Amen to that one shut United Nations Down!!!

This is the same UN committee that refused to visit Club Gitmo to verify facts. Instead they decided to trust the psychic hotline and their inner liberal, for guidance.

Detainees being held without charges being laid, having no idea when or if they will ever be released, resorting to suicide, yes the UN is correct. Shut it down. It does not reflect well on your record of human rights.

imagine a prison that truly was "unjust" (not that Gitmo isn't or is) - e.g. where they slowly melt the skin off living people for sneezing in public, or some such thing. we might expect to see the prisoners attack the guards. your implying that there is some sort of ironic relationship clear in the described events, if i am reading you correctly, is irrational thinking.

Now there's an idea that makes sense . . . shut down that gaggle of incompetent fools.

If someone ever gets the chance to interview Bush = ask him why does the US still bow to the f&^*(#& UN!

I for one would also welcome the dismantling of the UN, but I'm afraid that won't happen until a missile is in the air heading for Tel Aviv.

Typical, the U.S is right and everyone else is wrong, why not keep these prisoners on U.S soil.... because then they would fall under U.S law and have access to U.S courts, and then the illegality of the situation would be exposed to the world. The U.S had the support of the world, and threw it away, talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory !

Close 'em down.

What purpose do they serve? The only things they are really good at is passing meaningless resolutions, spending [our] money, taking bribes, and covering up sex scandals.

It's so very easy for them to sit in their safe offices and declare that the United States shouldn't house any terrorists in Guantanamo or "secret" prisons when we are the ones being attacked.

We've seen what happens when their offices are attacked though. They close shop, turn tail and run for the hills as fast as their little white cars can carry them! ...all the while blaming the United States for not protecting them! (But then, didn't they said they didn't need any protection from U.S. forces?)

If I were President Bush I'd keep Guantanamo open permanently, or at least until the U.N. found some other "cause" to pursue!

AAR

Let Europe have their UN and move their corruption and hate America fanatics to Paris, if need be. America doesn't need to pay any homage to a group that does what it can to hinder America's rights to defend itself.

The UN might have once sounded like a good idea, but it has become the most useless vessel in existence. They will coddle terrorists and terrorists supporters and tolerate all kinds of Human Rights Abuses from African nations, but manufacture news about how terrible America is.

I'm ready to send them all packing and have their host nations pay the millions of dollars in outstanding parking violations long overdue.

The U.N.'s comments come on the heels of the fact that suddenly after decades of opposing countries that torture prisoners, the U.S. gets a new president that thinks its ok to torture and murder prisoners.

After decades of opposing police state regimes with secret police that arrest and inprison people for decades with no charges or evidence of wrong doing or due process , the U.S. under Bush suddenly thinks its ok to create secret police forces that do that exact same thing.

I guess torture and wrongful imprisonment is ok for all of you that agreed with Matt. That is UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO YOU.

Something is seriously WRONG when people are suddenly ok with torture, murder, wrongful imprisonment, fascism, absolute presidential control. Especially since so many milions of you have fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers who DIED fighting these exact same things. These people that died fighting tyranny and oppression would be disgusted to see you condoning it now.

How quickly you Republicans forget.

But, you are only ok with it if a Republican is doing all of this isn't it. If it was a Democrat, say Clinton doing all this, you would be outraged

Bravo axis. Many thanks to you for expressing the same view I have, only much better. 100% agreement.

As a catholic, especially.

See, guys? We have axis of dumbassery and raper31, two pimply-faced idiots, who spout bullcrap talking points, and who believe we are torturing prisoners--just because the U.N., and the DBM say so!

Hey, you two dipsh*ts, we don't believe anything the U.N. says--they're the most corrupt international body that exists. They're loaded with leftists, dictators, and despots. Oh, and ACLU-type legal minds, who are a combination of the aforementioned three.

Axis, you are a pathetic creature, and so is your lover, raker...

Hey Steve, where is that Rove indictment you were harping about last week?

Yep, burn it down, fill it in.

Hello keefer,

May I ask one question? Do you condone torture, un-charged indefinite detention, and warrantless searches or seizures?

Just asking.

I'm guessing the answer is no. So then the question becomes, why do you discount every piece of information that suggests all those things are happening?

And I can't help but get back to your level: You are a pathetic creature, and so are your man-boy lovers.

You know, I think I'm starting to turn into agent Smith. You guys are turning me...

I'm starting to see it now...it's becoming clearer.

1. There was no diebold machine manipulation. Lies!

2. Building 7 fell by itself, from fire. Into itself. Lame conspiracy!

3. There was no pre war intelligence manipulation! Lies, and more lies.

4. There WAS WMD's in Iraq. They moved them to Syria. Let the truth be told.

5. Administration leadership did not expose Valerie Plame. Lies, lies, lies.

(hey, I'm getting to like the new me...)

6. No child left behind and medicare programs are clear, well defined, and easily implemented. (unless democrats get in the way.)

(See, I'm getting good at this. I can feel the patriotism start to flow in my veins again..Ahhh!)

