Is Chretien going senile?

[Guest Some Guy]

Thanks.

I was reading my Girl's French book out loud to her lats night and she grabbed out of my hands and said I was butchering the language. But I really was trying to pronounce it right, but you try speaking French with a Boston accent and when your only forirgn langauge experiences are high school Spanish. It's not easy.

[Guest starvenger]

That said, it is vastly more important to know who the President of the United States is than to know who the PM of Canada is. Our President is the leader of the free world, and even if you live in Canada or Europe, he does more than any ten of your officials to keep your ass in one piece.

Show some respect.

Well, I respect Bush's CABINET, but as for the man himself... well, I don't consider him to be a strong leader, so it was smart of him to surround himself with good people. Certainly he's better than Gore would've been.

 

WRT The Hour Has 22 Minutes, the "Talking To Americans" segment has also included bits about Canada's "metric" clock, and the fact that we've finally stopped using prop planes for cross-country flights. For me, it's these things that Americans should really know better about.

 

But to be honest, if they did a "Talking to Torontonians" segment (the show is filmed in Nova Scotia), they'd probably get just as many funny comments.

 

btw Marney, what do you have against Mounties? Or was that just a facetious comment?

[Guest Some Guy]

Starvenger, I agree with you about Bush's cabinet, they are all good and have a range of beliefs with Colin Powell being more moderate and Rumsfeld being more "hawkish" and the rest fall in between, it's well balanced.

But have you listened to Bush lately (since 9/11)? He has really found his stride and is cruising along leading the country, his 70% aproval rating shows that. BTW Clinton never topped 67% and bush topped 90% at one point and the lowest he's dropped since 9/11 was 61%, bad leaders don't get that type of approval.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

btw Marney, what do you have against Mounties? Or was that just a facetious comment?

Facetious.

 

Mostly.

[Guest starvenger]

But have you listened to Bush lately (since 9/11)? He has really found his stride and is cruising along leading the country, his 70% aproval rating shows that. BTW Clinton never topped 67% and bush topped 90% at one point and the lowest he's dropped since 9/11 was 61%, bad leaders don't get that type of approval.

IIRC his dad had a high approval rating during Operation Desert Storm as well, so I'd take the approval rating with a grain of salt, know what I mean? And I don't think he's a bad leader, but he won't be remembered as a great leader - he'll simply be remembered as the president when 9/11 happened. Just my opinion...

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Starvenger, I agree with you about Bush's cabinet, they are all good and have a range of beliefs with Colin Powell being more moderate and Rumsfeld being more "hawkish" and the rest fall in between, it's well balanced.

But have you listened to Bush lately (since 9/11)? He has really found his stride and is cruising along leading the country, his 70% aproval rating shows that. BTW Clinton never topped 67% and bush topped 90% at one point and the lowest he's dropped since 9/11 was 61%, bad leaders don't get that type of approval.

 

Anyone could have made a better leader than Clinton (except maybe Gore) and he was popular.

 

Not that I'm against Bush, but popularity doesn't mean everything. Just look at Canada, we almost always vote the wrong party into power. Trudeau hung on for years while ruining the country, and Chretien did and continues to do the same thing.

[Guest EricMM]

I don't know how many of you watched Bill O'Reilly tonight, but they had a Canadian man on discussing with Bill about Chretien's comments.

 

The were discussing Canada's relevence to world affairs.

 

It turns out that down from the 90,000 men in the Canadian Military, Canada now has 55,000 men in it's military.

 

Sure Canada has cheap medicine, but at what cost? What would Canada do if it were attacked by terrorists?

 

Who's relevant?

 

I mean I LIKE Canada. I visited Nigra falls, and bought a beaver w/ a Canadian flag on it. (I was like 10) As Marney (and probably most Americans) feel, if not America, then Canada. But if you can't even supply 800 guys to take your turn in Afghanistan, then you aren't *exactly* equals...

 

Sorry for the stick treatment...

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I don't know how many of you watched Bill O'Reilly tonight, but they had a Canadian man on discussing with Bill about Chretien's comments.

 

The were discussing Canada's relevence to world affairs.

 

It turns out that down from the 90,000 men in the Canadian Military, Canada now has 55,000 men in it's military.

 

Sure Canada has cheap medicine, but at what cost? What would Canada do if it were attacked by terrorists?

 

Who's relevant?

