patricia

When Bush #1 used Saddam Hussein's first name, Arabic cultural norms aside, it struck me the same way that it does when a telemarketer uses my first name to pretend he/she knows me. It feigns an intimacy which is offensive. Your suggestion that watching a MOVIE will make everything clear to those who know nothing of Middle Eastern culture is certainly much easier than having to waste time reading history. Perhaps a synopsis of that movie would be even easier, if it can all be fitted on one page. Yes. America, save yourself. Kill 'em all!!!! Why bother to try to discover why they want to kill you????

Needing a second cake for all the candles is the time to be concerned that you may be destined to live forever!! HAPPY BIRTHDAY VAJERZY!!!!

Patty, you must have a clean conscience. How come you work 2 1/2 part time jobs instead of 1 full time? Good question. Because I have no contacts here and it was important for me to take any job, or jobs which would earn enough, together to pay my rent, bills and put groceries on the table. I organize the office, compose letters and mailers and do typing etc. for an investment broker, about ten hours a week, the paperwork at home, so actually more. I work in a ladieswear store about twenty five hours a week and, work about fifteen hours a week at the liquor store, around the corner from my building. I was working full-time at the liquor store, but they are open until two in the morning and with my other jobs, three hours sleep isn't enough, so I asked to just fill in. Amazing what we women end up doing for a living, regardless of the skills we may have to offer, if we simply have to pay the rent.

I have always operated on about five hours of sleep, which is good right now, because I have 2 1/2 jobs, all part-time and scheduled, sometimes, back to back. I usually to to bed around 1am and am up at 6am, at the latest because I start the day with a two mile run. On rare days off I still sleep and am awake about the same hours. In fact, I'm quite antsy if I have a day off. None of my jobs start earlier than 9am, but I am quite often still working, at home, on paperwork until about midnight. Some days I do hours at all my jobs, with about an hour or so between them. I don't care about the temperature of the room or how many blankets are on the bed, as long as nobody has moved the bed out of the room. As for noise, bring it on. I'm asleep, if I'm lying down.

I never could stand it during Gulf War I when Bush, "The Father" would repeatedly refer to that cocksucker as "Saddam". I don't remember ever seeing any WW II footage where FDR refered the Paper Hanger as "ADOLF". I've filtered that prick's name down to...... ....... ......."THE SODOMIZER".......PERIOD. DEEP FINALLY, something about which you and I can, at least in this instance, agree. Saddam Hussein was so horrible and so obscenely inhumane and satanic that EVERYONE is relieved that he is no longer in power. BUT, Bush #1's use of Saddam Hussein's first name implied a certain friendliness and intimacy which, I agree, was inappropriate and annoying to me also. Why have I always thought that Hitler was a failed artist, who drifted, doing odd jobs, having been rejected as an art student by the Academy of Arts in Vienna?? No matter, failed artist or paper-hanger, he lives in infamy.

FUCK IRAQ !! FEED'EM BEEF (FROM CANADA).Shit, nobody else wants Canadian beef...they oughta just give it to the Iraqi Sandchucks. DEEP Considering that the North American Beef industry is, and has been totally integrated, for decades, who's to say whose cattle were the genesis? There but for the grace of God go either side of the North American beef industry. The offending feed,[ruminant-based protein suppliments, made from beef bones] which appears to have been the cause was common and used on both sides of the border, both in the U.S. and in Canada, until six years ago. I don't mean to give the impression that I'm an expert in cattle-production, because I'm not, but that's a FACT!!! So, that's why there was a question of exactly which cows originated where. It could just as easily have been one of the dairy cows from YOUR side of the border. So, your smugness is misplaced.

And England was wrong too. Putting one's flag on a country symbolizes ownership, which is what England did all over the world. The colonies may not have invaded England, but there was plenty of resistance to their occupation, resulting in the English leaving India, Malaysia, Burma,............THE U.S. and the list goes on. Too late to do anything about that, but the Iraq situation is still ongoing and fluid. Samuel Adams was reminding us that we are obligated to resist tyranny. So, that sentiment would apply to any country and it's people. That's why it's a relevant comment on patriotism, no matter what country you live in.

I seek only to point out that it cannot be assumed that the rest of the world will welcome the opportunity to allow the West to exploit their countries' resources, thus supporting our way of life. They will resist, as we would resist, should the situation be the reverse and we were being invaded by a foreign power. So, to me, our thread originator's quoting Samuel Adams is valid, but not only in the way that it may be interpreted by those who support pre-emptive invasions on the strength of flawed intelligence. All countries are selfish about their autonomy. We are and so is Iraq. They will defend their turf and we should expect no less of them. They're glad that Saddam Hussein is gone, but they don't want their country to be stolen from them, their resources taken away, as payment for the invasion and themselves rendered powerless to determine their own destines. Courage and patriotism are not limited to the West.