7. Vote manipulation in Ohio? Hogwash, more demo crap.

8. 9 billion dollars just disappearing in Iraqi fund? Hey, alot was going on at the time...you libs don't know anything.

10. Katrina? Don't blame us. The state and local governments should have played a bigger role. Yeah, there's room for improvement, we are getting right on it! Libs...you guys kill me.

11. Dick was not drinking the day he shot that guy. We have witnesses to prove it. More lib slander.

( oh yeah, I'm feeling it fella's. It's all becoming clearer now. Finally.)

12. More tax cuts. I know you libs hate that stuff. Cut the programs that have no value. Trickle down baby, trickle down.)

13. U.N. schoomoo Nnnn. I say. NOBODY tells us what to do.

That's it for right now. Let me soak in some of this stuff. I feel so much better now. WOW.

"axis" . . . nonsense! There is no torture; you're simply regurgitating the same old lame leftist "BS". Now, if you have any credible evidence to support your allegations either list it here or can the rhetoric.

"Torture, un-charged indefinite detention, and warrantless searches or seizures"

God bless America...

"You are a pathetic creature, and so are your man-boy lovers."

"Axis, you are a pathetic creature, and so is your lover, raker..."

Don't you guys have something else better to do?

Can someone please provide objective, verifyable proof of the torture claim from a neutral source?

(That excludes left-wing and right-wing blogs, forums, and news sites)

You libs are so pathetic. Find one of your lib trash bins and post there.

axis,

Torture is the word you and the liberal media have chosen to use to make the U.S. sound as bad as you possibly can!

What is the Canadian definition of torture?

I guess you don't support interrogating a terrorist and trying to find out what and who they plan to kill or blow up next? Is playing loud music really torture? Sleep deprivation? Making them stand for an extended time? Keeping them uncomfortably cold? Allowing a dog to bark next to the prisoner? Firing an empty gun?

If using these techniques against a terrorist saves the lives of our troops, the lives of American citizens, an American building, or an American city, then I would use them. I'll bet you would too if your family was their next target or your city was about to be wiped out! I'll bet our liberal members of Congress would too if a city or building was about to be wiped out in their state or district. Any bets?

As for the individuals who took the pictures of Iraqi prisoners and harassed and embarrassed the prisoners for their own personal fun and amusement? No, I don't support that. Those persons were or will be tried and given some sort of punishment. Not to your liking I'm sure, but punished nevertheless.

Do I support chopping people up alive? Pulling out their finger nails? Cutting out their tongues or putting out their eyes? Killing or cutting up a person's family in front of them? I'm sure you can continue the list with some "real" torture. No! I do not support that!

If you want to learn what torture really is, go talk to Saddam Hussein. Too bad his two sons aren't still alive. They were real pros at torture. I'll bet Iran or the surviving Taliban can give you a good education too. Another good source would probably be those African nations where hundreds of thousands of people are being murdered, raped, and killed, and the U.N. can't or won't stop it. Who knows, Castro or Chavez might even give you some pointers. Go talk to those who were the victims of REAL torture... not something that you call torture in an effort to make the United States appear as bad as possible to the rest of the world. Get an education on REAL torture!

It is a fact that Saddam Hussein, his barbaric sons, and his "interrogators" used REAL torture. They killed, raped, tortured hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children. Read about some of their exploits and how many people were involved. If America had not removed Saddam, he and his two sons would still be at work in Iraq today. Once Saddam Hussein died (years from now), his sons would have carried on his tradition, but with even more gusto and creativity. How many years would that have continued? How many more hundreds of thousands or more Iraqi men, women, and children would have been tortured, mutilated, and killed during that time frame? We can only guess.

Now, let's see if I have this right. Saddam, his sons, and his regime tortured and were torturing and killing hundreds of thousands or Iraqis. Saddam was paying suicide bombers to blow up Israeli men, women, and children. You do not support the war with Iraq. You do not believe President Bush should have removed Saddam Hussein. You would not have gone to war with Iraq. You would not have removed Saddam Hussein, his sons, or his regime.

If it were up to you, Saddam Hussein, his sons, and his regime would still be in power today... literally "carving up" the Iraqi people!

It sounds to me like you DO support torture... REAL torture!!!

raker13,

And when did you become Catholic... just to mock Mark and others who are religious?

Or, in view of the fact that you spelled "catholic" with a small "c", perhaps you didn't suddenly become a Catholic. Perhaps you meant to spell it with a small "c". Spelled with a small "c", the word means among other things: universal, universally accepted, varied, of broad or liberal scope... That's it ...liberal!

Oh, you did say you agree 100% with axis. It sounds like you must support torture too... REAL torture ...the kind Saddam Hussein performed on his people!!!

AAR

The UN is just another organized group of mobsters and should treated as such. Why is it that we always codile the criminals? What's gone wrong with this country's values, integrity, and virtue? And what is it going to take to get the Good Old US of A back from the UN and our crapy legislators that don't listen to us after they get into office?