 

I mean I LIKE Canada. I visited Nigra falls, and bought a beaver w/ a Canadian flag on it. (I was like 10) As Marney (and probably most Americans) feel, if not America, then Canada. But if you can't even supply 800 guys to take your turn in Afghanistan, then you aren't *exactly* equals...

 

Sorry for the stick treatment...

When it comes to military, I'll cut Canada some slack. They don't NEED a big military because the U.S would freak out if anything like 9/11 happened to Canada. People seem to forget that, just because Canada is a country, doesn't mean it's a huge target. California, New York and Texas are bigger targets than Canada. Why would they want to devote so much time and money to defense when there's a bigger target, and better equiped army ready to defend western civilization to the south? All the U.S asks in return is that Canadians give their fullest support in our war against terrorism and be on call whenever the need for their service arises, something they've done well up until Chretien's comments and some recent polls.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

the U.S would freak out if anything like 9/11 happened to Canada

I agree. Someone (I think it was Kahran) said earlier that "You [the United States] are our big brother." That's very true. Canada's our little sister, and I'd actually be several times more pissed off if anyone dared to attack her. She doesn't do anything mean to anyone. If tyrants and terrorists are going to attack someone, it had better be us.

Hell, I wanted to nuke the entire Middle East when we were attacked. Had Canada been attacked, I would have felt like turning most of Europe into radioactive slag as well.

[Guest Some Guy]

But have you listened to Bush lately (since 9/11)?  He has really found his stride and is cruising along leading the country, his 70% aproval rating shows that.  BTW Clinton never topped 67% and bush topped 90% at one point and the lowest he's dropped since 9/11 was 61%, bad leaders don't get that type of approval.

IIRC his dad had a high approval rating during Operation Desert Storm as well, so I'd take the approval rating with a grain of salt, know what I mean? And I don't think he's a bad leader, but he won't be remembered as a great leader - he'll simply be remembered as the president when 9/11 happened. Just my opinion...

I disagree. I and apparently the rest of the world (if you look at varuous countries reactions in teh 80s and now) see Bush as a Ronald Reagan type. He is not to be fucked with and when you do fuck with him back up because he'll come after you hard and fast. Bush means what he says and backs it up with action, Reagan did the same thing. There's your reason why Canada, France, Germany, etc.. were all in favor of taking out Sadam in 98 when Clinton was Pres and aren't now; They knew that Clinton wouldn't really do it and they know that Bush really will and is going to no matter what they say.

That is a true leader, he leads with his convictions, not necesarrilyy opinion polls, he's not afraid to make hard desicions, hell he likes to make them.

IMO if all goes well for the next 6 years Bush will be remebered as a meek President who was called to action on 9/11 and rose to greatness.

Conversely the last President will forever be rememebered as "The guy who got his dick sucked in the Oval Office" for not coming through on his promises and just talking the talk and not walking the walk, when he did start to walk he turned tail and ran the second any opposition arose. That is not a leader, that is a coward.

 

Bush's dad had a very high 90%+ approval rating suring Desert Storm, but that only lasted a month or so and then dropped dramatically enough over teh nest year+ that he wasn't reelected, The President has held strong for over a year now and doesn't show any signs of stopping.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

But have you listened to Bush lately (since 9/11)?  He has really found his stride and is cruising along leading the country, his 70% aproval rating shows that.  BTW Clinton never topped 67% and bush topped 90% at one point and the lowest he's dropped since 9/11 was 61%, bad leaders don't get that type of approval.

IIRC his dad had a high approval rating during Operation Desert Storm as well, so I'd take the approval rating with a grain of salt, know what I mean? And I don't think he's a bad leader, but he won't be remembered as a great leader - he'll simply be remembered as the president when 9/11 happened. Just my opinion...

I disagree. I and apparently the rest of the world (if you look at varuous countries reactions in teh 80s and now) see Bush as a Ronald Reagan type. He is not to be fucked with and when you do fuck with him back up because he'll come after you hard and fast. Bush means what he says and backs it up with action, Reagan did the same thing. There's your reason why Canada, France, Germany, etc.. were all in favor of taking out Sadam in 98 when Clinton was Pres and aren't now; They knew that Clinton wouldn't really do it and they know that Bush really will and is going to no matter what they say.

That is a true leader, he leads with his convictions, not necesarrilyy opinion polls, he's not afraid to make hard desicions, hell he likes to make them.

IMO if all goes well for the next 6 years Bush will be remebered as a meek President who was called to action on 9/11 and rose to greatness.

