No. 1 and No. 2 picks," said Kane, a 5-foot-9, 160-pound right winger who had 62 goals and 83 assists in 58 games last year for the London Knights of the Ontario Hockey League. "It's unbelievable. It's good to see the Americans start coming into the league."
LINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/draft2007/news/story?id=2913585)
After how many years?
You know whats funny, Canada is also the only country sucessfully able to penetrate the tough borders of the Unite States, and burn down the white house.
During the War of 1812 much of Washington was burned by British troops in retaliation for burning Upper Canada's Parliament Buildings in the Battle of York (present day Toronto) leaving the White House gutted. Only the exterior walls remained, and they had to be torn down and mostly reconstructed due to weakening from the fire and subsequent exposure to the elements, except for portions of the south wall. A legend emerged that during the rebuilding of the structure white paint was applied to mask the burn damage it had suffered, giving the building its namesake hue. This is unfounded as the building had been painted white since its construction in 1798. Of the numerous spoils taken from the White House when it was ransacked by British troops, only two have been recovered — a painting of George Washington, rescued by then-first lady Dolley Madison, and a jewelry box returned to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939 by a Canadian man who said his grandfather had taken it from Washington. Most of the spoils were lost when a convoy of British ships led by HMS Fantome sank en route to Halifax off Prospect during a storm on the night of 24 November 1814. [4]
True to form, the War of 1812 is brought up. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Some of you guys are just this side of pathetic.
First of all, there was no "Canada" in a nation-state or political sense in 1812. You were part of the British Empire. The British did all the fighting (geez, there's a shock: Canada letting someone else do all the heavy lifting for them).
What is amazing about the War of 1812 is that the U.S., a country barely 36 years old, fought to a stalemate the greatest world power of the time, The British Empire.
What an amazing country!!! http://www.artseaphotos.com/images/Statue%20of%20Liberty%2072.jpg
By the way, what do you guys have that is similar to the Statue of Liberty? A big Molson's beer bottle outside of Wawa, or something like that?
From T-Pot: "During the War of 1812 much of Washington was burned by British troops..."
NEXT!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
http://webhome.idirect.com/~royschmaus/camp/beaver.gif
http://www.mgcpuzzles.com/mgcpuzzles/artgallery/Royce_McClure_artist/images/american_bald_eagle_head_1B.jpg
Errr...I'll take the Eagle, thanks...
The Berean
08-29-2007, 08:51 PM
Robert A Heinlein, American author.
"The eagle is a scavenger that never takes on anything its own size"
"... last year for the London Knights of the Ontario Hockey League."
Yup, had to hone his skills in the best place. Canada.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "... last year for the London Knights of the Ontario Hockey League."
Yup, had to hone his skills in the best place. Canada. </div></div>
...or, the OHL wants to be the best junior league, so it is taking more Americans /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Jack Jones, Canadian author:
"burp...ummm, eh, well...burp...ummm...we's been done doing good here in Canada, eh...burp...ummm...burp...we been doin' more gooder then the 'mericans, eh...burp..."
Gold Medals since 1960:
Canada: 1
USA: 2
Did I already mention that?
Did I mention already that the French gave you the statue of liberty?
The states did not even build it.
Eagle over the beaver?
That why there are millions of beavers and the eagle is almost endangered?
Madmax
08-30-2007, 09:27 AM
The statue of liberty was a french built item and may i remind you that it was the french over in Canada that helped in the design of that statue, but of course the USA has no such liberty for all of its people within it, lets look at the african american and what the white ppl have done to them and still are doing to them years later.
You call your country a FREE nation, really now. I don't think so when your white people are the ones who enslaved the african ppl.
Now that being said Canada is one of the only nations in the entire world that is truly free and a 100% civilized nation. You don't see Canadians on the national news every night for Armed Robberies or for a lot of crime for that matter compared to the USA's crime rate.
Not only this but Canada is one of the nations of the world that has the greatest health care system there is and what do the americans do... they simple say your SOL can't operate without coverage. I suppose your little 5 year daughter must die cause our country (usa) has nothing to help her. Ya some great country you live in that wishes to enslave people, kill off its own kind, try and mimic Canada and say it is a truly free country when it is not, try and buly its way around the world, try and discredit all other nations, try to destroy history and creat there own beliefs and rewrite history the way they fell fit to do so, have clamied many things in history as them doing it first, which in fact it was other nation fellowmen that conquered the north and the seas before that Columbus Idiot came along.
There is so mush i can type about how bad the USA is and why others saould just go on over there and [censored] on the white houses lawn, cause all i can see at that place is a sewer with a oval toilet bowl at one end of it. To all its owners to flush any type of crap they wish to do so towards any and all other nations in the world.
Madmax
08-30-2007, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gold Medals since 1960:
Canada: 1
USA: 2
Did I already mention that? </div></div>
Yeah with the great help of 70% CANADIAN born players on that so called AMERICAN TEAM.
GRUMPY
08-30-2007, 11:47 AM
This subject should be moved to the joke section if Max and Speedy are going to keep at each other.
GRUMPY
08-30-2007, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The statue of liberty was a french built item and may i remind you that it was the french over in Canada that helped in the design of that statue, but of course the USA has no such liberty for all of its people within it, lets look at the african american and what the white ppl have done to them and still are doing to them years later.
You call your country a FREE nation, really now. I don't think so when your white people are the ones who enslaved the african ppl.
Now that being said Canada is one of the only nations in the entire world that is truly free and a 100% civilized nation. You don't see Canadians on the national news every night for Armed Robberies or for a lot of crime for that matter compared to the USA's crime rate.
Not only this but Canada is one of the nations of the world that has the greatest health care system there is and what do the americans do... they simple say your SOL can't operate without coverage. I suppose your little 5 year daughter must die cause our country (usa) has nothing to help her. Ya some great country you live in that wishes to enslave people, kill off its own kind, try and mimic Canada and say it is a truly free country when it is not, try and buly its way around the world, try and discredit all other nations, try to destroy history and creat there own beliefs and rewrite history the way they fell fit to do so, have clamied many things in history as them doing it first, which in fact it was other nation fellowmen that conquered the north and the seas before that Columbus Idiot came along.
There is so mush i can type about how bad the USA is and why others saould just go on over there and [censored] on the white houses lawn, cause all i can see at that place is a sewer with a oval toilet bowl at one end of it. To all its owners to flush any type of crap they wish to do so towards any and all other nations in the world.
</div></div>
The rant of the brain dead.I would just love you to show where it says anywhere that Canada or any Canadian had any connection to the creation of the statue other than some comic book you might have read it in. If you think Canada is 100% free you're even stupider than I ever gave you credit for.As for the rest the only discription that could be given it is uneducated babble.
Madmax
08-30-2007, 11:54 AM
Theres that Grunpy again..... ship him off to Sweden i tell ya where he and some of his Boys can play Pool with each other.
Soundbear
08-30-2007, 11:58 AM
Mad Max could talk the legs off a donkey.
But only Speedy could persuade it to go for a walk AFTERWARDS!!!!
GRUMPY
08-30-2007, 12:00 PM
How do you know he talks to himself? Too bad he doesn't listen to how stupid it is.
Westender 3
08-30-2007, 12:24 PM
So the winter olympics only started in 1960?Wow.
And here I thought Olympic hockey started in 1920.
They are only counting when the states joined LOL Or the States first gold medal.
http://proicehockey.about.com/od/olympichockey/a/olympictimeline.htm
There you go with the history of Olympic hockey!
1920:
Ice hockey is played in early April as part of the Olympic Summer Games in Antwerp, Belgium. The tournament also serves as the first World Hockey Championship. Canada wins easily.
Games are played with seven players on the ice for each side. The seventh position, commonly known as the "rover," will later be dropped from all organized hockey.
1924:
The first Olympic Winter Games are held in Chamonix, France. The Canadian hockey team wins all five of its games, outscoring opponents 110-3.
1932:
Needing a win or a tie to secure another gold medal, Canada plays the United States to a draw in a marathon final game. The match is called after three scoreless overtime periods.
1936:
After four consecutive gold medals and a 20 straight victories, Canada loses to Great Britain and finishes second. Ten of the 12 British players live in Canada, including goaltender Jimmy Foster, who allows three goals in eight games.
Rudi Ball, the star of the German hockey team, is the only Jew allowed to compete for Germany at the Games.
1948:
Canada and Czechoslovakia finish with identical 7–0–1 records, with Canada winning the gold medal on total goals scored: 64–62.
Jaroslav Drobny, a member of the Czech hockey team, will go on to win a Wimbledon tennis championship in 1954.