Winnohead,

RE: "Do you condone torture, un-charged indefinite detention, and warrantless searches or seizures?"

Define what you call "torture" if my previous comments don't adequately convey my views.

Charged or uncharged, I'd keep terrorists in prison. Most are not likely to change their ways. If we let them go, then we just have to catch them again -- hopefully before they kill more people.

The last thing I would want would be for terrorists to have access to some ACLU lawyer to find some liberal American court to free them on some technicality! If that means keeping them outside of America and outside of our "legal" system, then so be it. They are terrorists and have sworn to kill us. They are not American citizens. I am for protecting American citizens more than I am about the "rights" of terrorists who will kill us!

Considering the options and alternatives... I guess that does mean indefinite detention for the killer, suicide terrorists. It doesn't matter if they are charged or not. If it makes you more comfortable to charge them, try them, and put them back in prison for life, I could handle that, but only if there was a guarantee some court wouldn't release them!

Warrantless searches or seizures? By that, are you back to checking which phone numbers was called from another phone number? I have no problem with that if it saves American lives, buildings, or lives. Do you mean listening in on Osama Bin Laden calling someone in the United States. No problem with that either!

AAR

AAR,

Our country was founded on certain principles. When you remove those principles, we are no longer Americans.

Wow. Nothing like a torture topic to bring out all the fascist torture loving creatures out there.

No, it isn't JUST the UN that says these prisons are turturing people. YOU DID.

Forgotten about Abu Ghraib prison abuses already?

How about Rumsfelds famous torture memos?

How about Rumsfeld flying down to personally watch the torture taking place.?

How about Alberto Gonzalez "redefining" the United States definition of torture to allow ANYTHING so long as it does not involved DEATH or ORGAN FAILURE. Gonzalez is A-ok with interrogators cutting off fingers, gouging out their eyes, branding them, electrically shocking them, waterboarding them, sodomizing them, anything goes so long as they dont have organ failure or DIE.

If torture was not happening, the prisons would be in America, not offshore, skirting US laws and courts, there would be no need to "redefine" the U.S. definition of torture and no need to keep the red cross from inspecting the prisons.

The U.S. has 2 terrorists that were directly involved in 9/11, but they can't EVER bring them to justice because they TORTURED THEM!

You schmucks just don't get it. If the world accepts that the United States are allowed to torture prisoners and POWS then they must accept other countries that do it as well, meaning the next war you get into it, it will be GREAT and AMERICAN to see US troop POWS being tortured and murdered because if the US does it and thinks its acceptable, then I guess it is.

Will you sick freaks still think its ok when Iran starts torturing your troops if you attack them? How about when they start sending American POWS to North Korea to bee tortured and murdered? After all, you are all ok with rendition right?

Why dont all of you freaks that still have WW2 vets in your family go visit grandpa and tell him you agree with torture, murder of POW's and fascism and all the things that their friends died for in WW2 and see what they say? No, I recon you will keep those sick little secrets to yourselves.

winnowhead,

Liberals have and continue to destroy the principles, strengths, values, and traditions upon which this nation was founded!

If liberals aren't stopped, they will destroy all that was America!

AAR

AAR,

The Canadian Criminal Code provides a definition of torture that is in accordance with the definition contained in Article 1 of the Convention against Torture. It is no defence to a charge of torture that the accused was ordered by a superior or a public authority to perform an act of torture or that the torture is alleged to have been justified by exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency. Any act falling within the Convention 's definition of torture is a criminal offence in Canada. In addition, the Canadian Criminal Code explicitly states that any statement obtained as a result of torture is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding over which the Canadian Parliament has jurisdiction. As well as having robust anti-torture laws, Canada maintains strong protections for individuals accused of any crimes, as demonstrated by the rights of the accused enshrined and entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The US NEW Definition now says simply "Torture is defined as an interrogation technique that caused organ failure or death."

Before Bush, the US definition was identical with Canada's and the UN was a seen as a world leader in the fight against the torture of prisoners.

Now you are seen as the torture kings of the free world. And you Republicans are proud of that. Incredible.

Wow. you really are mixed up and brainwashed aren't you? This nation was founded on LIBERAL values, that value freedom and Democracy. When you fought for your independance against Britain, you were fighting against CONSERVATIVE values in favor of DEMOCRATIC and LIBERAL ones.

Democrats are not in favor of the corporate fascism like the Republicans in power are.

Democrats are not in favor of torture of prisoners, like Republicans are.

Democrats are not in favor of warrantless spying on Americans, Republicans are.

Democrats are not in favor of secret prisons where prisoners have no rights or due process, Republicans are.

Democrats are not in favor of wiping out your forth ammendment rights, Republicans are.

Democrats are not in favor of wiping our first ammendment rights, spying on reporters and imprisoning reporters until they give up their sources , republicans are.

America was founded on Democratic values, and its been Democrats that have fought long and hard for freedoms and rights to this day.

The modern Republican party is an abomination of the original one. You are more worried about gays marrying than you are ensuring that your children have access to a quality eduction or that your parents have access to a good health care system.