Conversely the last President will forever be rememebered as "The guy who got his dick sucked in the Oval Office" for not coming through on his promises and just talking the talk and not walking the walk, when he did start to walk he turned tail and ran the second any opposition arose. That is not a leader, that is a coward.

 

Bush's dad had a very high 90%+ approval rating suring Desert Storm, but that only lasted a month or so and then dropped dramatically enough over teh nest year+ that he wasn't reelected, The President has held strong for over a year now and doesn't show any signs of stopping.

I wish Bush would speak and act more from the heart than he does. He seems like he's trying to hard to please everyone. I understand that he has to pander to some of the Democrats on some issues because the House and Senate are so evenly matched, but I really wish Bush would take a firm stand on something and stick with it no matter what others make think.

[Guest danielisthor]

I wish Bush would speak and act more from the heart than he does. He seems like he's trying to hard to please everyone. I understand that he has to pander to some of the Democrats on some issues because the House and Senate are so evenly matched, but I really wish Bush would take a firm stand on something and stick with it no matter what others make think.

I believe he speaks more from the heart than Clinton ever did or wish he had.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I wish Bush would speak and act more from the heart than he does. He seems like he's trying to hard to please everyone. I understand that he has to pander to some of the Democrats on some issues because the House and Senate are so evenly matched, but I really wish Bush would take a firm stand on something and stick with it no matter what others make think.

I believe he speaks more from the heart than Clinton ever did or wish he had.

So very true

[Guest Cancer Marney]

A short column by Suzanne Fields on the supposed upswing of anti-American sentiment in Europe, and its real source.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Hey, I heard somewhere that Canada sent it's military to the D-Day assault in WW2, and was the first group to accomplish all it's objectives there. Is that true?

[Guest HecateRose]

I disagree that Bush going out to fight without support is a sign of a good leader, I think it's the sign of a selfish one. Do you think the military wants to go, I doubt it. The military is spread out so thinly that it could be devistating to the system. There is so much stress in the military over being deployed places, and their families aren't getting much support, I'm sure if you polled the military, they would tear Bush a new one if he said we are going to blow Iraq up whether anyone else likes it or not, considering he isn't even thinking of the troops. IMHO he is out to finish his daddy's job, and to get some glory

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Absolutely wrong. Consensus does not prove right. Consensus proves only consensus. And since when are the butchers of Tiananmen Square and the Syrians the moral authority of the world? Or the UN, an organisation at least partly subsidised by Iraqi oil? We aren't beholden to anyone. We will do what is right because it is right, not because others agree or disagree with us. The rest of the world is irrelevant when it comes to our nation's safety and the lives of our citizens. They aren't the target here. We are.

 

And why would anyone want to fight? We go to war when we have to, not because we enjoy it. We go to war because some things are more important than life: liberty, truth, justice, and the American way. The President of the United States bears the burden of each and every loss America suffers under his command, and it's unconscionable to claim that he is indifferent to American casualties.

[Guest HecateRose]

Oh please, on television out here the military and their families are bombarded by people saying they appreciate out sacrifice, and how we are fighting to keep America free. Going after Iraq is not about freedom. We aren't looking for truth out here, we are attacking people with a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude. Justice, ha. Going after Afganistan is not justice, it's revenge, and quite frankly we had the 9/11 attacks coming to us. Our pride has been damaged. We are all told to go on and live a normal life dispite the tragedy, that is impossible for us out here, because at a moments notice our husbands could be called away. The president does not feel a personal connection to the soldiers who die. His televised ads saying how much he appreciates it is so patronizing, written by a professional speech writer to make him look caring. If he cared, he would come out here and explain to the soldiers and there family why going after Iraq is so important, and why it is worth their lives.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Going after Iraq is not about freedom...

It certainly is. The freedom of the Iraqi people from a brutal tyrant who's gassed thousands to death, the freedom of his neighbours from the fear of invasion, and the freedom of the American people from the very real and rapidly growing danger that Saddam Hussein's missiles will one day be used against us, either by his own agents or the terrorists he funds and supports.

 

we are attacking people with a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude.

No. If we invade, we would be attacking a country which has had a gun pointed at us for quite a long time, and has already fired it at least once in the direction of a former President.

 

Going after Afganistan is not justice, it's revenge

No. Operation Infinite Justice resulted in the destruction of the al Qaeda centre of operations, the disruption terrorist training, the killing or capture of thousands of evil people, the confiscation of funds and resources, and the elimination of the Taliban. We had clear goals and we achieved every single one.