1952:
For the last time in the 20th Century, Canada wins the gold medal in hockey.
Bandy, an older version of ice hockey played with a ball and a larger ice surface, makes its only appearance as a demonstration sport.
1956:
The Soviet Union enters its first Winter Olympics, winning more medals than any other country, including the gold medal in hockey. Canada finishes third, behind the United States.
1960:
The original Miracle on Ice unfolds at Squaw Valley, California. An unheralded American team defeats Canada 2–1, the Soviets 3–2, and the Czechs 9–4, winning the gold medal. It is the USA's first Olympic gold in ice hockey.
1964:
The Soviet Union wins gold, beginning an era of internationl domination that will last nearly three decades. From 1964 to 1992, the Soviet hockey team will win seven Olympic gold medals in eight tries.
1972:
Canada refuses to send a team, having withdrawn from international hockey to protest the definition of amateur athletes. International hockey is restricted to amateur athletes, but the Canadians argue that the Soviets and other eastern bloc teams are amateur in name only.
After winning the gold medal, the Soviets play a team of Canadian NHL stars in an exhibition series several months later. Shocked by the excellence of the Soviet players, the Canadians win the series by the margin of a single goal in the final game.
1976:
Sweden joins the Canadian boycott, also protesting the use of sham "amateurs' by eastern bloc countries.
1980:
The Miracle on Ice becomes one of the defining moments in American sports history. An unheralded Team USA closes the tournament by beating the Soviets 4–3 and Finland 4–2 to win the gold medal.
1988:
As the amateur era draws to a close in most international sports, the Olympics are opened to professional hockey players. But the top professionals remain unavailable due to a conflict with the NHL schedule.
1992:
With the USSR having dissolved a few months before, the Soviet Olympic team competes under the banner of the "Commonwealth of Independent States." The hockey team wins its eighth gold medal since 1956, a final victory in one of the greatest championship runs in any sport. In future Olympics, former Soviets republics will compete seperately.
1994:
In one of the all-time great gold medal games, Sweden defeats Canada in a shootout to become Olympic champions for the first time ever. In celebration, Sweden issues a postage stamp bearing the image of Peter Forsberg's winning goal.
1998:
Women's ice hockey debuts at the Olympics. The United States wins the inaugural gold medal by defeating Canada.
For the first time ever, the NHL takes an Olympic break, allowng its players to join their national teams. The Czech Republic wins a thrilling playoff round, defeating Canada in a shootout and shutting out Russia 1-0 in the gold medal game. Canada and the United States both finish out of the medals.
2002:
Canada sweeps gold in the men's and women's tournaments, with the United States winning both silver medals. The Canadian men's victory comes 50 years to the day after its last ice hockey gold at the 1952 Winter Games in Oslo, Norway.
The NHL continues its agreement to shut down for the Olympics, allowing national teams to use players from NHL rosters.
Also not to mention, Womens Junior and Mens Junior dominate year after year after year, making the American team look like figure skaters.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There you go with the history of Olympic hockey! </div></div>
What is it about 1960 that makes it so hard for you to comprehend that it came after 1959, or any year before 1959?
I know this is difficult for you, but c'mon.
So, who has more gold medals since 1960?
Yup, that's what I thought /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Soundbear
08-30-2007, 05:36 PM
Closer to the topic, won any ways lately?? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Ya know, only you would brag on winning two, count them two, golds in 47 years.
BTW, I see Canada didn't compete at least one year. So how many tries would that have been compared to the good ole' USA??
Gold medals since 1960:
Canada: 1
USA: 2
ONE GOLD for the so-called 'home of hockey'?!?!?!?!? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
Brutal!!!
The Berean
08-30-2007, 08:20 PM
Funny how you keep pushing. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Amazing how a country with the talent depth of the USA can only come up with two though.
Count how many in total olympic history!
Canada wins hands down.
Only reason why you pick 1960, is because it took USA 40 years to get one!
Also if you count the two years that Canada didn't put a team in, then Gold to Year ratio, Canada wins YET AGAIN hands down.
GRUMPY
08-30-2007, 10:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There you go with the history of Olympic hockey! </div></div>
What is it about 1960 that makes it so hard for you to comprehend that it came after 1959, or any year before 1959?
I know this is difficult for you, but c'mon.
So, who has more gold medals since 1960?
Yup, that's what I thought /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
</div></div>
You're starting to sound like Mad Max now.
Madmax
08-31-2007, 09:40 AM
The only reason why the USA has more gold is because they stole gold from other nations to produce their own medals to try a persuade everyone they legitimately won them.
GRUMPY
08-31-2007, 10:34 AM
Hey Max ,still waiting for an answer about "I would just love you to show where it says anywhere that Canada or any Canadian had any connection to the creation of the statue other than some comic book you might have read it in."
Madmax
08-31-2007, 02:53 PM
Well why don't you go look it up yourself.
Do i have to do everything for you?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only reason why the USA has more gold is because they stole gold from other nations to produce their own medals to try a persuade everyone they legitimately won them.
</div></div>
Great point, I never considered that option.
GRUMPY
08-31-2007, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well why don't you go look it up yourself.
Do i have to do everything for you? </div></div>
No but it would help if you'd mention what comic book you read it in. Like almost everything you do post its all pure BS. But then in your delusional state I can understand your inability to separate fact from fiction.
France gave the Lady Liberty as a gift.
USA Doesn't have more Gold then Canada, only more since 1960.
Speedy only picked 1960 because thats the year that USA had more gold SINCE.
Speedy alters facts to they look better to him.
If you are going to count anything, you have to have full facts.
If you are going to compare Medals, you include all years the medal was availible to win. So Canada has more than Americans.
Max btw :
Liberty Enlightening the World (French: La liberté éclairant le monde), known more commonly as the Statue of Liberty (Statue de la Liberté), is a large statue that was presented to the United States by France in 1886 (globally it second only to Motherland is Calling in size). It stands at Liberty Island, New York in New York Harbor as a welcome to all visitors, immigrants, and returning Americans. The copper-clad statue, dedicated on October 28, 1886, commemorates the centennial of the United States and is a gesture of friendship from France to America. Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi sculpted the statue and obtained a U.S. patent useful for raising construction funds through the sale of miniatures. Alexandre Gustave Eiffel (designer of the Eiffel Tower) engineered the internal structure. Eugène Viollet-le-Duc was responsible for the choice of copper in the statue's construction and adoption of the repoussé technique.
The statue is of a female figure standing upright, dressed in a robe and a seven point spiked rays representing a nimbus (halo), holding a stone tablet close to her body in her left hand and a flaming torch high in her right hand. The tablet bears the words "JULY IV MDCCLXXVI" (July 4, 1776), commemorating the date of the United States Declaration of Independence.
The statue is made of a sheeting of pure copper, hung on a framework of steel (originally puddled iron) with the exception of the flame of the torch, which is coated in gold leaf. It stands atop a rectangular stonework pedestal with a foundation in the shape of an irregular eleven-pointed star. The statue is 151' 1" (46.5 m) tall, with the pedestal and foundation adding another 154 feet (46.9 m).
Worldwide, the Statue of Liberty is one of the most recognizable icons of the United States,[2] and, more generally, represents liberty and escape from oppression. The Statue of Liberty was, from 1886 until the jet age, often one of the first glimpses of the United States for millions of immigrants after ocean voyages from Europe. Visually, the Statue of Liberty appears to draw inspiration from il Sancarlone or the Colossus of Rhodes.
Sorry bud, Canada did not have any role in the making, building, erecting the statue of liberty.
GRUMPY
08-31-2007, 06:59 PM
Sorry T-Pot but that's not what his comic book says.
Are you sure it was a comic book??? Or Wikipedia?
Both hold the same validity
GRUMPY
08-31-2007, 07:22 PM
Has to be a comic book otherwise the words would be too big for him to comprehend.
Now the book where Canada made the Statue of Liberty, is that before or after Superman dies from Kryptonite?
Good lord you guys, the Statue came from France!
Such delusions in Canada; it makes one concerned, to say the least.
What do you mean "You guys" There is only one opposing. Are you seeing double again?
Speedy chcek this link out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2XKTperakQ&mode=related&search=
This is more of your finest, respresenting the free world! *by blowing it up*
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good lord you guys, the Statue came from France!
Such delusions in Canada; it makes one concerned, to say the least. </div></div>
As well, don't you think you are delusioned? There is one person out of everyone here that thinks the statue came from Canada.
For you to think there is more, proves your delusionment. (sp)
The fact he even thought that is concerning.