You are more worried about a womans right to an abortion to ensuring your troops dying in your ILLEGAL and UNNECESSARY war in IRAQ have access to proper body armor and armored vehicle to prevent them from being blown to hell from IED's

Honestly, this Neo-Con abomination of the traditional Republican party that has been in power for 5 years is what is dividing and destroying America. Not Democrats that have had NO power to do anything for 5 years in the white house and 12 years in congress.

But, thats all going to change in November, when the toilet will flush out congress and allow Democrats to provide checks and balances to this CORRUPT, fascistic Republican Neo-Con White house administration.

So, AAR, its the Neo-Cons that is destroying this country, not traditional Republicans or Democrats.
You need to flush these fascist inbreds out of your party while you still have some moderate republicans left or your party will be dead. The Neocons have slowly been rising to power within your party since the Regan era.

"Liberals have and continue to destroy the principles, strengths, values, and traditions upon which this nation was founded!

If liberals aren't stopped, they will destroy all that was America!

AAR "

How about Rumsfelds famous torture memos?

How about Rumsfeld flying down to personally watch the torture taking place.?

What are you talking about, axis? Please enlighten me, if you would. I haven't been to this site for ages, haven't watched too much news latelty (cut me some slack, I got sick of it), etc.

Gonzalez is A-ok with interrogators cutting off fingers, gouging out their eyes, branding them, electrically shocking them, waterboarding them, sodomizing them, anything goes so long as they dont have organ failure or DIE.

Sodomizing them?

but they can't EVER bring them to justice because they TORTURED THEM!

Um, well, if that is true, the military could always um... lie about torturing them.

still think its ok when Iran starts torturing your troops if you attack them?

If Iran wants to torture POWs, they'll find a reason anyways. You seem to be under the impression that the enemy will be nice, if you're nice, which isn't exactly true.

How about Rumsfelds famous torture memos?

How about Rumsfeld flying down to personally watch the torture taking place.?

What are you talking about, axis? Please enlighten me, if you would. I haven't been to this site for ages, haven't watched too much news latelty (cut me some slack, I got sick of the it), etc.

Gonzalez is A-ok with interrogators cutting off fingers, gouging out their eyes, branding them, electrically shocking them, waterboarding them, sodomizing them, anything goes so long as they dont have organ failure or DIE.

Sodomizing them?

but they can't EVER bring them to justice because they TORTURED THEM!

Um, well, if that is true, the military could always um... lie about torturing them.

still think its ok when Iran starts torturing your troops if you attack them?

If Iran wants to torture POWs, they'll find a reason anyways. You seem to be under the impression that the enemy will be nice, if you're nice, which isn't exactly true.

axis,

I think those northern lights are getting the best of you.

You still do not understand what REAL torture is!

No, I have not forgotten the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. As I said, those people will be tried and punished, but unless you know something I don't, that was not REAL torture. Sure, you liberals and the liberal media call it torture because that best suits your purpose and your propaganda, but REAL torture it wasn't!

And where did you come up with your other ridiculous charges and allegations? You really are creative tonight!

As I concluded before, Saddam Hussein -- the torturer, murderer, rapist, suicide bomber (terrorist) supporter -- would still be in power doing his "work" if it were up to you! I'm sure the Iraqi people appreciate your concern for the torture they did and would have continued to suffer had you gotten your way.

The fact remains, you did not and do not support Saddam's removal by President Bush and America's troops. If you do not support removal of a torturer and killer like Saddam, his sons, and regime, then by default, you support the continuation of their torture. It follows, therefore, that you and the liberals who believe like you are the ones who support REAL torture.

You can't have it both ways. You either want the torturer in power or you support his removal. There's no way around that fact no matter how you want to spin it.

But that's o.k.. You are entitled to your opinions too... no matter who it kills!

Oh, and I don't care what your Canadian code says. This is America... fortunately!

AAR

anphanax,

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only who has no idea of what axis is talking about when he makes all of those charges. I can only speculate that he's been hitting too many libeal blog sites.

AAR

Axis,

Don't bother with the well thought-out posts. They're falling on deaf ears.

anphanax,

See this article for information on the Rumsfeld torture memos

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html

It was the hot topic just 2 years ago, I am surprised you did not hear about it.

Yes, most of the alleged torture involved sodomy of some sort or another. Some sicko in the administration, probably Rumsfeld gets off on it I suspect.

No, the torture will come out in the trial and the government would have to allow a full discovery investigation or a mis-trial would result.

I dont think that the enemy is going to be nice. The point is that the US used to set the bar on the treatment of prisoners. If the US condones it, then another countries will adopt it as acceptable as well. The end result is prisoner torture will become commonplace and normal which is NOT GOOD

AAR, thats what happens when you only watch Fox News , you only get half the story and anything bad that the administration has been caught doing is either not reported or under reported.

Time to stop watching hannity and rush and tune to CNN instead

"I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only who has no idea of what axis is talking about when he makes all of those charges. I can only speculate that he's been hitting too many libeal blog sites."