 

quite frankly we had the 9/11 attacks coming to us

Since you're SG's sister, I won't say "Fuck you." I'll say instead:

Screw you.

Coming to us? Yeah, like a rape victim in a miniskirt has it coming to her. Christ. These disgusting apologetics sicken me even more than the act itself. At least the terrorists are honest and straightforward about their hatred. People like you might claim you love America (although I don't know if you'd even say that) but in reality you hate her and you want to see her destroyed just as much as the al Qaeda scum. And just like them, you will fail.

 

Our pride has been damaged

Three thousand people were also "damaged." Not sure if you remember that, but I just thought I'd point it out.

 

If [the President] cared, he would come out here and explain to the soldiers and there family why going after Iraq is so important, and why it is worth their lives.

The President has done so repeatedly, on television and on radio. If you still don't understand, no amount of words will convince you, and no personal visits will change your mind. Was your suggestion serious? We have over 2 million people in our armed services. If the President were to go to each one and personally explain the same reasons over and over again, we wouldn't need a war at all. Saddam Hussein would have died of old age by the time we started.

[Guest HecateRose]

First off, it is not our job to save every single country on the planet from tyrants when there are so many people suffering on the home front, and it is arrogant of the US to think it can just go off and save every person in every country, especially at the expense of American lives. Second, I recognize Iraq has attacked us before, that is fine, but we are only speculating about their actual capabilities, and until we know that they are a threat to the US, we don't need to flood the area with troops. Third, Al Qaeda has not been destroyed, it still exists, we are still finding Al Qaeda members every day. We will never destroy Al Qaeda completely, we may chase it into hiding for a while, but we won't destroy it. Fourth, we had 9/11 coming to us because of our arrogance. We are an arrogant nation who got caught with it's pants around its ankles, it was bound to happen sooner or later, everyone shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that we were attacked, but by the manner in which they chose to do it. We have always on some level been sticking our noses into other people's business, and pushing our way of life all over the world, and it came back to bite us. I love America (if I hadn't I would have decided to take the British half of my dual citizenship), but I am also very realistic about how we are viewed and what our actions can result in. Fifth, yes I acknowledge over 3000 people were killed, but it really pushed the country as a whole down a notch. Other acts of terrorism have occured before, but never on our home turf, so we reacted with less enthusiasm so to speak. Sixth, I'm aware that the president has said so on television, in a prepared and well written (by someone other than himself) way. I want some honesty, not what can occasionally turn into political propaganda.

 

One thing I must point out I only receive AFN (Armed Forces Network) television, and a few channels based out of England, we are not always getting the same news blips.

[Guest EricMM]

it was bound to happen sooner or later

we had 9/11 coming to us

 

These two phrases are COMPLETELY different.

 

If someone had told me that because of our world actions we were probably going to incur the envy and violence of 3rd world shits around the globe, I'd agree with you.

 

But did we have it coming, did we deserve it?

 

Never.

 

Terrorists prove their ignorance by thinking they can accomplish something through violence (yes yes and in a million other ways) because the second they attack us, they create sentiments that will destroy them in the american people. (e.g. Marney, DrTom, me...)

 

BY THE WAY, those three examples are COMPLETELY different. Hello! Tree-hugging liberal here! But they fucking killed us, they want to do it again and again. Fuck them.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

To Hecate, SG's admirably coolheaded and substantive sister:

 

First, I believe it is indeed our job to spread democracy. We are the only country on the face of the earth which can possibly do so. We have the responsibility of common humanity to oppose dictators and tyrants whenever we can, in the name of the people they murder and oppress. Arrogant? No. Idealistic? Yes. So what? I prefer the honest failures of idealism to the self-prophesied, self-serving failures of cynicism.

 

"Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous."

- Psalms 1:5

 

Second, we are not just "speculating" about Iraq's capabilities. We know, know, KNOW that Iraq has biological weapons (ask the Kurds, or read the report on their murder by the PHR, whose researchers isolated and identified sarin. Do you have the barest conception of what one vial of that, or any of the other agents Saddam Hussein has documentedly obtained (from Cuba, France, and others) would do in the middle of a NYC subway in rush hour? You'd have a nationwide medical catastrophe that would make the Black Plague look like a mild case of pollen allergy. The terrorists could easily sneak a man-sized missile aboard a small boat and launch it at a coastal city. 50 miles out? They'd get away in a matter of hours and we'd never find them. We don't get radio signatures that distinct. And this segues right into

 

The third point. No, Al Qaeda will never be destroyed. 50 years from now, some brainwashed piece of shit with a kaffiyeh will be calling himself the leader of Al Qaeda. But he will have no power and the threat he poses will be minimal, because we will have eradicated every last regime which could support him in the manner necessary for him to be able to pose a threat to our country. That is precisely what the Honourable Mr Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, stated: "We must drain the swamp they live in."

