Previous  1 ... 20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Because usually those quires are made with the preamble, body or conclusion containing some reference to GWB being akin to Hitler or Stalin and when national interests conflict, the USA is made out to be the worse perpetrator or primary instigator in every case.

ie. 'Human rights in China don't compare to the brutality of the American judiciary'

or American embargoes cause needless death while the dictators actions are defended etc etc etc.

   

Ah, you mean like when we said going into Iraq was a bad idea, but you guys said we were just anti-American and didn't know what we were talking about.

Of course we were right. Just call us anti-American instead though. It's easier for you that way.

   

Who says you were right?

I reckon we ought to finish off Iran and Syria, put a good scare into Saudia Arabia then fix North Korea once and for all.

   

The 65% of the American people who don't like or trust George Bush anymore.

   

Considering the propaganda war the MSM, liberals and Hollywood has waged over this issue you'd think that percentage would be considerably higher.

   

Ah, typical conservatism...a refusal to take any responsibility for the results of your actions.

   

Really...?? conservatism has always been about accepting personal responsibility. It has always been liberal movements and those to the left that have perpetuated the idea that people aren't responsible for their actions and damn the consequences. This gives them their raison d'etre.

   

No, conservatism has been about blaming "liberals" for everything since at least 1980. Iraq is a perfect example. Conservatives lied to start an illegal war. Those that you would term liberals told you not to. We said it would become a quagmire, that it would set off a civil war between the Sunni and the Shia, that there was no proof of WMD, and that the civilian casualty count would be horrendous. We got told to shut up, that we didn't know what we were talking about.

Now our predictions have come true. What do we hear? Well, we don't hear conservatives taking responsibility for their actions. We do hear people like Grainfed blaming your failures on liberals and hollywood and anybody else they can think of.

The environment is another great example. You say that you want everybody to take on responsibility, but fight any suggestion that corporations be made to pay for their emissions. You champion their attempts to evade their responsibility.

Harper is another excellent example. He claims to be accountable, but he's running the most secretive, unaccountable government ever and is involved in so many scandals that it's hard to keep track. His answer? Blame the Liberals.

What did George Bush do when arsenic in well-water began to exceed EPA limits? Well, he could have told arsenic-emitting industries to take responsibility for their emissions, but instead he changed the limits.

You guys might talk a good game, but the truth is that your record is one of refusing responsibility.

   

   

'twould be best to to "finish off' Israel and put a
scare" into world wide Zionism.

   

Yeah and 74% don't like Pelosi and Ried. Liberal leaders of the Senate and the House.

   

The Liberal run of Chretien/Martin saw an overwhelming number of problems associated with their lengthy tenure so I can only presume this is what you are referring to.



The military and it's intelligence community are apolitical no matter how hard you want to believe otherwise. That errors in analyzing information can be made are certainly possible and it appears that the original int assessment of WMD was incorrect.

Nevertheless, the decision to invade Iraq was made after weighing several contingencies such as the Wests responsibility in preventing genocide against the Kurds, the future threat of a militarily reconstituted Iraq to the West in general and also allies in the region, the potential to introduce democracy to the region, to enforce 17 UN resolutions that demanded Iraq comply or risk the use of military force against it, and surly access to key resources and their factor in global economic security played a role.

Secondly, your assertion that the war was "illegal" is convenient if you are a firm proponent in the authority of the UN because that is the international law you are presumably basing your opinion on. To reiterate your case, there simply are only two reasons under UN law that a country can go to war: 1. Self defense or 2. Expressed UN authorisation in a Security Resolution. It is of your opinion that the war is "illegal" since the US failed to convince member states for "permission".

Currently Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and
Uzbekistan for a coalition of countries operating in Iraq and playing a number of roles such as direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialised NBC response teams, humanitarian and reconstruction aid etc.

Why do I hear so little from you or any of the others with your point of view, on the culpability of responsibility for member states other then the USA. Is it because in your world of evil government conspiracy these nations are only participating because the USA perhaps coerces them?



Fundamentally and exorbitantly false and smacks of arrogant historical revisionism. There were equal numbers of proponents of conservative pundits who clearly rejected increased involvement in Iraq as were there liberals who favoured the opposite. It is convenient for you to boil this down to a liberal vs conservative issue to suit your agenda but in doing so you ignore all the Democrats who campaigned their constituents and voted for the invasion and those Conservatives who fought against opposed on the principles of fiscal liability and national isolationism (not the worlds police point) etc etc.