There isn't one ounce of evidence, yet he bought into the lie.
It's symptomatic of a larger problem in the country for some people; where people look to manufacture realties and rewrite history in order to give Canada some kind of puffed-up role in the world. That tells me people like that are uncomfortable with Canada's current or past position in the world. That may be one reason why they are the same ones that constantly rail against anything the U.S. does. They are trying to build Canada up on the faults of her neighbors. That's not healthy, no matter which way you look at it.
GRUMPY
09-01-2007, 09:32 AM
Now Speedy you can't base the IQ of a country on just one person, just think how sad it would be if the intelligence of everyone in the US was based on you now. If he was an American everyone would just think that he was from Ozarks.
See above.
It's not an IQ thing; it's a desire to rewrite history-thing.
What internal need is being satisfied by those people that need to do so?
GRUMPY
09-01-2007, 09:55 AM
So you're saying that in the whole of the US there isn't anyone as stupid as Mad Max then.
While it would be difficult to quantify such an assertion, nevertheless I would feel confident making such a statement, yes.
Soundbear
09-01-2007, 11:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See above.
It's not an IQ thing; it's a desire to rewrite history-thing.
What internal need is being satisfied by those people that need to do so? </div></div>
We don't know, tell us why DO Americans excel at it???
Good one, Barry.
You're so...creative.
"I know you are but what am I!" (sticks tongue out)
Great comeback.
DoubleXL
09-01-2007, 12:32 PM
We all have to remember that Speedy is truly pro American. Also, those of us who are Canadian will be pro Canadian. We have all been raised in our respective societies to believe certain things.
Speedy believes his country is the greatest, most free country in the world. We cannot argue with that, because that is his perception of his country.
Those of us who are Canadian, we are going to believe that our country is the greatest, and most free.
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter if Speedy actually believes the USA is the greatest...because in his mind that will never change. In fact, the USA could lose in Iraq 100 times over and Speedy would still think the USA is the greatest.
We all know how the world "currently" views our respective states. Instead of bickering who "WE" think is the better country, how about letting history decide. History has already shown that the USA will stumble on their own foreign policies. e.g.Vietnam. (BTW, its nice to see the US doing business with a communist country where tens of thousands of their soldiers died. NICE JOB USA!)
Soundbear
09-01-2007, 01:30 PM
You got it, AH!!!
GRUMPY
09-01-2007, 04:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While it would be difficult to quantify such an assertion, nevertheless I would feel confident making such a statement, yes. </div></div>
Oh come on now with the hundreds of millions of people in the US there has to be at least one person who like Max is as smart as a stone. I'll admit that it would be a hard task to carry out but I think that there "might" be one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See above.
It's not an IQ thing; it's a desire to rewrite history-thing.
What internal need is being satisfied by those people that need to do so? </div></div>
Speedy, what year, is taught in the american school board system. that WWI and WWII started?
Too my understanding you guys teach that the year that WWII started when the United States entered the war, instead of the real fact of when it really started.
Same with WWII
So isn't that rewriting history?
Who made the faces in the mountain?
Ahh another great American tale.
What better to show that your sorry for stealing native land, raping their children and killing their young by plastering the faces of the people who stand behind this behviour on sacred indian land!
Now the Black hills of south dakota are scarred forever from the brutal raping.
"American combat deaths in Iraq have dropped by half in the three months since the buildup of 28,000 additional U.S. troops reached full strength, surprising analysts and dividing them as to why.
U.S. officials had predicted that the personnel increase would lead to higher American casualties as the troops ''took the fight to the enemy.'' But that hasn't happened, even though U.S. forces launched major offensives involving thousands of troops north and south of Baghdad."
LINK (http://www.miamiherald.com/top_stories/v-print/story/222811.html)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: T-pot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See above.
It's not an IQ thing; it's a desire to rewrite history-thing.
What internal need is being satisfied by those people that need to do so? </div></div>
Speedy, what year, is taught in the american school board system. that WWI and WWII started?
Too my understanding you guys teach that the year that WWII started when the United States entered the war, instead of the real fact of when it really started.
Same with WWII
So isn't that rewriting history? </div></div>
"Too my understanding"
Well, that certainly says a lot.
WWII started in 1939. That's what I learned as a student, and that is what's taught today.
Now...who else finds great irony when a post filled with basic grammatical errors rips on another country's educational system?
My typos have no bearing on what I know, this isn't an essay.
P.s. there isn't three periods after the word Now.
Typical parrot style, when cornered and scared, he flails his beak at anything that comes near. BAWK
DoubleXL
09-02-2007, 04:10 PM
Honestly, it doesn't matter how many troops the United States and its allies <s>place</s> plow into Iraq. The country is going to be embattled in internal struggles for decades. The United States does not have the stomach for what needs to be done to bring the country under control. As long as the media is watching every move the US makes in Iraq, they will never win.
This is my personal opinion. Others may vary. The United States has had 4 years to get it right, and so far they have in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others, failed. I would say that the odds are against them.
So anyways, what's the story with the faces in the mountain? I can't remember the name of it, otherwise I would look it up myself.
Mount Rushmore
Sculpted out of the black hills of SouthDakota, considered sacred indian land.
The original side was supposed to be somewhere else, out of granite, but it was too flakey.
So they decided to put it in sacred indian land, to remind the indians whos boss/who was the boss.
Ah ok. I knew it was mount something.
In other news : let's blame the UK for the mess in Iraq, one of our allies. This to make sure that next time around, they will still be our allies.
Former U.S. Army Gen. Jack Keane, who was vice chief of staff at the time the Iraq war was launched in 2003, said in an interview last week that London had never deployed enough troops to properly stabilize the region around the southern city and allowed a bad security situation to deteriorate further.
Maj. Gen. Tim Cross denounces Washington policy as "fatally flawed".
The general was most senior British officer involved in postwar planning.
He says Donald Rumsfeld dismissed warnings Iraq could tumble into chaos.
Cross is the second British general to criticize U.S. post-war policy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah ok. I knew it was mount something.
</div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Genius...pure genius!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So they decided to put it in sacred indian land, to remind the indians whos boss/who was the boss. </div></div>
Yeah, I mean why the U.S. doesn't follow Canada's lead on how to treat First Nations people is beyond me. Canada has done such a nice job. The First Nations people seem sooooo happy with Canada.
The Berean
09-02-2007, 06:11 PM
At least most of them are still alive.
Oh, I didn't know all Native Americans had died.
Anyone tell Bush yet?
The Berean
09-02-2007, 06:23 PM
"...the American dream: an empire built on slave labor and on land stolen from the Indians."
"...the Canadian Dream, built on Molson's and fries with gravy"
"The Canadian government has apologized to the country's 1.5 million Native people for decades of mistreatment that included attempts to stamp out their culture and assimilate Indians and mixed race people.
In a ceremony in Canada's Parliament building on Jan. 6, Native leaders and government ministers pledged to work together to try to heal the damage done to Native people and their culture. Indian leaders condemned the government for its 80-year program of taking children from native families and sending them to often abusive government-run schools.
During the colonial period, the 650 aboriginal nations in Canada were driven to reservations, usually in isolated, unproductive regions of the country. Native populations declined drastically until the 1940's, languages were lost and traditional ceremonies were outlawed.
Minister of Indian Affairs Jane Stewart read a "Statement of Reconciliation," that acknowledged the damage done to the Native population -- including the hanging of Louis Riel after he led a rebellion of Indian and mixed-race people in western Canada in 1885. But the government apology stopped short of pardoning Riel, something Native leaders have demanded for decades. "
LINK (http://www.albionmonitor.com/9801a/canadasorry.html)
"In Canada's case, it has been very succesful in keeping the horrors committed against the First Nations Peoples it displaced by its creation under wraps for centuries. Even in this day and age very little of it is revealed in history books used by provinces for educational purposes.
However, in spite of its attempts to appeared to be as clean as the new driven snow, its bloody story is minutely detailed in colonial records, from which it takes its roots. These records prove beyond a doubt that the physical and psychological torment the Mi'kmaq suffered started shortly after significant European intrusions began in northeastern North America in the late 1490s. Post Confederation records are equally explicit. They prove that it has continued to some degree right up to the present time. "
LINK (http://www.danielnpaul.com/WeWereNotTheSavages-Mi'kmaqHistory-DescriptionAndQuotes.html)
Oh, Canada, indeed
"Canada has offered to pay more than C$2bn (US$1.7bn) compensation to indigenous people who were abused at government-funded residential schools.
Some 80,000 people who attended the schools over decades are eligible."
LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4465102.stm)
It's the same as certain German companies paying retribution to holocaust victims. So you think we should pay nothing and pretend everything is tikety boo?
I'm saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones; a lesson that, strangely, Canadians never quite seem to grasp.
DoubleXL
09-02-2007, 11:36 PM
I've noticed Speedy that you always go off topic, and refuse to actually acknowledge when you might be incorrect.
This could be seen as intellectual weakness.
So please, stay on the topic of Iraq. Native Canadians have nothing to do with Iraq.
Thank you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So they decided to put it in sacred indian land, to remind the indians whos boss/who was the boss. </div></div>
Yeah, I mean why the U.S. doesn't follow Canada's lead on how to treat First Nations people is beyond me. Canada has done such a nice job. The First Nations people seem sooooo happy with Canada. </div></div>
You seem to forget that our land treaties with the natives were different from yours. Our (Canadian) treaties were developed in taking care of the natives, signing bonus if you may. At that all mining, logging, paper and steel mills taxes mostly go to natives. Our reserves are alot better than americans, and our natives are thriving compared to the states.
Canada was a native word for Village, and it was carried over to name our nation. Compared to the slaughter of the natives in the now U.S., we were mild and just merely dragged them along.
The Canadian government (Then British) we taking care of the natives. I don't beleive in the words PUSHED into small peices of reserved land, as in given the choice. The government did give bad information and pursuade them into bits and pieces of land, but yet again compared to the slaughter and the humility that the natives in the U.S. go through.
The americans slaughtered them to get off the land, bred them out, and put huge monuments on sacred land to remind them!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've noticed Speedy that you always go off topic, and refuse to actually acknowledge when you might be incorrect.
This could be seen as intellectual weakness.
So please, stay on the topic of Iraq. Native Canadians have nothing to do with Iraq.
Thank you. </div></div>
What you didn't notice is that for some strange reasons Native Americans were brought up in here first by a Canadian. With Canada's abysmal record with its First Nations peoples how could I not reciprocate?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our reserves are alot better than americans, and our natives are thriving compared to the states </div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
""Canada has a Third World in its front yard and back alleys," Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, wrote in the Canadian edition of Time magazine this week.
"That is a national tragedy and an international embarrassment.""
LINK (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051124/martin_aboriginal_summit_051124?s_name=&no_ads=)
Are these those "happy" First Nations people you were talking about:
"Suicide rates in the Canadian Native population are more than twice the sex-specific rates, and three times the age-specific rates of non-Native Canadians (56.3 per year per
100,000 persons for Native males and 11.8 for Native Females).
Among Aboriginal males, the rate for the 15-24 year age group was 90.0. This is more than double that for all Aboriginal males: 39.0.
Suicide among northern Native youth has reached epidemic proportions. In Alberta the rate in the northern region was 80; in the central region, 71.2, and in the southern area, 35.3.
bullet An extremely high overall rate of 80.2 has been found for 10 - 19 year-old Native males living on the northern coast of Labrador.
The 1991 Aboriginal Peoples Survey indicated that 41% of Inuit, and 34.5% of Native Indians on reserves, report that suicide is a problem in their community."
Canada's overall suicide rate is typically about 14 per 100,000 people; the U.S. rate is consistently slightly lower, at about 12 per 100,000
LINK (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sui_nati.htm)
"The schools were set up in sparsely populated areas in an attempt to assimilate Canada's indigenous peoples - known as the First Nations - into mainstream society.
Attendance was mandatory and children were forcibly removed from their families and forbidden from speaking their language."
LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4465102.stm)
"Street prostitution in the lives of Canadian First Nations women is a fundamental form of sexual oppression whose exploitative roots are located within earlier colonial relations. Historical patriarchal, capitalist relations subjugated First Nations women collectively. This collective sexual oppression, based on gender, created our inferiority as a class of people to both First Nations men and non-First Nations men. The sexual domination of First Nations women has remained unabated to present-day due to patriarchy's stronghold. Thus, it has had, and continues to have profound, and prolonged injurious consequences in First Nations women's lives. This article describes some aspects of the historical rootedness of the sexual exploitation of First Nations women.
First Nations women who have been prostituted are graphic examples of how deeply patriarchy wounds. When sexual oppression is intersected by racism, and capitalism, the wounding worsens--this compounded wounding for First Nations women has occurred for over 500 hundred years. "
LINK (http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/colonialism.html)
"The schools were also riddled with abuse - sexual, physical and emotional. And the children, now adults, some already deceased, are finally coming out with their stories after decades of silence and pain."
LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/americas/1091198.stm)
"Sadly, our history with respect to the treatment of Aboriginal people is not something in which we can take pride. Attitudes of racial and cultural superiority led to a suppression of Aboriginal culture and values. As a country, we are burdened by past actions that resulted in weakening the identity of Aboriginal peoples, suppressing their languages and cultures, and outlawing spiritual practices. We must recognize the impact of these actions on the once self-sustaining nations that were disaggregated, disrupted, limited or even destroyed by the dispossession of traditional territory, by the relocation of Aboriginal people, and by some provisions of the Indian Act. We must acknowledge that the result of these actions was the erosion of the political, economic and social systems of Aboriginal people and nations."
Statement of Reconciliation, 1998
Canadian Federal Government
LINK (http://www.tolerance.cz/courses/papers/hutchin.htm)
"The living standard of Aboriginal peoples in Canada falls far short of those of non-Aboriginals, and they, along with other racial minorities, continue to encounter barriers in gaining equality"
This one is amazing:
"Until 1951 the Act defined a ‘person’ as ”an individual other than an Indian”, and Aboriginal peoples were considered wards of the state. However, a system of enfranchisement was designed whereby an Aboriginal person could become a ”person” in Canadian law."
1951???????
LINK (http://www.tolerance.cz/courses/papers/hutchin.htm)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Until 1951 the Act defined a ‘person’ as ”an individual other than an Indian” </div></div>
Absolutely shocking.
Soundbear
09-03-2007, 10:08 AM
"The americans slaughtered them to get off the land, bred them out, and put huge monuments on sacred land to remind them! "
I just spent some time around a large tract of beautiful contry that is still UNCEDED land, fully owned by the Indians.
I wonder if the States ever did that??
Of course the USA has less problems with their natives. Considering how many they killed off.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course the USA has less problems with their natives. Considering how many they killed off. </div></div>
There are many more Natives in the US than in Canada.
You guys just may have one of the worst human rights records with a Native population in the history of mankind. I never knew how pathetic it really was until researching it.
Soundbear
09-03-2007, 10:14 AM
Right.
And it took how long to free your slaves??
Does the Klan still exist??
This is a pretty useless game, Speedy. Keep on calling the kettle black if it makes you fell better.
Barry, did you know the Klan was made up of Protestants, and they were just as much against Catholics as African Americans?
"religion and politics became inter-twined in the KKK's activities in Saskatchewan. First, have students note the KKK's position about French language instruction in schools, the influence of Quebec within Canada, racism, and the Catholic church."
LINK (http://www.usask.ca/education/ideas/tplan/sslp/kkk.htm)
As for slavery, it was certainly a blight on the U.S. But the difference is we admit it, whereas the Canadian favorite pastime of re-writing or covering up unseemly parts of its history blinds you guys to the garbage in your own backyard.
"[Canadian]Children don’t learn about it in their history classes but there was a time in the prairies the KKK rode high, when thousands of people, mostly in rural areas turned to the KKK to protect them from the dangers of Roman Catholics, the French language and immigrants from Eastern Europe."
LINK (http://canadakkk.com/whybok.html)
Let's talk about the Klan, Barry!!
"In areas of the nation in which the KKK exercised substantial influence, local units worked closely with Protestant clergy, mainly nonfundamentalists in the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Christian churches."
LINK (http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/Touchstone/KKK-White.htm)
You opened up a can of worms you really did not want to, that I can assure you.
See what spouting your ignorance off gets you?
" Because of their large numbers, Colorado's 125,000 Roman Catholics bore the brunt of Klan hatred, Goldberg said. KKK businesses sold cigars labeled "CYANA,"an acronym for Catholics, You Are Not Americans.
The Klan staged boycotts on Catholic-owned businesses and urged merchants to fire Catholic employees.
Denver Grand Dragon John Locke, a physician, nixed a bombing plot aimed at Catholics' Denver crown jewel, the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, saying Catholics would only build a bigger church with the insurance money."