This is the official Bush administrations definition of torture:

"Torture, must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Isn't that special. Dust off the old the medival stretching racks and hanging hooks and fingernail pliers.

AAR, I did support Saddam's removal. I don't support the continued occupation. Bush succeeded in the Major war, but totally screwed up the aftermath. As Condi Rice put it "They made thousands of tactical errors in Iraq"

However the US did not attack Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. It did so on the LIE and cooked intelligence that Saddam had WMD's and Condi Rice's "Mushroom Clouds in America" Fiction. There was no CIA screw up, the intelligence was there showing that WMD's did not exist, but Bush ignored it. The intelligence was there that debunked bush's cooked intelligence, but Bush ignored it and outted a CIA operative as revenge for debunking his LIES

Most Americans supported Saddams removal. They did not like being LIED to and tricked into supported the war however nor do they want their troops dying over there for the next 10-15 years that it will take for Iraq to settle its differences and stabilize. By the same tokens, most don't support the permanent bases being built there right now or the largest embassy on Earth, over 100 acres being built there at a cost of over $600 million to US taxpayers. Iraqis dont like these things either which is why they are opposing the troops and fighting them.

The US has destabilized Iraq with no hope to fix it anytime soon. Split it up into 3, let the Sunnis, the Shites and Kurds each have a piece and bring the troops home and concentrate on actually fighting terrorism, such as in Afganistan where the Taliban are coming back and setting roots again and oh, I don't know, how about finding Bin Laden, the one that actually attacked America, instead of giving up on finding or killing him because hes was a good hider for 6 months after 9/11

axis,

President Bush did not "lie" about the WMD. The intelligence may have been bad, but the rest of the world had that same "bad" intelligence. Most world leaders believed and stated the same thing about the existance of WMD as President Bush. We have gone through that time after time. You call it a lie. It was not a lie!

The fact is, President Bush did exactly the right thing at exactly the right time! Saddam had to go once and for all and President Bush did the job. As for the peace... it was the liberals who helped change those plans by encouraging the terrorists to bomb and kill our troops and Iraqi civilians. Credit President Bush for the war. Blame the liberals for problems restoring the peace!

I scanned the Washington Post article for which you provided the link. It's gettin' late so I didn't read it in detail, but I did not see any mention of all of those charges you are making. I didn't see anything about Rumsfeld flying down to watch sodomy or the other absurd allegations you made.

As I read the article, they were discussing what does, might, or does not constitute torture and were trying to define what it is, what it isn't, and what could be used to interrogate terrorists.

One paragraph states: "Bush administration officials say flatly that, despite the discussion of legal issues in the two memos, it has abided by international conventions barring torture, and that detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere have been treated humanely, except in the cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq for which seven military police soldiers have been charged."

Oh, and we did reprimand that officer who "fired" his empty pistol near the Iraqi terrorists head in an effort to find out about proposed attacks on his troops. Most Americans did not consider that to be torture either, and even if it wasn't "approved" by the Geneva Conventions, most were glad that he took that action to protect his and our troops. I think he should have been given a medal!

In spite of what you may believe, we are involved in a different type of war with today's terrorists. And, it is not your Canadian cities and people who are under attack... yet. It is ours -- American cities and American citizens. Perhaps if you lose one of your major cities to an Iranian nuclear bomb, or only several city blocks, you may see things a little differently too! It's easy for you to sit and judge. Let's see how it works if Canada becomes a target. If you capture a terrorist who has the knowledge to save your city, will you put him in a comfortable cell with a lawyer and a television and allow your city to be destroyed... or will you take whatever action you need to take to save your city and your citizens. You may sit by and watch your city, friends, and family destroyed to protect the "rights" of the terrorist, but I won't!

I find it amazing too, in these times where a rogue nation can launch a nuclear missile attack, that Canada doesn't fully support America's efforts to develop a missile defense system that would protect both countries. At least that would offer some protection from a limited type of attack that could be launched by a country like North Korea or Iran. But, Canada doesn't even support this.

I was wondering, why is a Canadian so hyped up and concerned about America's politics? The way you write your comments, one moment you sound like you are arguing as an American and the next as a Canadian. In fact, until recently, I thought you were writing as an American.

Now, you can have the last word. I'm going to bed!

AAR

AAR,

How much proof do you need before you see that Bush cooked the books on intelligence.?

1999 Bush said :

------
"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief." ... "My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it." "If I have a chance to invade... if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency."

— George W. Bush to his autobiographer in 1999 while Governor of Texas
------

Downing Street memos said: C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Second downing street memo said: "a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein."

CSI whistle blowers, Valerie Plame outting, the Yellowcake from Niger LIE, Colin power presenting "cartoons" to the UN showing the "Weapons trailers" in Iraq that were 100% confirmed to be producing toxic gas. They turned out to be toilets and the person who drew the cartoons was well known in his native country to be an absolute nut with no credibility. This fact was hidden from the UN until after.