Also, many of those in opposition falsely proclaimed the coalition body count would be astronomical and be beyond the ability of the coalition forces to sustain a volunteer force and that conscription would be the ensuing result as just one example of the many predictions that failed to materialise. Basing your arguments on selective accuracy is akin to psychics who expound their odd success and completely ignore their many failed predictions.



Stifling free and open debate through ridicule or even out right legal restrictions is generally not associated with Conservatives.



I presume by "our" you mean 'opponents' to the granting of a security resolution authorising military action.

There are issues associated with 3 block warfare as this type of asymmetrical conflict is relatively new to military planners. Nonetheless, the military and coalition governments have taken full responsibility for their failures and with each lesson learned there is a corresponding corrective measure initiated.

Further, you ignore the astounding number of success in Iraq which include such things as relatively minimal loss of lives of coalition forces, free elections have been held, almost all of the 400 courts are operational, security forces and a constituted army have been trained and are beginning to shoulder a greater burden, Iraq's judiciary is now fully independent for its government, power generation now exceeds the prewar capacity, all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, nearly all primary and secondary schools are operating, nearly 1500 new schools have been opened (500 over schedule), all hospitals are opned along with the addition of 1500 new clinics, 22 million vaccinations have been carried out by coalition doctors, the irrigation canals that had lapsed under the old regime have been cleared and repaired bringing the farming capability to a level never before achieved in Iraq history, business is booming and the non state portion is higher then it has ever been, people can open bank accounts, there are now more the 170 independent newspapers, 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government, more then 15,000 reconstruction projects have been completed by coalition forces, etc etc etc.



For the record: I opposed the occupation of Iraq for three principle reasons:

1. It is the stated strategic goal of Al Qaida to provoke the West into a global Muslim war and to liberate Saudia Arabia from the Royal family and return it to its fundamental roots of Whabbisim. Destabilistaion of Muslim nations with a clear western target in order to unite radical Islamist forces has always been the intention and the coalition invasion plays into this.

2. The west should be more isolationist in dealing with rogue states and foster the climate for change from within through a series of economic embargoes. At the time I rejected the Oil for Food program and believed no humanitarian assistance, including medical supplies, should be permitted.

3. As a Canadian taxpayer, I should not have to be financially obligated to assist in bringing/restoring democracy/stability to any third world country that means little to me through lack of historically ties or current benefit.

I myself don't see the failures you do but am disgusted that once a democratically elected government has committed its nation to a war, that people would exasperate the conflict, threaten the lives of its own soldiers and embolden the enemy for personal political expediency. \

As such, coalition forces have a moral responsibility to see the mission through to completion.



What a pile of crap.

   

Not what I'm talking about at all. There was a concerted effort by conservatives starting with the election of Reagan in the US to make "liberal" into a dirty word. You guys up here have been continuing that.



Most of the world, and what you would term liberals in North America, looked at the evidence you presented and found it to be lacking. It looks an awful lot like Bush and his gang had decided to go war with Iraq even before 9-11 and were looking for an excuse. There is more than a little indication that they "stove-piped" only the intelligence that supported their wishes.

Up here, Stephen Harper was in a complete tizzy because we wouldn't join the US in their war. Thank Christ he wasn't in charge when that decision had to be made or we'd be waist deep in to quagmires instead of just one.



Is offering trade and aid coercion? Is threatening to hamper trade and end aid coercion? I'd say yes, and it's pretty well-documented that Bush did those things when building his coalition. You'll notice that there aren't a lot of traditional US allies on that list of yours.



Most of the conservative pundits and every conservative poster at CKA backed Bush. Go back and check. I have yet to see one of them admit they were wrong. None of them have apologized for their rabid attacks on those who turned out to be right.

When those of us who didn't agree pointed out that the UN had been unable to find any evidence of viable WMD, we were told that the UN was wrong and Colin Powell with his cartoon drawings of trucks was right. When we pointed out the Sunni/Shia split, we were told they all the same or that there'd be no problems.



Yeah, and Harper isn't trying to censor films for Chucky the Nutbag McVety either.

Iraq is a mess. The government has no control. The infrastructure of the country has been destroyed. The civilian body count has been horrendous. The US army has lost a lot more people than ever predicted by those that sent them.

The war was illegal according to international law. There is no evidence that Iraq presented a threat to anybody. The US helped write those laws, by the way.



Their numbers would be better if they would have impeached Bush and Cheney.

   

I don't dismiss that at all. However, in Canada the opposite has been true with the liberal establishment feverently working to establish a connection between Conservatism harbouring secretive and foreboding hidden agendas or suggesting that any value not consistent with Liberal Party doctrine is anathematic to the values of Canada and thus anti-Canadian.