<a href="http://www.denver-rmn.com/millennium/1123mile.shtml" target="_blank">LINK[/ur
Why would over one million New England French living next door to seven million of their Quebec brethren suddenly lose their language and find their culture invisible after having resisted "Melting Pot America" and preserved their heritage longer than most immigrant groups? The answer lies in the story of a campaign by Protestant elites to suppress the French Catholic religion that resulted in a locally resurgent Ku Klux Klan in New England giving states like Maine and Massachusetts more KKK members than any Southern state including Mississippi or Alabama.
[url=http://wakingupfrench.com/about.shtm]LINK</a>
GRUMPY
09-03-2007, 10:30 AM
I'm sorry but isn't this supposed to be about Iraq?
"The members of the first Klan were overwhelmingly Protestant"
"Who were "they"? Who had stolen the Nordic Americans' patrimony? First and foremost, "they" were Catholics. The "Roman Church" is "fundamentally and irredeemably, in its leadership, in politics, in thought, and largely in membership, actually and actively alien, un-American and usually anti-American." "Old stock Americans . . . see in the Roman Church today the chief leader of alienism, and the most dangerous alien power with a foothold inside our boundaries," Evans wrote. [Click on handbill to view its complete text.]
This, like the Klan's appropriation of eugenics, sounded a theme broadly heard in American public life. William Robinson Pattangall, defeated Democratic candidate for governor of Maine in 1924, ran on a platform sharply critical of the Klan. He later admitted that he had seriously underestimated the salience of anti-Catholicism. "I did not even know it [hatred from "the long-dead days of the religious wars"] existed, did not realize at all how persistent such a hatred could be when there was nothing to excite it" except "the Klan's brilliant incendiarism." Yet Pattangall himself stated in a 1925 article in The Forum that the Klan's "complaints made against the Catholics and foreign-born are very largely true"
LINK (http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/1920s/Eugenics/Klan.html)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grumpy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sorry but isn't this supposed to be about Iraq? </div></div>
Barry's ignorance will not go unanswered, no matter where or how many times he hijacks a thread.
Let me get this right-from Iraq to Natives to the KKK.
Well, this certainly has all the bases covered!
It's the nature of the board.
You have a point. In that sense not much has changed at all.
The board is lacking something, though. Maybe I just miss the old personalities.
I miss Soc!
If I remember correctly Soc was posting under a new name (or at least some people were pretty sure it was him). Can't remember the name now.
Oh, it wouldn't be hard to tell if it was him. If he's here he'll sniff me out and come running.
DoubleXL
09-03-2007, 11:58 AM
Can we please keep the subject on topic though people. As I said before, each of our countries has had its fair share of issues. What sense does it make, really, to "go all masculine" about who treated their natives worse. Come on! This isn't the first grade. All of this "My country is better than your country" talk is childish. Can we PLEASE focus on the topic.
We each are going to have our own opinions, our own sources of information. We can discuss these things WITHOUT attacking each other or going back and forth about who has the bigger balls.
Reviewing developments in Iraq, Mr. Bush said, "We've made good progress. Iraq is more secure."
Mr. Bush would only say "I will do what's necessary to win the war on terror." Mr. Bush said Americans have "got to understand I will not forget the lessons of Sept. 11," when America was hit with its worst ever terrorist attack.
Osama was supposedly responsible for Sept 11. So if Iraq is a war on terror, and Mr. Bush will not forget Sept 11, why doesn't he pack up out of Iraq and goto Afghanistan?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/09/iraq/main567473.shtml
Or Are they still trying to convince us that the terrorist who attacked on Sept 11th are in Iraq.
This whole war is a joke, and so are the brain dead redneck hillbillies that beleive in it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones; a lesson that, strangely, Canadians never quite seem to grasp. </div></div>
I am not Canadian, so your point is?
Speedy, you claim that your not attacking Canadians, you just hate dumb people.
Now, you proved yourself wrong in that last quote, saying Canadians never quite seem to grasp.
So your judging all of Canada YET AGAIN.
You sir, contradict yourself more than your president.
BTW, is dumb as a stump, with thousands of videos on Youtube to prove it.
Oh another fun fact.
There are more than 2 states in the US, that you can marry your cousin.
In Canada, you can't marry your cousin anywhere!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kixh53QvNek
Miss South carolina VS George W Bush
HAHAHAHHAAHHAh 50 Seconds into is funny! George has no idea what he is saying!
And this is a leader of the free world??? GOD HELP US ALL!
Heres another beauty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa3J-L29iT8
LOL recruitiments??
4:05 He slips and says Iran, and then says Iraq, proving his intentions /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Ahh yet some more, of the fearless, speachless leader
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8px_KyIFyo&mode=related&search=
If it feels good do it, if it don't blame someone else! LOL Nice leadership there!
Ooo this is classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhbPVrb5KM&mode=related&search=
The human being and fish can live coincidley?? LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkqrI3IibYI&mode=related&search=
Adibee Adibee Adibee Thats all folks! LOL Studderin idiot.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our reserves are alot better than americans, and our natives are thriving compared to the states </div></div> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
""Canada has a Third World in its front yard and back alleys," Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, wrote in the Canadian edition of Time magazine this week.
"That is a national tragedy and an international embarrassment.""
LINK (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051124/martin_aboriginal_summit_051124?s_name=&no_ads=)
Are these those "happy" First Nations people you were talking about:
"Suicide rates in the Canadian Native population are more than twice the sex-specific rates, and three times the age-specific rates of non-Native Canadians (56.3 per year per
100,000 persons for Native males and 11.8 for Native Females).
Among Aboriginal males, the rate for the 15-24 year age group was 90.0. This is more than double that for all Aboriginal males: 39.0.
Suicide among northern Native youth has reached epidemic proportions. In Alberta the rate in the northern region was 80; in the central region, 71.2, and in the southern area, 35.3.
bullet An extremely high overall rate of 80.2 has been found for 10 - 19 year-old Native males living on the northern coast of Labrador.
</div></div>
Not going to quote all your garbage, but you'd find this an interesting read.
High suicide rates with in the American Soliders
http://media.www.arbiteronline.com/media...ollegeheadlines (http://media.www.arbiteronline.com/media/storage/paper890/news/2007/08/22/Opinion/Soldier.Suicides.Ignored.By.American.Government-2933778.shtml?refsource=collegeheadlines)
Recently the Pentagon released a report on the suicide rate among soldiers. CNN wrote that there were 101 reported suicides in 2006 (30 were deployed and all were active duty) and 948 attempted suicides. However, this concern is nothing new. I came across many articles stating that the suicide rate was of concern in 2004. What is it we’ve done to solve the issue since then?
Sure, the government has created new programs to help provide mental health care as well as reinforce the older ones.
The Associated Press reported that there has also been a 25 percent increase in psychiatrists and other mental health workers. Unfortunately, these programs are underfunded and understaffed according to a Pentagon study that came
out in June of this year.
The Pentagon study of soldier suicides found the cause of the suicides was not combat related. Rather, factors such as relationship problems and financial difficulties were cited as the main issues. Nevertheless, others suggest that being deployed can affect how soldiers deal with issues. Also the Pentagon noted the risk of suicide increased with each redeployment. The Guardian reported experts at the National Army Museum in London found that prolonged exposure to combat environments was the most damaging factor for soldiers in World War I and World War II. Soldiers being deployed for six months at a time created American concerns in 2003. Currently, soldiers are subjected to deployment up to 15 months.
This suicide rate is considered within average range, even lower than the national average when adjusted for demographics. It is important to note that there are significantly more men in the military compared to the national demographic, making it difficult to make a comparison. CNN statistics show that in 2006 the soldier rate of suicide was 17.8 per 100,000 men ages 17-to-45, whereas the rate for civilians was 21.1 per 100,000. The rate for civilian women was 5.46 per 100,000 compared to 11.3 per 100,000 for women soldiers. Overall soldier suicides were 17.3 per 100,000, and the U.S. national rate was 13.4 per 100,000.
I thought it was interesting that no one bothered to mention that soldiers are screened for certain levels of education, alcohol and drug use, police records and health issues. Some of the largest factors for suicide are a history of suicide attempts and/or mental disorders, drug and alcohol abuse and physical illness. According to the National Institute of Mental Health more than 90 percent of people who kill themselves have a diagnosable mental disorder, most commonly a depressive disorder or a substance abuse disorder. Basically, the potential for suicide candidates to meet all of the enlistment criteria, make it through training and be deployed without anyone noticing there is an issue seems fairly slim.
I believe it’s safe to say that most people who have experienced a breakup/divorce or money problems typically don’t kill themselves without having some kind of underlying mental disorder.
