bzzz, wrong.
The alleged payments to homicide bombers’ families occured during the current Intifada, which began, what, two years ago? Not 12.
The senior Al-Queda terrorist has allegedly been in Baghdad quite recently, and might even be there right now. People don’t travel to Baghdad and receive medical treatment without the regime’s knowledge and consent.
Hey, I just used the quote button on the bottom of every thread. Silly vB software! I will watch that more closely, thanks for the tip. My apologies to both you and Sam.
I love this milroyj stuff. “The senior Terrorist was treated in Baghdad”. Well, shit, a bunch of the actual terrorists in the Al Qaeda attacks learned to fly in Florida, and got into the country on legal visas. So obviously, the Bush family was also involved since there’s no way anyone could get into Florida on a legal visa without the Government’s knowledge and consent.
And even more conspiratorially, the Governor of Florida is related to the President of the USA, and to a former President who helped fund the current head of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan!!!
:rolleyes: :wally
On the other hand, you have (in the Pit) expressed sympathy and support for the IRA (well-known in the UK as a religiously-aligned terrorist organisation), so I suppose it’s only a matter of time before you come round to supporting Al Qaeda too.
Pardon me while I …yaaaaawn…there, I feel much better. Where were we? Ah yes, that’s right, you were reciting party line.
Anything there that merits an invasion? Or is making an allegation enough to go stomping on foreign soil and killing anyone who stands in their way?
The only fact is that there no evidence of an Al Queda/Iraq link, is it not?
Like I said…e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e…not party line.
I trust you have a link to the post where I expressed sympathy and support for the IRA in the Pit, or anywhere else.
Listen, friend, I never said anything about an Iraq/Al-Queda link, or what merits an invasion. You first said that the actions I attributed to Saddam happened 12 years ago, and in your latest post you say there’s no evidence. You are wrong on both counts.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/saudi010813.html
I’m listening, question is, are you reading, pal? Go back to the original post of yours that prompted my original response.
And I’m still waiting for pertinent evidence that the bully in the current situation is Saddam – the only plausible reason you provided is, in fact, 12 years old.
BTW, thanks for the link – although it is hardly what I’d call “current events,” dated as it is, Aug, 13, 2002.
Anyhow, here’s another interesting bit from it:
Think that’s enough cause to invade Saudi Arabia as well? Because if you don’t I can give you, oh…fifteen more.
Let’s not beat around the Bush, shall we? Despite any claims Faux News might make to the contrary, last I checked, it wasn’t Saddam that had amassed his troops at your border. 
You’re welcome. No worries.
from matt-mcl’s link, bolding mine:
This seems to fall right in line with the feelings of people here in PEI – at least as far as I can tell.
To be honest, I do believe that if Canada had supported the USA fully on the Iraq issue from the beginning, without questioning the morality or necessity of the attack, then we would not have the problems between the two countries that we are seeing today. It has been suspected (by myself if by none other) for quite a while that the smaller nations around the world who were publicly supporting the USA invasion of Iraq were receiving economic reward for their public stance. With the recent news of how the USA is punishing “treacherous Germany” with sanctions in an effort “to harm the German economy” , it seems more and more likely that in fact such tools (or the reverse of sanctions) are used in order to obtain support from other countries.
How come I haven’t seen mention of the word ‘bribery’ in connection with all of this? It seems to me the most fitting description. Or perhaps the phrase ‘vote buying’ would be more accurate…? Would the nations that join such a ‘coalition of the willing’ due to such bribery be moral supporters and allies, or would they simply be hired henchmen…?
None of this bodes well for democracy as a whole. Although I’m sure vote buying and bribery are a part of everyday politics throughout the ‘democractic’ world, doesn’t the blatant use of such tactics seem to destroy the very idea of democracy? I believe that vote buying and bribery are still illegal in most countries. Yet here it is being used openly for international politics for matters regarding life and death for thousands of people. Countries are selling their votes on a moral and ethical issue.
[Quote from Donald Rumsfeld regarding Germany taken from this article.]
(http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html)
Another interesting article for people to read:
Some of the things I mentioned, like the invasion of Kuwait or Scud missiles lobbed at Israel did happen 12 years ago.
Some of the things I mentioned, like payments for Palestinian terrorists and harboring Al-Queda, are happening currently. I consider within the last six months to be current events, YMMV.
Well, what’s wrong with abiding by the will of the people here. If a majority of Canadians don’t want the govenment to go to war in Iraq, then what business does the government have in sending troops there?
And that’s just great MisterE. I love that this attitude is being shown by some Americans. If Rumsfeld thinks in any way that he is a defender of freedom while at the same time threatening anyone who disagrees with him, I hope that someone, somewhere, will point and laugh.
I’m flustered by those articles, and upset.
The USA is doing a lot of arm twisting to get support and, although some nations might give in, in the long run it is going to be a source of resentment which will come back to haunt America. The immense majority of the world comunity is clearly against American agression. The Non-Aligned Nations, representing 2/3 of the countries of the world said no to war in Kuala Lumpur today. In spite of President Bush sending his Spanish lackey to convince them, Mexico refuses to bend to U.S. on Iraq. The fact is there is not one single country in the world which enthusiastically supports the USA. There are a few governments which support the USA after more or less arm twisting. That is all. If the government of a country believes it should support the USA then it should convince their own people first but, if it cannot convince their own people it should not act against the will of their own people.
The public also want lower taxes, higher services and a stronger economy. Oh, and a pony too.
The majority of the public does not have the time, interest nor access to sufficient information to make a valid call on this issue. There are people where I work who think the Armed Forces number +100,000 (actual number 60,000) and that the potential war is about oil. These people are not media shy; they have access to all the information technology possible and yet are misinformed.
The government’s role is to look at the issue, deal with what information it has and make the best choice for Canada and as a second concern the world. The problem is that where the department of foreign affairs has thousands of people looking at US/Canada relations, the UN/IRAQ/US issue etc, and the public has themselves.
If we extend your thinking why not make all decisions by poll? I mean arts grants and personal taxes are as important to people (perhaps more so). Let’s dispense with the clunky business of government all together.
If the government sees things differently than the people who elected them then they better be pretty convincing about it but if they just go against the majority then they will pay a price in the next election. In Spain the conservatives have been in power with ample majority for a long time (8-10 yrs?) and in the last few weeks their support has fallen sharply to the point where if an election were held today they might lose it. Some cabinet ministers have already said the party will pay a huge price at the polls and they are distancing themselves from the official party line. Leading means getting people to follow you, it does not mean doing the opposite of what they want.
True but simply saying that the majority want something therefore the governemnt must give it too them is simplistic. The majority want free money and yet the government sees no reasons to lead them away from that idea.