Schroeder

violence aside, then.

Canadians, on the whole, have no issue with the american public. Our concerns, if I may speak for the concerned, lay with your government, and the stances, direction it's taking. As a by-product you're seeing some canadians directing their frustration at the american public because they (the americans) are seen as supporting (of course) their government. In the same way that you look at us, and say, "sympathetic to france" and lump us together, some canadians are taking the same liberty, as foolish as it is, and treating the american public with the same regard they reserve for their government. This "yes yes, sure we'll humour you regarding your opinions, but push it long enough and you'd better watch it" attitude that's cropping up is ridiculous and totally opposite to the kind of society (global) that we're all shooting for. If I ventured in the slipstream; Between the via-ducts of your dreams.......could you find me?

Don't know if this has been posted here or not but I got it in my email a few days ago, and since this has to do with us canadians, thought it might fit in here somehow: Silver Donald Cameron is a Canadian writer who lives in D'Escousse, Ile Madame, Nova Scotia. He was writing in response to a speech given by the American ambassador to Canada, who gave all Canadians a lecture on "friendship". Pretty well written and well researched. Ambassador Paul Cellucci Embassy of the United States of America, 490 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario Dear Mr. Ambassador: Your recent remarks about Canada's policy with respect to Iraq were inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive. Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S. pressure and Canadian opinion-a familiar position for Canadian prime ministers-and he will not tell you to go pound sand. But someone should. Fundamentally, you argue that the United States would instantly come to the aid of Canada in an emergency, and Canada should therefore participate in your ill-advised attack on Iraq. "There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," you are quoted as saying. "There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family." Codswallop. And that's being diplomatic. The primary threat to Canadian security has always been the United States. A monument in Quebec honours my earliest Canadian ancestor for repelling an invasion from your home state of Massachusetts in 1690. The very first instance of military co-operation among the 13 colonies occurred in 1745 under the leadership of James Shirley, your predecessor as governor of Massachusetts, whose army invaded Nova Scotia and captured the Fortress of Louisbourg. Thirty years later, during the American Revolution, your privateers sacked our ports. We were at war once more in 1812-15. The birth of Canada in 1867 was prompted by fears of a U.S. invasion. That's why our railroad runs along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, far from the U.S. border. Do you remember Manifest Destiny, the 1840s U.S. doctrine which held that your country had a God-given mission to rule all of North America? Do you remember "Fifty-four-forty or fight," the slogan that rallied Americans to threaten an invasion in 1902 over the Alaska boundary? Yours is the only country that has ever invaded ours, and it would do so again in a wink if it thought its interests here were seriously threatened. And how does your sentimental mantra of perpetual willingness to spring to our assistance apply to the First World War, which we entered in 1914, while you stayed out for three years? We went to war against Hitler in 1939, while you were moved to join your sister democracies only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two years later. A million Canadians fought in the Second World War, and 45,000 died. We need no lectures from Americans about the defence of liberty and democracy. Nevertheless, despite the strains of our history, we are probably as close as any two nations in the world. Many Canadians-I am one - have family members who are American citizens. Our two nations fought together not only in two World Wars, but also to repel the invasions of South Korea in 1949 and Kuwait in 1991. And when great catastrophe strikes without warning, our people have indeed been there for each other. As governor of Massachusetts, you must have been present at the lighting of the Christmas tree in Boston each year-an annual gift from Nova Scotia to commemorate the immediate and massive assistance of Massachusetts after the Halifax Explosion in 1917. Our chance to reciprocate came on Sept. 11, 2001, when Canadian communities took in, on an instant's notice, 40,000 passengers from U.S. planes forced down by the terrorist attacks. Halifax alone hosted 7,200. We housed them in our homes and schools and churches, fed them and comforted them and treated them as family. We probably gave more immediate and practical assistance to Americans than any other country. Yet when your president later thanked nations for their help, he did not mention Canada. The Iraq conflict, however, is not an unforeseen disaster, but a deliberate choice. Your president has squandered a worldwide outpouring of sympathy and solidarity in less than two years-an astounding diplomatic debacle. Your own remarks, with their dark hints of economic revenge, are entirely consistent with the Bush administration's policy of diplomacy by bullying, bribing and threatening. A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain, judges this war to be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism. Your government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have noticed that the Sept. 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi. They lived not in Baghdad but in Hamburg and San Diego. The Iraq campaign is a side-show, a grudge match, a distraction. It will breed more martyrs, and more terrorists. Good citizens - and good friends - oppose bad policies. By telling you the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but they are not your enemies. That is the message you should take back to the White House, whether or not there is anyone there who will understand it. Sincerely, Silver Donald Cameron If I ventured in the slipstream; Between the via-ducts of your dreams.......could you find me?

I'm a turtle. Named Gilford.

I'm sorry I didn't get to know you better than I did, but am glad for the times we talked. bye Holly. If I ventured in the slipstream; Between the via-ducts of your dreams.......could you find me?