Given that 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosable mental disorder, and ruling out prior mental disorders severe enough to put soldiers at a suicide risk, these statistics would suggest that maybe serving in a war has something to do with committing suicide for these soldiers.
United Press International reported that between eight and 10 percent of nearly 12,000 soldiers from the war on terror (mostly from Iraq) treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had “psychiatric or behavioral health issues,” according to the commander of the hospital, Col. Rhonda Cornum. Is it possible that approximately 1,000 people had problems bad enough that they had to be evacuated, but went unnoticed prior to being deployed? I doubt it.
Unlike your facts from 10 years ago, here are some recent facts.
adigirl
09-05-2007, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones; a lesson that, strangely, Canadians never quite seem to grasp. </div></div>
I am not Canadian, so your point is?
</div></div>
Some Americans don't seem to grasp that point either.
He lives in a country where the leader tells people "If it feels good do it, if it don't, blame it on someone else!"
adigirl
09-05-2007, 11:39 AM
Soon they will have a women leader in there to clean up the US mess. lol
definitive
09-05-2007, 12:25 PM
I wouldnt be against a woman president.. Just not that woman.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b238/definitive/square-med-fredimao.jpg
Great defense of Canada. You guys really showed me.
Yup, you really stuck up for Canada, and made it sound just wonderful.
Can't believe I'm not on my way to the bridge now, to change countries.
Actually, becoming a Canadian citizen is on my 'to do' list... right behind hang from Mackinac Bridge with wire tied to testicles and watch video of Michael Moore sunbathing
Just watch cops and then watch the Canadian version. There's a huge difference between the way the Police officers handle calls, and between the way they talk.
In fact, there's a huge difference between the calls themselves!
Yeah, in Canada the calls are for trapped cats in trees and the call for someone to pick-up the dead beaver hit by one of the 89% of the people who are considered alcoholics in some small town in Yellowknife.
Edge-of-your-seat stuff, man.
Madmax
09-07-2007, 04:30 PM
So where is the progress you proudly claim to be happening in iraq?
It's there, but you have to want to see it, and not be a mind-numb robot who refuses to see anything positive over there.
You can see anything if you really WANT to see it.
Its like trying to find the good in Columbine.
Your a moron and a total ignorant fool if you don't see the real reason why your country is in Iraq. War on terrorism? THE TERRORISTS ARE IN AFGHANISTAN.
Quote all the links you want, redirect me to where you want, we all know its just US propaganda bull crap!
Your country made threats of attacking Iran, they suited up ready for the attack, and then you print that they are gearing up for terrorism to justify your a$$es for going over there!
So, do I think Canada is better than the States? YES I DO, probably because i'm brainwashed with all the Canadian propaganda with the Beaver outbreak and the potheads, but you know what I'd take that anyday or WAR MONGERS AND CRACKHEADS!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">War on terrorism? THE TERRORISTS ARE IN AFGHANISTAN </div></div>
You're right, because just the other day a statement from Al Qeada in Iraq sent to...ummm...hey, wait a minute...
DoubleXL
09-07-2007, 05:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">War on terrorism? THE TERRORISTS ARE IN AFGHANISTAN </div></div>
You're right, because just the other day a statement from Al Qeada in Iraq sent to...ummm...hey, wait a minute... </div></div>
Speedy, it is a well known fact that Al-Qeada in Iraq did not exist until AFTER the Unites States invaded Iraq.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So, do I think Canada is better than the States? YES I DO, probably because i'm brainwashed with all the Canadian propaganda with the Beaver outbreak and the potheads, but you know what I'd take that anyday or WAR MONGERS AND CRACKHEADS!</div></div>
Good for you, and 30 million other people agree with you.
...on the other hand, 300 million people do not /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
I can't speak for Hans (hell, Hans can't speak for Hans), but I'd say he'd tell us that is a difference of about 1 trillion percent.
The U.S. is the greatest country in the history of mankind, period.
The U.S. is like the family member who has the highest degree, is the most handsome, and is a bodybuilder of the top degree.
Canada...well, Canada is like the nerd with glasses; not really ugly, but then again it is quite a stretch to call him good-looking. He's weak, mouthy, and likes to shoot off his mouth when drunk. More often than not (in fact, every time) he gets his a$$-kicked because he's drank way too much and doesn't know when to shut his mouth.
He's jealous of the famous and handsome family member, and sadly thinks calling the more-successful, handsome, and strong brother names will somehow even the playing field. However, all it does is make him look pathetic...and the world looks on in what can only be described as a mixture between pity and empathy.
The end /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
adigirl
09-07-2007, 05:58 PM
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adigirl</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I can't speak for Hans (hell, Hans can't speak for Hans), but I'd say he'd tell us that is a difference of about 1 trillion percent. </div></div>
That was a good one, wasn't it? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif
adigirl
09-07-2007, 06:18 PM
You're warped sense of the US is what is hilarious. Keep entertaining me. It's fun.
Madmax
09-07-2007, 09:10 PM
Is speedy at it again about how wonderful he thinks the USA is, omg he never gives up. I guess that is because a real loser never does and it is very true about 300 million of them never do.
DoubleXL
09-08-2007, 02:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So, do I think Canada is better than the States? YES I DO, probably because i'm brainwashed with all the Canadian propaganda with the Beaver outbreak and the potheads, but you know what I'd take that anyday or WAR MONGERS AND CRACKHEADS!</div></div>
Good for you, and 30 million other people agree with you.
...on the other hand, 300 million people do not /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
I can't speak for Hans (hell, Hans can't speak for Hans), but I'd say he'd tell us that is a difference of about 1 trillion percent.
The U.S. is the greatest country in the history of mankind, period.
The U.S. is like the family member who has the highest degree, is the most handsome, and is a bodybuilder of the top degree.
Canada...well, Canada is like the nerd with glasses; not really ugly, but then again it is quite a stretch to call him good-looking. He's weak, mouthy, and likes to shoot off his mouth when drunk. More often than not (in fact, every time) he gets his a$$-kicked because he's drank way too much and doesn't know when to shut his mouth.
He's jealous of the famous and handsome family member, and sadly thinks calling the more-successful, handsome, and strong brother names will somehow even the playing field. However, all it does is make him look pathetic...and the world looks on in what can only be described as a mixture between pity and empathy.
The end /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
</div></div>
The Romans thought they were the greatest that ever existed as well. For some time, they were. Unfortunately, we all know what happened to the Roman Empire. The United States became the worlds superpower post World War 2. I don't think the United States realizes it, but not everyone wants capitalism, not everyone wants to live like you. They will fight to the death to prevent it from happening. Any fighter willing to blow themselves up for their cause is undefeatable. Period.
Face it...World War 3 has already begun. It started with the United States war on Islam, and continued support for the zionist nation Israel.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Romans thought they were the greatest that ever existed as well. For some time, they were. Unfortunately, we all know what happened to the Roman Empire. The United States became the worlds superpower post World War 2.</div></div>
And the Roman Empire lasted, what, five hundred years? And as far as it's true power it didn't hit its apex until about two hundred years into those five hundred years.
And since you point to 1946 as the date the American Empire rose, then we can assume the American Empire is still rising, not even to hit its peak until 2146, with decline not kicking in until 2200 or so...
Your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will be here to see America at its peak!
Thanks, Double!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
adigirl
09-08-2007, 01:14 PM
I doubt it. I think that another super power is not too far behind them. There was talk that Japan would be the next super power.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was talk that Japan would be the next super power. </div></div>
"Was" being the key word.
next...
DoubleXL
09-08-2007, 03:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was talk that Japan would be the next super power. </div></div>
"Was" being the key word.
next... </div></div>
The difference is, the world has the weaponry to destroy humanity. Being a superpower doesn't matter if everyone has the bomb.
Unfortunately American influence will always be prevalent, this does not mean however that it will prevail. The world will not sit idly by while the Unites States attempts to make the world in its image. Capitalism in its present form is evil, and does not ultimately serve the needs of people. As Sheik Usama has recently noted; American corporations weild too much power. Power which effectively makes the United States undemocratic. Your president wasn't elected, he was purchased. He is the CEO of United States of America Incorporated.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As Sheik Usama has recently noted</div></div>
Well, there you go.
Double saved me many words and posts; he has, in fact, manufactured the demise of his own credibility.
Moving on...
DoubleXL
09-08-2007, 03:42 PM
Honestly, killing is awful either way. Al Qeada is JUST as awful as the United States Government. They are both ruthless killers. Sheik Usama had made a point. That does not destroy any credibility...it is just one source. I will not look past a logical statement even if it comes from evil.