Are you skipping the part whereby I officially stated I originally opposed intervention in Iraq? This is a consistent value and I reject potential involvement in Sudan on the same principle as an example.



That's fine. I can accept that possibility. But to suggest that there is an undercurrent of politically motivated officers within the military presenting false information to politicians in order to influence their decisions is false.



I worked very hard for two months in preparation for a deployment to Iraq. Afghanistan came as a complete surprise to everyone and was regarded as nothing more then a token gesture of solidarity with America in its hour of need.

Further, one can only assume that Chretien acted on the information presented by his best intelligence sources, (sources and agencies that Harper would not have been privy to) and acted as responsibly as we can hope a Canadian PM would have when presented with all the evidence.



There are traditionally four allies that form the nucleus of the modern military coalition in the quest for global stability in general and western security in particular:

Australia, Canada, UK and USA.

Only one failed to stand up and be counted.



The deployment to the gulf predates my CKA membership but I am sure that once forces had been committed or mobilised I would have changed my perspective and supported the coalition attempts to achieve their objective.

That core belief for me has remained fundamentally unchanged and will continue to do so until such time as the enemy has been defeated and the objectives of the mission accomplished. I am more then confident in the coalitions ability to achieve their goal both militarily and under the auspices of three block war but I do not have the confidence that we can defeat those enemies from within.



What exactly was right? Both sides knew there would be a potential for internal strife. It is a war and bloodshed is to be expected. Are you talking about the WMD? I myself, along with others have conceded that intelligence sources erred in their assessment. As for the potential for internal strife following the occupation, coalition forces were the ones most vocal in their concerns however, they erred in their assessment that they would be able to contain the problem.

Only the most deep rooted Liberal arrogance would demand an apology or lay sole ownership of well debated concerns that were articulated from both sides and originally were never held ownership by any particular faction.



Never was it expressed by any coalition government entity that there would not be a risk of insurgent activity. I challenge you to find a single news article quoting official government sources from any coalition government proclaiming this going to be a cake walk.



Considering they are nation building in direct opposition to the violence of your insurgent forces they are doing spectacular.



The government is completely functioning despite the violence. In Canada the Liberals invoked the War Measures Act and filled the streets with soldiers to enforce it over a comparatively microscopic incidence. Can you imagine the heavy handed response if Quebec separatists were daily attacking the infrastructure of Ontario or sending suicide bombers into Kensington market? We'd make the Iraqis look like amateurs as we restored security.



Electrical production already exceeds anything the Saddam regime ever achieved. Communications are operating at about 25% while sewer and water are running about the same. Within the next several years this is expected to be completely rebuilt. Considering the extent of the damage to the Iraqi infrastructure caused by years of neglect and the targeting during the war, by comparison with the pace of repairing damage caused by the ice storm they are moving at a pace 10x as fast.



Anywhere from 50,000 - 1 million depending on your source. But the UN itself attributes the cause to be "Sectarian strife and terrorism are to blame for the violence".

Regardless, these numbers are part of a reasonable amount of collateral damage when compared with the body count that existed prewar.



The US military repeatedly warned the American public not to expect the quick victory with few casualties they had become accustomed to. Even US military planners were surprised with the ease in which they were able to defeat such a supposedly entrenched and defensively prepared military.



I have already highlighted the UN position. If this is not the "international law" you are referring to stop beating around the bush and expose it for scrutiny.



That's a load of bunk. Iraq was a genuine threat to it's neighbouring Islamic states and had pontificated openly its future role in the annihilation of Israel going so far as to launch missiles against the state and channel funds to organisations which committed acts of terrorism against Israel and other countries. Further, Iraq had long range plans to acquire WMD and this was a concern enough that normally liberal Europe and the UN were actively engaged in trying to prevent their acquisition and were concerned enough to issue resolutions calling for Iraq's acquiescence to international scruitiny.



China helped to write the laws on human rights abuses but you're still buying happy meal toys from them.

   

That sounds more like it.

The military in both our countries is definitely not apolitical. The CF talks about a 'decade of darkness', when in reality, the decade before the Libs took over was as bad or worse for them. The PCs broke so many defence promises it makes me sick. Down south, it's more of the same, where the military/intelligence appratus doctors reports to fit the government's wish list. They create 'reports' talking about uranium sales to Niger that never happened and other that 'proof' that Iraq has WMDs.

   

Previous  1 ... 20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next