posted on July 18, 2004 06:29:02 PM new
It's fine that countries can sit back and say what they do but can they defend themselves. Canada would be in serious trouble if invaded and I am sure the US would step in quickly.
The US also defends the borders the same way as Canada does. You cannot leave this country until you can prove that you are an American Citizen. You also have to declare when you are returning to the US and if you don't they will come looking for you. So it works both ways between Canada and the US. The only difference is the duty Canada charges their citizens.
I have nothing against Canada as it is a beautiful country with nice people. I have made several trips there and never had a problem.
posted on July 18, 2004 06:33:10 PM new
Linda_K, thanks.
I think we can both agree that the US is a wonderful country. Maybe some don't know or tend to forget how many Canadians have relatives and friends in the US so that's why there is such an interest in everything that happens there.
When American policies cause so much danger worldwide and make all of North America an unsafe place to live it affects us all. We care.
posted on July 18, 2004 06:40:51 PM new
Linda, That's your opinion which I knew before you posted your comment. I also know the futility of trying to change it.
posted on July 18, 2004 07:47:53 PM new
That's right helen. Because I will never accept your 'blame America first' opinions.
--------------
neroter was correct when she said:
Seems to me we've spent alot of time and money impressing or helping out this one or that one, and when we are in the mud all the other countries want to do is sit back and gawk.
And none of the other countries helped us out, in any way, to recover from our enormous loss.
What a laugh that French quote is.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 19, 2004 11:13:53 AM new
"I will never accept your 'blame America first' opinions."
That's right Linda. Don't bother looking within to see what can be fixed to make this a better country. Instead, let us blame the International community with all of the ills of this world in which we live. Let us blame those who don't agree with the neo-con ideology of profits first, humanity later.
Linda, You only think it's funny because you don't understand the meaning. The French wrote after 9/11, "We are all Americans", meaning that they both sympathized with our tragedy and at the same time recognized that the same disaster could happen there or anywhere in the world.
What in the hell do you find funny about that? The truth is that you find nothing appropriate to laugh about but only laugh in derisive mockery.
posted on July 19, 2004 11:41:14 AM newAnd none of the other countries helped us out, in any way, to recover from our enormous loss.
Not true, there were thousands of donations gathered from all over the world.
The international community joined together to help the fight against terrorism and Bush blew them all off. Read all of Helen's link on the previous page, it explains what happened.
posted on July 19, 2004 06:22:28 PM newThat's right Linda. Don't bother looking within to see what can be fixed to make this a better country. Instead, let us blame the International community with all of the ills of this world in which we live. Let us blame those who don't agree with the neo-con ideology of profits first, humanity later.
Humanity????? You call those who took our planes and murdered 3000 of our innocent citizens human? We should sit back and try to figure out why they hate us so much and taking corrective actions? Hoping if we do what they want they'll do us no further harm? Are you nuts???
There's no need to blame ourselves when we are attacked like that - that is a declaration of war. Time to let them know we won't take actions like these.....NO MATTER THEIR BEEF.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 19, 2004 10:10:26 PM new
No we shouldn't just sit back. But neither should be go out attacking people that had nothing to do with it.
When we went after bin Laden, I was all for it. I supported the war in Afghanistan. The, suddenly, Bush drops that and tells us Iraq, a country that hadn't troubled anyone outside its own border for almost 10 years, is our Number 1 enemy and that because someday, sometime they might attack us we have to invade. Using lies, exaggerations, and panic he pushes that through. Then suddenly, he tells us the war is because the Iraqi people are being treated badly and must be given freedom and democracy when it turns out all the WMDs he paniced everyone with just weren't there.
And we read in the news today that now Bush is turning his eyes to Iran and saying that they may be our enemies and, oh yeah, that they are being ill-treated and need democracy.
With Bush it will be never ending. There will always be another country that he has to force our way of life on, or that he claims is an imminent threat to us.
And that's why more and more people hate us--not because we are going after terrorists,but because Bush is busy empire-building. He's creating a new White Man's Burden.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 20, 2004 06:10:07 AM new "And we read in the news today that now Bush is turning his eyes to Iran and saying that they may be our enemies and, oh yeah, that they are being ill-treated and need democracy."
This is one more frightening indication that Bush is the most dangerous man in the world.
posted on July 20, 2004 10:03:22 AM newThe 'Bush Lied' folks can't be taken seriously
Michael Barone (archive)
July 19, 2004 | Print | Send
Official reports issued the last two weeks have conclusively refuted those who have been arguing that "BUSH LIED" about the dangers from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs.
The first report was that of the Senate Intelligence Committee. That committee has been rent by partisan divisions over the last year, but the report was unanimous.
One prime conclusion of the report is that American intelligence organizations, like those of every other major country, did indeed believe that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ongoing WMD programs. That intelligence seems to have been mistaken.
But given Saddam Hussein's documented development, possession and use of WMDs, and his refusal to account for their disposal, what intelligence evidence could have convinced a reasonable analyst that he no longer had them?
As the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon -- a frequent Bush critic -- puts it, "It would have taken an overwhelming body of evidence for any reasonable person in 2002 to think that Saddam did not possess stockpiles of chemical and biological agents."
So Bush was justified in relying on the intelligence. And "the committee did not fund any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."
So much for the wild charges that Bush manipulated intelligence and lied about weapons of mass destruction. He simply said what was believed by every informed person -- including leading members of the Clinton administration before 2001 and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards in their speeches in October 2002 supporting military action in Iraq.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report also refuted completely the charges by former diplomat Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration ignored his conclusion, based on several days in Niger, that Iraq had not sought to buy uranium in that country. Democrats and many in the press claimed that Wilson refuted the 16-word sentence Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, noting that British intelligence reported that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.