DoubleXL
09-08-2007, 03:56 PM
You mentioned before that you viewed my beliefs as being extreme. I think you better stop and take a look in the mirror son. You are the extremist. The views that you provide are a window into the problems facing this world.
America is a great nation, no arguing with that. If it wants to remain great however, it better start acting like a responsible family member, rather than the 30 year old alcoholic brother who has a learning disability.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Honestly, killing is awful either way. Al Qeada is JUST as awful as the United States Government. They are both ruthless killers. </div></div>
By all means, keep posting!!
You make my job very, very easy /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
America is a great nation, no arguing with that. If it wants to remain great however, it better start acting like a responsible family member, rather than the 30 year old alcoholic brother who has a learning disability. </div></div>
And what does that say about Canada that she needs to look up, and will forever be in the shadow of, a 30 year old alcoholic with learning disabilities?
Not good, EH?
DoubleXL
09-08-2007, 07:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
America is a great nation, no arguing with that. If it wants to remain great however, it better start acting like a responsible family member, rather than the 30 year old alcoholic brother who has a learning disability. </div></div>
And what does that say about Canada that she needs to look up, and will forever be in the shadow of, a 30 year old alcoholic with learning disabilities?
Not good, EH? </div></div>
I never said one thing about Canada. I am not sure what that has to do with what we are talking about. You don't even know if I AM Canadian.
At least you admit that the United States is a 30 year old alcoholic brother with learning disabilities. It is clear I am getting through to you.
Sure, I'll admit that, because it's hilarious you live in a country that is consistently in need of protection by a 30 year old alcoholic brother with learning disabilities /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I never said one thing about Canada. I am not sure what that has to do with what we are talking about. You don't even know if I AM Canadian</div></div>
Oh, I know you're Canadian.
No other group of humans in history has ever tried to fashion a national identity through beer commercials. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool_shades.gif
DoubleXL
09-08-2007, 07:42 PM
WHEN has Canada needed protection??? You are too much! In the last 100 years, when has Canada been attacked? When has Canada REQUIRED the protection of the great United States. Simple answer for you. Canada has not.
I like how you change the subject though. Quite smooth.
Oh, right...we'll just pretend Canada doesn't rely on the U.S.
We'll just pretend your pathetic-sized military will keep you safe in a large-scale war.
Alright then, moving on...
DoubleXL
09-08-2007, 07:46 PM
Where is this large scale war you are talking about. Canada does not have the enemies that the United States has. In fact, it is well known that Al Qeada trained muslims live in Canada. e.g. the Khadr family.
Canada has not needed the United States so far, and I seriously doubt Canada will.
DoubleXL
09-08-2007, 08:01 PM
Canada is not your friend, brother, cousin. Canada is your enemy. The United States cannot even subdue Iraq, a country whose infrastructure was in poor condition before the United States even invaded. So what chance do you think the almighty USA would have against Canada? ZERO.
Whether you believe it or not, you need Canada more then Canada needs you. Canada is an energy superpower. Without Canada's oil and gas you would not be able to drive your SUV's, heat your homes, or cook your food.
DoubleXL
09-08-2007, 08:05 PM
However, you are again trying to turn this into a Canada versus USA debate. This thread is clearly about Iraq.
So, as you eloquently say "Moving on"
LMAO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Canada is not your friend, brother, cousin. Canada is your enemy. The United States cannot even subdue Iraq, a country whose infrastructure was in poor condition before the United States even invaded. So what chance do you think the almighty USA would have against Canada? ZERO.
Whether you believe it or not, you need Canada more then Canada needs you. Canada is an energy superpower. Without Canada's oil and gas you would not be able to drive your SUV's, heat your homes, or cook your food. </div></div>
Oh my. You're starting to sound suspiciously like Soc67, may he rest in peace.. I think he came pretty close to claiming that we would whup US butt if they tried to invade us. Usually, this is a sign of having imbibed too much liquid refreshment. But then again, WE ARE CANADIAN!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/beerchug.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">War on terrorism? THE TERRORISTS ARE IN AFGHANISTAN </div></div>
You're right, because just the other day a statement from Al Qeada in Iraq sent to...ummm...hey, wait a minute...</div></div>
PROPAGANDA, your just told that.
DoubleXL
09-09-2007, 12:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Canada is not your friend, brother, cousin. Canada is your enemy. The United States cannot even subdue Iraq, a country whose infrastructure was in poor condition before the United States even invaded. So what chance do you think the almighty USA would have against Canada? ZERO.
Whether you believe it or not, you need Canada more then Canada needs you. Canada is an energy superpower. Without Canada's oil and gas you would not be able to drive your SUV's, heat your homes, or cook your food. </div></div>
Oh my. You're starting to sound suspiciously like Soc67, may he rest in peace.. I think he came pretty close to claiming that we would whup US butt if they tried to invade us. Usually, this is a sign of having imbibed too much liquid refreshment. But then again, WE ARE CANADIAN!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/beerchug.gif </div></div>
Canada would never defeat the United States in a war. That is silly. What I am saying here is that Canadians would never be defeated. I don't believe for one minute we would surrender to occupiers, especially American ones. I would rather die then allow my country to surrender.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Canada does not have the enemies that the United States has</div></div>
(Parrot now is thinking very hard this may well be because Canada has no real serious role on the world stage...)
Back to your regularly scheduled fantasy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would rather die then allow my country to surrender </div></div>
Strange...some people believe Canada surrendered long ago to alcohol and pot...which obviously doesn't mesh well with the fact you've been a self-neutered country for three decades now.
DoubleXL
09-09-2007, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would rather die then allow my country to surrender </div></div>
Strange...some people believe Canada surrendered long ago to alcohol and pot...which obviously doesn't mesh well with the fact you've been a self-neutered country for three decades now.
</div></div>
It is true that more Canadians on average drink than Americans. Americans however drink more heavily than Canadians when they do drink. What do you have against Pot son?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Americans however drink more heavily than Canadians when they do drink </div></div>
I'd ask for a link to the survey that proves this, but I'm pretty sure your answer will be "You find it" (which we all know means there is no link, I made it up)
As for pot, I think it's over-use speaks for itself.
"Forty-one percent of Britons drink alcohol at least a few times a week, compared with 27 percent of Canadians and 19 percent of Americans, according to the poll released Monday."
LINK (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060208/ai_n16042986)
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/beerchug.gif
DoubleXL
09-09-2007, 04:56 PM
I hate repeating things with you. Especially when they are posted in ENGLISH. I said that Canadians drink more then Americans, but Americans drink more HEAVILY.
DoubleXL
09-09-2007, 04:57 PM
Polls are not very accurate way of proving a point..
Zing!
DoubleXL
09-09-2007, 04:58 PM
Could we please talk about Iraq. It seems as if they are now saying Petraeus is wrong now!!!! When will the insanity end?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hate repeating things with you. Especially when they are posted in ENGLISH. I said that Canadians drink more then Americans, but Americans drink more HEAVILY.
</div></div>
And the link for that is...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Could we please talk about Iraq. It seems as if they are now saying Petraeus is wrong now!!!! When will the insanity end? </div></div>
I'd rather talk about armies who rescue trapped beavers, now that's important stuff.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Canada is not your friend, brother, cousin. Canada is your enemy. The United States cannot even subdue Iraq, a country whose infrastructure was in poor condition before the United States even invaded. So what chance do you think the almighty USA would have against Canada? ZERO.
Whether you believe it or not, you need Canada more then Canada needs you. Canada is an energy superpower. Without Canada's oil and gas you would not be able to drive your SUV's, heat your homes, or cook your food. </div></div>
Oh my. You're starting to sound suspiciously like Soc67, may he rest in peace.. I think he came pretty close to claiming that we would whup US butt if they tried to invade us. Usually, this is a sign of having imbibed too much liquid refreshment. But then again, WE ARE CANADIAN!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/beerchug.gif </div></div>
Canada would never defeat the United States in a war. That is silly. What I am saying here is that Canadians would never be defeated. I don't believe for one minute we would surrender to occupiers, especially American ones. I would rather die then allow my country to surrender. </div></div>
It does not take much to defeat the US. All you need is 5 nuclear bombs detonated at the same time at certain places, followed by a ground invasion. Before they would be able to strike back they would have been over run.
DoubleXL
09-10-2007, 06:04 PM
The United States government is setup in a way to avoid colapse due to exterior, or interior attack. So, the decision making apparatus of the United States would survive even if you dropped 5 bombs and the country was in chaos. The only way to decapitate the United States would be to somehow erradicate their entire governmental system in one shot.
