[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Scape Scape:

Why? For overreaching our already thinly spread defense?

Order of Canada for that? He should be given the Iron Cross 1st class with oak leaves. We are now going to have to sign up to a multi-billion dollar boondoggle called missile defense, applaud and support the drunken sailor spending of that administration (because there will be no way out from under FTAA) and be in lock-step with a policy that dynamically opposed to every major social advancement that Canada has ever made a president for in the last 50 years effectively making Canada a geographical term not a country. Bush showing up in Halifax and Ottawa is just testing the waters for a bridge to Europe (he tried that last time in Ireland and that became a fiasco), we are a dress rehearsal for the much harder tasking for him. Selling war.

So when Bush visited Columbia last week, and has visited Mexico, that was all just testing the waters for Europe? Ever think that he's trying to reach out and become more diplomatic(don't take this as meaning I'm a Bush supporter, just saying that your assumptions aren't always true. The facts still remain that Canada and the US share a huge border and are on the same continent, yet when Bush visits Canada all you all can come up with is "he's trying to make a bridge to Europe"? He has been visiting quite a few countries and having people vivist the US(pakistani president next week). There's alot of things which could be discussed such as border security, the middle defense bill, trade aspects, war on terror, etc etc etc etc. I voted for Kerry, and will vote for Nader if given the chance, but I try not to buy into single-minded arguements and assumptions. I'm not saying I believe everything I typed, just saying that assumptions as to someones motives, without you actually being there and on the inside, don't go over well in the world if you are trying to remain factual. I know I might not be factual, but lately I've tried to stay away from assumptions(such as the bridge to Europe theory).

[Rev_Blair]

We are taking action in Darfur though. I know it's convenient to try to forget that, but the international community is acting. That same community is also taking action in Ivory coast. And, and, and.

We aren't allowed to criticise George Bush though...oh no, his crimes are small potatoes. Fuck that. He is supposed to be a world leader and the example he sets does have an effect on how the rest of the world acts. If he doesn't have to follow the laws, then neither does anybody else.

Also, trying to single out Iraq as the only place that the US has broken laws is being less than honest. They have broken international law, including torture conventions, all over the world.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Indelible Indelible:

$1:

What does it matter if the US has power? That doesn't mean that countries like Sudan and China and Russia shouldn't face the same criticism and rath of Canada's almighty human-rights laws.

what makes bush so hainous, imo, is that he goes around the world claiming to be the bringer of all that is right and good. but in truth he brings the opposite. that can't be said of any other leader of any other nation.

All I have to say to this is: Moral Relativity. You and Bush are guilty of it....

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

-double post.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

We are taking action in Darfur though. I know it's convenient to try to forget that, but the international community is acting. That same community is also taking action in Ivory coast. And, and, and.

We aren't allowed to criticise George Bush though...oh no, his crimes are small potatoes. Fuck that. He is supposed to be a world leader and the example he sets does have an effect on how the rest of the world acts. If he doesn't have to follow the laws, then neither does anybody else.

Also, trying to single out Iraq as the only place that the US has broken laws is being less than honest. They have broken international law, including torture conventions, all over the world.

I don't look at him as a world leader, just as a leader of the US. Also, no one is condemning examining his policies, but when people go off on "it's all about oil" "george bush order torture" and so on, it becomes more about what the truth is. There's no proof that Bush actually order torture in Iraq. Some soldiers might have broken the rules. There's no truth that Bush said the war is all about oil. What I'm saying is criticizing is one thing, but using conspiracy theories to advance your arguement isn't. If the US is suppose to be the world leader, setting the example on how everyone should act, then why have people killed people throughout the centuries? Maybe because it doesn't matter if they have an example? It's not like everyone has been following the internation laws, and then Bush came along and everything went to shit. Also, everyone talks about Bush like 80% of the time, yet you claim that when someone says "enough already, there's alot more going on in the world that should also be addressed" suddenly they are sayign that you can't criticize him? Fuck that. I'm all for criticizing and examining policies, but I like it when assumptions and theories are not mixed in with them. I also try to look at things from multiple points of view, as opposed to the "indict him, wars all about oil, US is evil, Cheney is running the show, etc." No one wants France in the ivory coast, yet they still hold on. No one would dare say anything to France though, because they are a "good" country. There's so many contridictions to this whole mess, I just find it hard to believe that someone can be so one-sided as yourself, considering you seem to know a good deal. Middle of the road for me. I don't trust the UN, USA, France, Germany, Russia, China, or whatever...

[Indelible]

don't get me wrong, i think the other people who do shitty stuff to other people should have the same consequence. but at least they don't go around doing shitty stuff in the name of false self righteousness and also in the name of God.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

I dunno. Every country usually thinks what they are doing is righteous. It all depends what side you are on. Osama believes what he did was right and in the name of god. Bush might believe the same(or it can all be a front of get votes from the Christian right - journalist like to spin). Overall, everyone likes to think they are right and doing the good thing - at least when it comes to leaders of countries(at least in my opinion). I don't see proof of an actual good or bad in this world, just occurances...

[True-North]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

We are taking action in Darfur though. I know it's convenient to try to forget that, but the international community is acting. That same community is also taking action in Ivory coast. And, and, and.

We aren't allowed to criticise George Bush though...oh no, his crimes are small potatoes. that. He is supposed to be a world leader and the example he sets does have an effect on how the rest of the world acts. If he doesn't have to follow the laws, then neither does anybody else.

Also, trying to single out Iraq as the only place that the US has broken laws is being less than honest. They have broken international law, including conventions, all over the world.

Were you personally abuse by an American named Bush at some point? Maybe during childhood. No insult intended. Just curious.

[human]

Indelible Indelible:

don't get me wrong, i think the other people who do shitty stuff to other people should have the same consequence. but at least they don't go around doing shitty stuff in the name of false self righteousness and also in the name of God.

I agree, it should be in the name of Allah...

[Indelible]

$1:

There's no truth that Bush said the war is all about oil.

of course there isn't proof of that. if bush actually said that people wouldn't be pro bush at all. dummies fall for the lie that bush feeds them every day in the media. eg. the "smoking gun" lie he used as a reason to invade iraq. and that's only the beginning.

[Scape]

Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:

It seems like you all are trying to define the US's destiny and indict their leader under Canada's own laws....

Not Canada's but the Nuremberg standard. By that standard, all presidents since Nuremberg, are guilty. Now the US isn't going to adapt more humanitarian laws and Canada is not, nor ever shall, impose it's will unilaterally. We have tried to have other nations gain more control over their own domestic affairs but have not condemned them to be judged by our laws. We have tried for a long time to lead by example, to provide a better example in which to govern so that others have some frame of reference other than force in which to take control of their own lives and never has Canada's imposed it's will for others to join it, rather as the example of Turks and Cacos, nations are petitioning to join Canada. The solution however, is not for the world to join Canada but rather to provide an option other than tyranny. Human is trying to say this is the same option voiced by the Mullahs. That is an assumption the bridge to Europe is a reality. This is the 1st time Bush has visited and he will have on the table issues that will be trialled in Europe, more so than the issues discussed at the table in both Pakistan and Mexico.

[Indelible]

oops, sorry. i meant to say "truth" not "proof"

[human]

Indelible Indelible:

oops, sorry. i meant to say "truth" not "proof"

By the way, did you meant Heinous by hainous...

[True-North]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

We aren't allowed to criticise George Bush though...

What ? who's stopping ? I support your right to do so.

[Indelible]

$1:

I agree, it should be in the name of Allah...

it doesn't matter what "god" it is. whether it be God, Yaweh, Jehovah, Allah, or whatever...violence is unacceptable