 

Fourth, yes, 9/11 was bound to happen, but it was bound to happen because of the evil and extremism of a certain small group of Moslems and the tacit support, if only in silence, of a much larger group of Moslems. It wasn't caused by our arrogance. It was caused by their evil. Period.

I know full well how we're viewed, and I also know full well that the way in which we're viewed is unjustifiable and wicked, the product of decades of brainwashing, cultural collapse, and inflexible religious doctrine.

As Eric said, we didn't "deserve" 9/11 in any way. No one ever deserves such horrors, and it is obscene to claim that we did. You are blaming the victim for the crime. And that is wrong.

 

Fifth - agreed. Of course it provokes us to more urgent action when we're attacked in the one place we feel we're safe. Americans overseas have been targeted by terrorists for ages (again, the Achille Lauro is a clear example, as is Daniel Pearl).

 

Sixth, the President is being honest. He is a moral man and he has stood up against all opposition for not only his principles but the principles on which America was founded.

 

"How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence.

They only consult to cast him down from his excellency: they delight in lies: they bless with their mouth, but they curse inwardly. Selah.

My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him.

He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved."

- Psalms 62:3-6

[Guest Slapnuts00]

Operation Infinite Justice resulted in the destruction of the al Qaeda centre of operations, the disruption terrorist training, the killing or capture of thousands of evil people, the confiscation of funds and resources, and the elimination of the Taliban. We had clear goals and we achieved every single one.

erg...except capturing Bin Laden...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

That was never a goal of Infinite Justice. Yes, Usama bin Laden is a wanted man, and we will do our best to capture or kill him - like all other terrorists. But the goal of the Afghanistan operation was to neutralise the threat posed by a hostile regime which harboured, trained, and funded terrorists, and that is precisely what we did.

[Guest EricMM]

I thought it was funny on the news tonight, Hannity and Colmes, IF that's news...

 

Anywas, Democrat Congressman arguing with Hannity.

 

Democrat: If we use sanctions on Iraq there's no way he's getting a nuke!

Hannity: What if you're wrong, congressman, what if you allow him to run free etc, he's had 4 years to do stuff etc (I'm paraphrasing) how can you let him run free

Democrat: Well we need to catch Osama Bin Ladin first! What happens if we let him run free?

 

I just wanted to stand up and shout: NOTHING! RELATIVELY NOTHING!!

[Guest treble charged]

bin Laden's pretty much a symbol though. He's the face that most people associate 9/11 with. Get him, and it actually feels like something has been accomplished, because, no matter how many Taliban or Al Qaeda (sp?) you kill, it's bin Laden that people want.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Who the hell cares? That's Eric's point, and he's absolutely right. We aren't fighting this war for ego or to make people feel good. We're fighting this war because we must.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

bin Laden's pretty much a symbol though. He's the face that most people associate 9/11 with. Get him, and it actually feels like something has been accomplished, because, no matter how many Taliban or Al Qaeda (sp?) you kill, it's bin Laden that people want.

He's pretty much just an icon for the whole war effort. Since we're not at war with any particular country (not yet at least), and the administration/media don't want us to associate terrorism with just Muslims; Bin-Laden makes a good enemy as he's the supposed 9/11 mastermind. Getting him would be great and all, but anyone who thinks that the world will be safe again once Osama is dead is crazy. There's countless clones of him waiting in the wings and then there's all the anti-American propaganda fed children of these Islamic countries that can very well become future terrorists.

 

Heh, I heard something amusing on a radio show last week. The host suggested that Americans give every child in these anti-American countries a big screen TV and an X-Box. They'll love us before you know it

[Guest HecateRose]

World Peace through Bribery? Interesting concept, but is it really cost efficient?

[Guest Slapnuts00]

Heh, I heard something amusing on a radio show last week. The host suggested that Americans give every child in these anti-American countries a big screen TV and an X-Box. They'll love us before you know it

An X-box!?! That would make me even more Anti-American!