Fact is you will never believe, even if Bush was investigated, tried and convicted you would still believe it had to be some sort of liberal conspiracy. LOL

Canada is not immune at all to a terrorist attack, but we don't go around bullying other countries and making enemies worldwide. You poke the bear enough times and sooner or later its gonna get you. Thats reality. Relax your foreign policy topromote peace thru diplomacy and sanctions like the rest of the world,instead of "comply or be bombed" and your terrorist threat will virtually disappear.

Canada came to your aid right after 9/11. Canada went into afganistan and are still there dying to this day. The US pretty much booked after Iraq became a priority and now Taliban is coming back to Afganistan.

Canada did NOT go to Iraq as it did not BELIEVE Bush's intelligence, which proved to be 100% the correct position. We did not see Saddam as an immediate threat, which of course he was not. When that was decided Bush tried to use the "If you are not with us, you are against us" , which for a time led to increased anti-canadian sentiment until people saw Bush for the liar he is.

We also oppose terrorists, but do so in a way that still preserves of freedoms and privacy. We recognize that if we have to sacrafice our freedoms in the name of security, theres nothing left to fight for. We dont need to torture or murder or spy on citizens to do it, neither do you.

Canada does not support the Bush missile defense system because IT DOES NOT WORK. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4097267.stm )

All tests of the system has failed miserably and all it does is lead to a false sense of security. Even the engineers of the system have gone on the record to say it will never be reliable. Trying to Hit a missile travelling at Mach speeds with another missile is simply a really BAD idea. Might as well use spitballs instead. Canada also does not want to have US missiles here that would be targeted if your nutty president starts world war 3. In short, we have no trust or faith in your president, nor does the rest of the world, nor should you.

Iran does not have any nuclear bombs. Iran does not have any nuclear missiles. Iran does not even have a single piece of weaponery that is even capable of reaching the U.S. They are a threat perhaps down the road, not an immediate one, just like Iraq was.

Russia and China have warned the U.S. against an unprevoked attack. Both of these powers DO have nuclear weapons capable of reaching the U.S. If they go to bat for Iran, the U.S. is screwed, totally and you will see muchroom clouds without question, ESPECIALLY if Bush follows up on his treat to use NUCLEAR weapons in a pre-emptive strike against non-nuclear capable Iran.

As I said, I am both Canadian and American. But even native Canadians are very concerned because the US and canada are connected so deeply that if America goes into the toilet, you take us with you. Bush has tripled the price of gas and the world is feeling this except for those countries that closely regulate oil companies or have state run companies. Middle eastern residents are paying only 20 cents a gallon for gas. Before Bush, it was 5 cents a gallon.

Canadians and Americans are vastly different, have different views and priorities, but we are both allies and partners in crime so to speak. We are your greatest ally and you ours. We come from the exact same roots as you do, with the only exception those of Spanish decent. We emerged from oppressive British rule as a independant commonwealth country, like Australia/New Zealand. The queen is still officially recognized as the heat of state, however her power has been turned over to the Canadian Parliament.

The point is when America really needs us, we are going to be there, without question, but we prefer a world peacekeeping role rather than an antagonizer and won't be a party to the Neo-con agenda of taking over the middle east and establishing a world wide empire. When the people come to their senses and kicks the dangerous radical neocons out, we will still be here, the same as always.

As for myself, Bush and his cabal really bother me personally because I have seen the respect the U.S. has had to the world in the past and Bush has flushed all of that down the toilet. On 9/11, most of the world was with america. Bush essentially gave the world the middle finger with the decision to go into Iraq, and all the corruption, torture, murder, Rendition, spying has only increased the worldwide anti-american sentiment.

Its time to bring that worldwide respect back by bringing in honest administrations that value freedom and peace and civil liberities and constitutional values. Be that a democrator Republican, does not matter as long as Americas founding values are respected. Bush is using your constitution as toilet paper and wants only to be successful at something in his life. Cheney doesn't care how many troops die so long as his Halliburton can get fat on his wars. He also is the one that convinces Bush to attack Iraq. Rumsfeld is a Regan administration washout that loves war, death and destruction. This cabal is bad news anyway you slice it.

Ok, guys, you got me. All you Canadiens are right!! Bush invaded Afghanistan after setting up 9/11 so he could install an oil pipeline. He invaded Iraq to pad his resume and make Halliburton rich, because they were so poor before. Cheney shot that guy on purpose because he was drunk and they guy had the nerve to question Cheney on Iraq while on a hunting trip.
The terrorists locked up at Gitmo should have lawyers so they can be released and plan more attacks. Bush let OBL go so he could have a boogey man to use to get re-elected.

I see it now!! So you guys can leave the site and never come back. Your mission is accomplished!

Dear Lord, do we need to build a fence on the northern border as well. I'm curious why so many from Canada are so concerned about our reputation around the world. I would also like to ask where all the outrage was when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Where were the "anti-war" protests, where were the activists demanding Iraq leave Kuwait. Let's face it guys, there has always been anti-American sentiment and there always will be. The war just gave them a reason to protest. They couldn't care less about the people of Iraq, it was an excuse to bash the President, plain and simple.