Even if you killed 50 million, there would still be a government left to run the remnants. Oh, and Americans are gun crazed.
Guns do a lot against nuclear weapons, don't they?
But you are right about the government. There is contingency upon contingency upon contingency. There is a pecking order of power for every imaginable disaster.
That is why you never see the top-ten American political officials in one room for any occasion. If Bush and Cheney are at a function, for instance, the Secy of Defense is removed from that general area.
DoubleXL
09-10-2007, 06:13 PM
You would effectually need to eliminate every federal politician.
Being that this is unlikely, the only other way would be for the population to turn on the government. Which is more likely then elimination of the government.
DoubleXL
09-10-2007, 06:17 PM
I am sure if the government was unable to provide for the population that people will eventually turn on their leaders.
When it comes to survival, human beings will do what is necessary. This includes eating other humans, killing children, and overthrowing an ineffective government.
Eating humans I have no problem with...it's over-turning a Republican-led government that turns my stomach.
starterwiz
09-10-2007, 06:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eating humans I have no problem with.... </div></div>
So true, so true...ritualized canibalism every Sunday?
DoubleXL
09-10-2007, 06:25 PM
You know what. I don't have a problem with many conservative values. What I do have a problem with, is how the current administration has blundered the positive image the United States once had.
Say whatever you want about being conservative, or how liberal ideas suck. Untimately there are good republicans and bad republicans, and unfortunately, the house was stacked with a bad hand.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: starterwiz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eating humans I have no problem with.... </div></div>
So true, so true...ritualized canibalism every Sunday? </div></div>
That's what the severely un-educated believe.
So your post isn't at all surprising. Welcome to the conversation /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know what. I don't have a problem with many conservative values. What I do have a problem with, is how the current administration has blundered the positive image the United States once had.
Say whatever you want about being conservative, or how liberal ideas suck. Untimately there are good republicans and bad republicans, and unfortunately, the house was stacked with a bad hand. </div></div>
Not really.
Cheney is a good one, Powell was, Rove was...lots of good conservatives in Dubya's administration.
DoubleXL
09-10-2007, 06:29 PM
LMFAO
Thats all I have to say about that. Powell I can agree with, he was a military man, and as such is held to a higher standard. The rest, capitalist hags.
Of course.
But you're NOT a leftloon...we need to remember that.
DoubleXL
09-10-2007, 06:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course.
But you're NOT a leftloon...we need to remember that. </div></div>
Powell knew when to get out. He is a smart man, who also is a good man. George Bush isn't even evil, I don't believe he could be. He is not intelligent enough to be.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The United States government is setup in a way to avoid colapse due to exterior, or interior attack. So, the decision making apparatus of the United States would survive even if you dropped 5 bombs and the country was in chaos. The only way to decapitate the United States would be to somehow erradicate their entire governmental system in one shot.
Even if you killed 50 million, there would still be a government left to run the remnants. Oh, and Americans are gun crazed. </div></div>
No, there would not be. If you wipe out Congress while it's in session, there's nobody left to make decisions.
Nobody to organize a counter attack, nobody to put any coherent strategy in place.
And you are forgetting the most important thing : there would be minimal to no communication left.
Yes, it might sound impossible, but in reality it's that easy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, there would not be. If you wipe out Congress while it's in session, there's nobody left to make decisions. </div></div>
Hans, that's an incredibly naive view of how Congress works. For someone who creates 80% of the threads in here that deal with the U.S., I'd expect you to know more...MUCH more.
First of all, Congress is the one that declares war, in circumstances that are not a major national emergency, as obviously a simultaneous nuclear attack would be. There is no law that calls for Congress to get together and debate if the U.S. should counterattack an offensive nuclear attack on its soil; the idiocy of such should be apparent enough.
The president is Commander in Chief, and that gives him the power to order a counter-strike absent congressional approval or debate. In your extremely, extremely unlikely scenario Congress may be gone, but the military is still around. Does that count for nothing?
Secondly, do you really believe all 535 members of Congress are in session at the same time? Of course they are not. A full session of the Senate or House of Representatives does not happen on a daily basis. Certain committees or sub-committees meet daily, but they are made up of maybe 1/16 of Congress, if that. The average member of Congress spends about three days in Washington. The other days they are back home, with their constituency. Yes, as with everything, there are exceptions to the rule. But the chance of finding both the House and Senate meeting with full members simultaneously is practically non-existent.
Thirdly, what is this obsession with Congress all about in this manner to begin with? Congress is the legislative branch, one of three equal branches that run the U.S. government (executive and judicial being the other two). Even if the entire legislative branch (Congress) were wiped out, how would that totally cripple the government? There are two other branches still in existence, plus the states fifty governors, who have roles to play in national emergencies of the highest degree.
Strange...someone so obsessed with the U.S. knows so very little about it.
Speedy, if you take out Congress, it's like taking a chicken and cut it's head off.
Sure, it will walk around for a while, but that's about it.
Presidential inauguration would be a perfect time to drop a nuke.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Presidential inauguration would be a perfect time to drop a nuke. </div></div>
That's even worse than your laughable 'take out Congress' theory /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Why? Both presidents are present, and if I am not mistaken you can not launch a nuclear counterstrike without Presidential approval.
If a president is incapacitated the decision to launch goes to another person. The chain of command can go down as far as some under-secy who ranks about 1,000 in importance right now as we speak
Believe it or not, we actually though about some of this stuff. We're not Belgium, you know.
Wow, that sounds bullet proof. Let's have someone who nobody knows (1,000 in importance rank) make a decision that could cause the biggest disaster we have ever seen on Earth.
Brilliant!
Bush to announce withdrawal of troops, official says.
President Bush is expected this week to announce his plans for cutting back U.S. troop numbers in Iraq, a senior administration official said Tuesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/bush.iraq/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Well, once again we are victorious. Hurray!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush to announce withdrawal of troops, official says.
President Bush is expected this week to announce his plans for cutting back U.S. troop numbers in Iraq, a senior administration official said Tuesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/bush.iraq/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Well, once again we are victorious. Hurray!
</div></div>
2,000 troops leaving out of 170,000 isn't exactly 'leaving', Hans /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Well, for a Belgian it would be...but not for a person from a real country.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, that sounds bullet proof. Let's have someone who nobody knows (1,000 in importance rank) make a decision that could cause the biggest disaster we have ever seen on Earth.
Brilliant!
</div></div>
That guy at position 1,000 has more knowledge and expertise than you or I will ever experience or know.
And tell me, Hans, other than a declining chain of command, how else does one address such an issue?
<span style='font-size: 8pt'>Arguing 'real world' politics with someone from one of the more insignificant countries, ever, is interesting and fun!</span>
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the country, told Congress this week he could see troop numbers sliding by 30,000.
Are we having trouble reading again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, that sounds bullet proof. Let's have someone who nobody knows (1,000 in importance rank) make a decision that could cause the biggest disaster we have ever seen on Earth.
Brilliant!
</div></div>
That guy at position 1,000 has more knowledge and expertise than you or I will ever experience or know.
And tell me, Hans, other than a declining chain of command, how else does one address such an issue?
<span style='font-size: 8pt'>Arguing 'real world' politics with someone from one of the more insignificant countries, ever, is interesting and fun!</span>
</div></div>
That's a good question! I guess that makes those nukes not really effective for your own protection, does it?
Good lord, he's never heard of MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction!
Why, oh why do I waste my time with amateurs?????
I have heard about it. But I fail to see how you are going to destruct the terrorists, if you can't even capture their leader after 6 years?
We didn't capture Hitler. Does that mean the Allies lost WW2?
Yes, WWII was lost by you. I don't dispute that.
Keep posting, you make my job easy...
Are you know trying to convince yourself you won WWII?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you know trying to convince yourself you won WWII? </div></div>
I now we did
Hans, I'm going to watch "Jeopardy" in a few minutes. May I suggest you do the same?
Now you did? So you did not win back then?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I rarely watch tv. </div></div>
Let me guess...a book would never tarnish your hands, either.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now you did? So you did not win back then? </div></div>
Translation, please.
I assumed you were trying to say : now we did.
Originally Posted By: Hans
Are you know trying to convince yourself you won WWII?
I now we did
_________________________
"Anyone who is not a conservative by age 40 has no brain"
-Winston Churchill
Ummm, yes, Hans...did you notice how you spelled "now"??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you know trying to convince yourself you won WWII? </div></div>
And I said, "I now we did".
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif
Poor Hansy
no, but I noticed how you spelled know.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.