But British intelligence stands by that finding, and the committee noted that Wilson confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger, whose main exports are uranium and goats, and intelligence analysts concluded that his report added nothing else to their previous knowledge. And the report flatly denied Wilson's statements that his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with his mission to Niger -- it quotes Plame's memo taking credit for the appointment.
The report issued last week in Britain by former civil servant Lord Butler reaches similar conclusions. It finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair did not pressure intelligence organizations to change their findings and that there was no "deliberate distortion" of intelligence or "culpable negligence."
It supported the conclusion of British intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa.
All this is significant because for the past year most leading Democrats and many in the determinedly anti-Bush media have been harping on the "BUSH LIED" theme. Their aim clearly has been to discredit and defeat Bush. The media continue to fight this battle: contrast the way The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times front-paged the Wilson charges last year with the way they're downplaying the proof that Wilson lied deep inside the paper this year.
Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis has argued that George W. Bush has transformed American foreign policy, in response to the threat of Islamist terrorism, more than any president since Harry Truman transformed our foreign policy in response to the threat of aggressive communism.
But there is one big difference. In the late 1940s, Truman got bipartisan support from Republicans like Arthur Vandenberg and Thomas Dewey, even at a time when there were bitter differences between the parties on domestic policy, and received generally sympathetic treatment in the press.
This time, George W. Bush has encountered determined opposition from most Democrats and the old-line media. They have charged that "BUSH LIED" even when he relied on the same intelligence as they did; they have headlined wild and spurious charges by the likes of Joseph Wilson; they have embraced the wild-eyed propaganda of the likes of Michael Moore.
They have done these things with, at best, reckless disregard of the effect their arguments have had on American strength in the world. Are they entitled to be taken seriously?
imo, absolutely not.
Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 20, 2004 10:16:14 AM new
"""He simply said what was believed by every informed person -- including leading members of the Clinton administration before 2001 and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards in their speeches in October 2002 supporting military action in Iraq."""
Ya, know the neocons keep saying,"well, democrats did it , too!" in varying forms.
So why are they so against Democrats??????
Totally illogical thinking but then nobody who is filled with so much hate for the entire world has room for logic. Poor things, keep running around corners right into their own rather large butts!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 20, 2004 12:03:06 PM new
So after three years Bush finally has proved what was said three years ago....Therefore Let the Iraq begin today.....
If we can't rely on the information that is given to us when it is presented then what good is the information, why does it take three years to verify the information?
I would still like to know where the WMD's that Bush claimed Iraq had in 2001. Either they are in Iraq, they were destroyed or they were moved. Until Bush can prove one of these things in my opinion he lied.
He also said Iraq had a role/played a part in 9/11. However this does not explain why Bush planned the war before he took office. So in other words, Bush Lied...
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 20, 2004 02:18:28 PM new
So what if airplanes were 'allowed' to land in canada? Like that was a great mission of mercy? Like the US wouldnt do the same? But if anything major happens anywhere in the world, the US is forking over monies for it and Americans are rushing over there to offer aid. I dont think that happened with WTC. The Americans only had the americans for support. Physical, monetary and all else.
The other countries gasped what a shame, but I didnt hear of them forking over any money to rebuild the wtc, or contributing to grants for the families who lost. (Maybe Suisse banke (sp*) or one of the other foreign businesses if they had offices in the WTC, maybe.)
The fact is anything happens somewhere else and we're sending troops over there for physical support, etc., etc. Who else does that? Maybe England?
(Kraft, if you're in Ontario; then I'm writing from Cancun!! ola!)
posted on July 20, 2004 02:26:03 PM new
Nero, millions and millions of dollars were donated to the families of 911. There are still the odd donation boxes in our stores and banks. You sound like everyone took it so lightly, which is not the case.
Are you in Cancun, seriously? I love it there! The beaches were like white sugar.
posted on July 20, 2004 02:32:22 PM new
Kraft, I didnt say anyone took it lightly. It was horrific happening, so no one could have possibly watched it could have taken it lightly. What I am saying is not about people's donations, but rather any given country's governments contributions -- it never equals what the US does for other countries.
posted on July 20, 2004 03:50:09 PM newBut if anything major happens anywhere in the world, the US is forking over monies for it and Americans are rushing over there to offer aid. I dont think that happened with WTC.
So very true.
There was one attempted donation though....a SA prince tried to give NY a $25M dollar check. It was refused. [I supported that decision]
--------
It's just difficult for those here who think we're warmongers - and don't support our right to removing threats to our security - to see and admit that we do any thing good in the world.
They prefer to focus on all the negatives they see about our country.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 20, 2004 03:59:32 PM new
I guess I missed the joke Nero. Shaw Cable is one of the biggest ISP providers out west. That's how we figured Skylite was from Canada.
posted on July 20, 2004 04:11:56 PM new
taken from CNN last month....for those lefties that may have missed it.
President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."
Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.
Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on July 20, 2004 10:52:21 PM newThe fact is anything happens somewhere else and we're sending troops over there for physical support, etc., etc. Who else does that? Maybe England?
Canada and several other countries immediately sent troops to Afghanistan. Canada now has 500 Canadian Forces personnel in Haiti and they are sending about 100 police officers. They are currently the largest donor of money to help restore security there.
Here is some info on foreign aid and which countries are the largest donors. The US comes in at number 22 on the list. It's interesting to read where a good percentage of the monies go.