I'm STILL waiting to hear from all the anti-war nuts on this site to tell me of their personal experiences in Iraq, since they know so much about what is going on there.

Morons At The U.N.

axis,

You present too many topics and I don't have the time to write the pages it would take on each one to explain why I disagree with many or most of them. We have discussed most in other threads and I'm sure the opportunity will present itself again in the not too distance future.

At least you do say you support Saddam Hussein removal. That's a start.

I agree completely with President Bush that Saddam Hussein had to go. If I had been elected president, that would have been one of my goals from the start. I would have been "accumulating" and "gathering" information to support that position and to convince the American people why it was essential that we remove Saddam once and for all. I do not agree with the interpretation of the Downing Street Memo that President Bush "fixed" the facts as you interpret it. I use many words differently than you or others might, but if I also try to understand what the other person meant by their usage - I don't try to "fix" my definition to their statement and refuse to understand what they meant. Fixed has many meanings. Here is one interpretation I found on the Internet...

"...'fixed around' is not synonymous with 'fixed.' To say that [President] Bush and his aides 'fixed' intelligence—as [some] claim the memo shows—would mean that they distorted or falsified it [lied]. To say 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy' means that they were viewing, sifting, and interpreting intelligence in a way that would strengthen the case for their policy, for going to war."

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with that. It is exactly the same thing you, I, or any other person, even a liberal would do to make their case. President Bush did not "cook the books" as you put it. I disagree completely with your "belief" that President Bush lied. You are basing your beliefs on what a typical liberal would do! President Bush and others don't do things, think, or react the way a typical liberal would!!!

Weapons trailers, fertilizer components, dual use chemicals... they can be used to make nerve and biological agents just as easily as for the purpose Saddam Hussein "said" they would be used. And what do you think they would be used for once the sanctions had been lifted? Fertilizer? The moon is made of cheese and the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale!

North Korea promised President Clinton that if they were given all of the components for their nuclear power program, they would use them only for peaceful purposes. How could President Clinton, a supposedly intelligent liberal, ever agree to hand over the potential ability to develop and make nuclear weapons in the hands of a nation like North Korea? It's beyond me! We see where that promise went. Each day they develop new capabilities, farther reaching missiles, and increase their potential ability to destroy you, me, and civilization as we know it. So what do we do? Let the continue to make more and larger weapons? We're in a "fix" on that one now!

Now just what would you do with Iran? We are doing all we can to let diplomacy work -- as we did with Saddam Hussein -- but so far, that is a failure. Even if we do agree to let Iran develop its "peaceful" nuclear capability, what kind of protection does that afford? Absolutely none! At some point in the future, they just tell the world they have changed their mind and start using all of that capacity to turn out nuclear bombs and missiles. I for one believe that Iran will do that, and I for one believe we should do what it takes to stop them.

As far as those toadstools that Russia and China may drop plant all over America... you should be very, very concerned. If they nuke us, we nuke them... and not with just tit-for-tat. We launch everything we have too, and their goes the farm -- yours, mine, theirs, and everyone else's. It is apparent that Russia and China have no desire to stop Iran. They are playing with nuclear fire and it doesn't concern them because allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons suits their purposes too... until they are wiped out as a result of it!

Now, just what would you do with Iran? Try diplomacy? Fine, we are doing that. If diplomacy doesn't work, what do you do next? Tell them to go right on with their program because it is only the United States and Israel they plan to nuke, not Canada, Russia, China, or any other nations who aren't concerned about their program? Do we take out their facilities while we can with minimum risk to the world, or do we wait until it will make a "really big mess" to take them out in the future... just before or after launch? Do we work with Israel and hope they will be successful in removing them, at least for a few years?

So what would you do? Stop them now, or wait until they have a whole arsenal and "confirm" their intentions? The fallout (pun intended) from Iran's nuclear weapons may (will!) affect more than just the United States!

And how does this tie in to the subject of this thread. The whole issue with Iraq and the pending issue with Iran were not "fixed" (another pun) by the U.N. The U.N. is not capable of solving or handling any REAL problems. It is left to President Bush and the United States ho handle it or to be discussed and ignored by the U.N. until there is NO minimal risk solution! So... why keep the U.N.?

AAR

AAR-

Whenever things go badly with their policies, Republicans blame the liberals. Last time I looked around we had a Republican majority in all branches of government, so I'm stymied at how you can link Rumsfeld's failure to plan properly to ensure the peace after Saddam was toppled on the liberals. Please read "Cobra II" for enlightenment. The book details the Pentagon's failed Iraqi war strategy. Even the Canadians know that the Neocons planned our debacle in Iraq, every step of the way.

AAR, We need to agree to disagree on wether the books were cooked. In my view, there is no doubt.

Bush and Cheney knew the Niger yellowcake story was false for over a YEAR before they used it and they continued to purport it as true.