That guy in the baghdad pic is freaky huge.

Well Said, and I appreciate your saying it, as it was the sort of opinion and out-look I was looking for. I'll consider it heavily over the next few days.

I again totally see where you're coming from but I think where we differ is on what we support the troops in doing. Well, at least I'd know why I went out the door in the first place... How can it be water under the bridge? If you think that the entire premise is questionable, in the least bit, don't you think that in order to give full support that questionable premise should be resolved? Thousands and thousands are going to die because of a questionable premise, casualities on both sides, families destroyed, civilians murdered, all for a premise that is widely regarded as questionable? But to throw up your hands and say that we may as well just accept it and support it is likely precisely what the bush administration expected and planned on.

Ok, then here's what I see you as saying: If a group which we'd like to think are vital to our security is doing something wrong, at first you'll side with them (under the reasonable assumption that they're really doing the right thing), but later protest. So in the case of this war, we have people protesting the action at first, then supporting the hands and tools that make that action possible? Kinda ass-backwards. I agree with you completely. But I support the people, not their actions; as they are the very people who will make this policy (that you don't agree with) come to fruition. Just as before the war, I did not support the proposed actions.

Ok, someone fill me in on how you can be against a war but support the troops that make it possible? I pray for them, but for victory? No, I don't support this war and I don't support the actions of the troops in a capacity other than getting safely back on boats, planes, whatever, and getting back home. At first saying you're anti-war, and then once everyone's over there and the ball is motion, saying you support the whole thing seems as ridiculous as saying that you're against rape, but in the back seat of your car your girlfriend decides at the last minute that it ain't gonna happen; but you think, "well, as long as I'm here" I don't know what the anti-war protesters thought war was in the first place, but it's the troops who make it happen, and now, to me at least, supporting them equates to supporting the war. And in a totally non-sarcastic tone, I'd really like for someone to tell me why it doesn't. Because if I'm seeing something wrong, or incorrectly, I'm the first guy to try and change my views to a correct stance, but I do need a good reason.

Not an issue, I thought it might be so I kept an eye on it, but haven't thought about it for nearly a year (about as long as we've been together). I'm 22 and she's 27. Things are good.

Yes, people do die in fights, but typically that becomes a manslaughter charge, or something similar, but what I'm talking about is all the fights that go on around the world every day compared to the actual # that result in death. This whole thing reaks of the "well they *may have a pointy rock, and it *may be thrown with the right velocity such that it *might hit me in a place where it *may kill me. So, I'm justified in using deadly force to eliminate a threat." And that good sir, is why we ain't gonna understand eachother, as has been demonstrated in about 14 billion previous war threads.

ok... very quietly... and calmly...... and quietly... and in small text if I could make that happen: is anyone else here seeing the stances of people in regards to justifiable reaction to threat as a parallel to their stance on the Iraq situation?

why is deadly force even being considered? I think that waaay more often than not, a person may want to hit you, but not kill you. As a human in this society I would chose to be struck, sooner than kill someone to prevent them from hitting me. I know I know, in these situaions, you can't possibly know that your life isn't in danger etc etc, but come on, lets talk numbers here. How many fights are there every day across N. America, compared to the number of murders? The indifferent attitude towards killing people just blows me away.

Not real? damn it all to hell!

edited to add: Of all the things for Americans to laugh at....

this is terrible.

Lol, ok, my friend, Tell me then, what does here's your sign mean? Take your time.

Saying "Wendy, Here's your Sign" implies he's calling you stupid. If were to say, make up another term for Damn Fool, lets say "Here's your placard" And then say to you "Here's your placard", am I not calling you a damn fool?

careful...... you wouldn't want to start a name calling match here. No, wait you did that already when you started calling people stupid a while ago. In your words, "Do I need to break it down for you?" Just to fake some sort of levity here let me add:

Why am I not surprised?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=421251#421251 Hey Rhino, As I pointed out above, you did call her stupid. I came to that conclusion after reading EVERY word and considering what 'Here's your sign' actually meant.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/rafah.death/index.html Hmm... cnn seems to be a little more in-depth: "She was raising her hands and yelling at the bulldozer driver to stop," Arraf said. "The bulldozer driver paid no attention. ... He buried Rachel with dirt, which ended up, obviously, knocking her down. Then he ran over her, and then reversed and ran over her again."

Stand toe-to-bumper with a truck, trip backwards when it starts moving at 8mph, and then tell me how long it takes before your feet are under it. Plus those blades are wide, like 12-14 feet at least.

yeah, ok, foxworthy... lol, so this is pretty well the context right? http://www.stargazersrealm.com/MAIN/funnies/heresyoursign.html And..... So, you've called alot of people stupid lately haven't you? not only off-board people, but even on-board people. Nice, it takes some wit to find new ways to insult/attack people.