Condi Rice said that the alumimum tubes found could only be used for nuclear weapons, we now know that they were TOLD by intelligence officials that they were most likely designed for conventional weapons.

Rumsfeld said he knew EXACTLY where the weapons of mass destruction were.

Bush said in 1999 that he wanted to invade Iraq. He said that Cheney convinced him that he could be considered a heroic war president like Margret Thatcher if he was to start a small war and win it decisively. This would have worked if he had not totally bungled the aftermath

Colin Powell presented cartoonish illustration of the weapons trailers giving them a long presentation on how much gas they could create and how many people it would kill. These turned out to be sand toilets not weapons trailers.

Downing street, "intelligence was being fixed around the policy." Translates into intelligence was being fixed around the desire to invade iraq.

Downing street 2 shows bush was desperate to try and prevoke Saddam to attack by any means. It failed so they attacked him instead.

CIA whistleblowers coming forward to say that all intelligence showing that Iraq had no WMD's were dismissed and ignored by the administration

Concerning Iran, no, if Diplomacy fails you works with other UN countries to come up with a multilateral solution. This president won't do that, he is an isolationist who only trusts people that think as he does and shares his narrow views. He will take unilateral action against Iran if given the chance. The US CANNOT win a direct conflict with Iran. They are strapped as it is and cannot handle any more. There are no more troops left to send to an Iran conflict, short of drafting a quarter million. The American military is in no shape to start a war in a third theater. Especially since the first 2 show no signs of ending for decades. You cannot even hope to win a war on terror, it is a war against an idealogy, not a specific enemy and the idealogy is being fed by your own overly agressive foreign policies.

Hes a war president as he says and desperately wants to be remembered as being great at something. Everything he has done in his life to this point has failed or been a disaster. He even failed to find oil in Texas and went bankrupt. He even told his autobiographer in 1999 that he was frustrated at being an underachiever living in the shadow of his dad that was successful at many and most of the things he did. He has many personal and emotional demons that are affecting his performance as president.

axis,

We'll have to disagree then.

The war with Iraq is one of President Bush's action I fully supported. I do wish some things had been done differently after Iraq fell, but things happen. It was still the right decision by the right man at the right time!

I wish that President Bush and Republicans had fought back against the liberal Democratic propaganda before it got as far as it did and took on a life of it's own. I don't think Republicans have learned to fight back even now. I think they need some training on how to use the media, how to get their message across, and the need for repetition and to continue fighting 24/7.

I don't agree that the books were "cooked" and I do not believe that President Bush lied. I don't know where the WMD went, but I do KNOW he had them and I don't believe he destroyed them.

From what I've read and seen, those trailers that were "supposedly" used to produce hydrogen for balloons could just as easily produced biological agents at some time in the future. All of that dual use fertilizer could just as easily have been used to produce a batch of deadly nerve agent. Sure is a good way to "hide" the capability to produce WMD right under the noses of U.N. inspectors!!!

I'll save my other comments for some future thread.

AAR

AAR--- "but things happen."

How can you dismiss the destruction of Iraq's antiquities (the U.S. built a helicopter pad on the ancient city of Babylon!) the looting, the death of about 100,000 Iraqi civilians as "things happen"???? As long as they're not happening in your neighborhood-it was the right thing to do at the right time.

"From what I've read and seen, those trailers that were "supposedly" used to produce hydrogen for balloons could just as easily produced biological agents at some time in the future. All of that dual use fertilizer could just as easily have been used to produce a batch of deadly nerve agent. Sure is a good way to "hide" the capability to produce WMD right under the noses of U.N. inspectors!!!"

-- You forgot to mention that the one that drew the illustrations for Powell, was insane and his government when asked if he was credible called him a complete nut. The administration knew this and proceeded anyways.

The back of your van could theoretically be used to create biological weapons as well. Its about as likely as the sand toilets or balloon inflating trailers being used. LOL

axis,

Why don't you pull your head out of the sand or where it is you have it stuck?!!!

The fact is, I don't buy your figure of 100,000!

The fact is, you dismiss the millions of Iraqi citizens and their neighbors who were killed, murdered, tortured, raped, carved up alive, and who knows what else!

The fact is, you dismiss the tens of thousands of Iraqi children who were dying and suffering each and every month under the U.N. sanctions!

The fact is you would have continued Saddam's support of and payments to terrorists and suicide bombers in Israel to blow their men, women, and children to bits!

The fact is... if it were up to you, Saddam and his barbaric, murderous sons would have continued killing, torturing, and carving up the Iraqi men, women, and children for years into the future!

The fact is, Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs as soon as U.N. sanctions were removed!

How many million more Iraqi citizens would you have killed and tortured until you had enough.

Well... I've had enough of your ludicrous and insane justification for continuing the killing, murder, torture, rape, and everything else imaginable for years and years to come.

The fact is, I don't agree with your idea of what is a good life for the Iraqi people. Most of them don't either.

Fortunately for the Iraqi people, America, and the world... you didn't get to make the decision to continue with your idea of the good life in Iraq!

AAR