Wouldn't that Samuel Adams [who was a signator of the American Declaration of Independance] quote also apply to the citizens of a country, such as Iraq, which has been invaded and occupied by a foreign power?? The sentiment expressed by Mr Adams may also be applied to our own Native People, facing an invasion by the Europeans, three hundred years ago. There is a very disturbing book, which I read while I was still in school, called "Mangled Hands", by Neil Boyton, first published in 1926. It was the account of the pure-hearted Jesuit missionaries, who were subsequently tortured and finally killed by the Iroquois and the Huron tribes in New York and Eastern Canada. The European invasion of North America was not thought of by the native people as "liberation". Of course, the Europeans eventually stole the native people's land and relegated them to reservations, while they proceeded to exploit North America's natural resources, bringing the society in which we now live. The native people were shuttled to the sidelines and even now have not benefitted. On the contrary, they have suffered and continue to do so. They may have casinos and various other enterprises, but that took about three hundred years to come about. Do you think that the Iraqis are willing to wait three hundred years in order to be the masters of their own destiny, as the North American Indian has??

Might want to bring up the subject of Canadian History over to the insomniacs in the "What Time Do you go to bed" thread in the Misc. Non political forum. Or not........

Canada was there Patty because England was there. Canada wasn't quite independent at the time. They had some degree of autonomy but not completely. Perhaps you could remind me of the details of the arrangement. I forgot the term used. Conn, Yes, Canada's constitution was held in England, by the British, although we didn't pay taxes to them. Our laws were based on English Common Law and still are. The "Speech from the Throne" was originally read by whoever the King or Queen was, but then was passed to our Attorney General, and is still read as a formality, at the opening of Paliament. Originally, our laws had to be approved by Britain, but they aren't any more. Pierre Trudeau, during his tenure, in the late 1960's, as Prime Minister, formally asked that our constitution be given to us, by England and it was. We had been independant of the British Empire for decades, for all intents and purposes. Our connection to the British is merely a cultural one, at best now. We are as independant as the U.S. is from Britain. However, during the early part of the twentieth century, we were part of the British Empire, and our army volunteered as a matter of course, as well as as a gesture of solidarity against a common enemy, Hitler. Oh, and GROPER, I don't hate Mr Bush. I simply thought, and still think that the war that Mr Bush has initiated was based on a series of deceptions and, although I don't hate him, I wonder how much of the intelligence he received was known, by him to be untrue. He may very well have been totally out of the loop. Of course, he doesn't, as far as I know, take the position that Truman took that "The Buck Stops Here" and if challenged will most likely point to underlings, who will fall on their swords, much as Reagan's underlings did, after the Iran/Contra affair. Wasn't the word Paul was looking for was "dominion"? Wasn't Canada then referred to as the Dominion of Canada or something like that? Yup. We were a Dominion and now, we're just Canada. Some thought that the formal, public assertion, by our re-claiming of our constitution from England was unnecessary, considering that we had been independant of Britain for a long time. But, Pierre Trudeau felt that we had to bring our constitution to Canada and did. The first visible sign of our independance, ceremonially, was the replacing of the Union Jack as our country's flag, with the red and white one, with which you are probably familiar. Lester Pearson, a previous PM was responsible for that. Apologies to our thread originator for veering so far afield. I'm sure that most of you don't really care about Canadian history, but, I was asked. If anything, it might help our neighbours to the south, if they just remembered that we are not just a tiny strip on the northernmost part of the map of the U.S. Canada is bigger than the continental U.S., although our entire population is about equal to two of your largest cities. Next..........

Ah yes, HAPPY BIRTHDAY to our pair of celebrants!! Neither one looks a day older than................well, their actual age. Spin the jazz of your choice and watch your libation and cake consumption. Be mindful of your youthful figuras. On second thought, go crazy, it's only one day.

Problem is that for many of us it looks like the US fight repression, brutality, poverty, ignorance only if the fight is good for US economy. There are some countries east of Iraq,Iran, Afghanistan and some countries in South America where he US has been quite reluctant - to put it mildly - to stand up for human rights and democracy. Thank you pepe. I guess the child soldiers and the hacking and shooting to death of tens of thousands of people in Africa over the last decade don't fall into the catagory of compassionate conservatism. The feeling seems to be that people are a renewable resource, OIL isn't. As you say, there are no U.S. economic interests in Africa, so there is no humanitarian interest either. I did read about an offer of help for the deplorable situation regarding the horrible widespread AIDS problem. It seems to me that the last time the U.S. offered help was a while ago, when conditions were attached to help for African clinics in which aid would be witheld from those clinics which also dispensed abortion counselling. Are those conditions attached to this latest offer of help??

Why did you put a question mark after my name??

Isn't it a little passe' to refer to people who are not eager to kill total strangers for the benefit of the greedy few, "Bleeding Hearts". Is it unacceptable to reject violence as a solution to global conflicts and to prefer diplomacy and international law over bombing the bejesus out of the adversary, when at all possible?? The U.N. inspectors had contained any immediate threat and they found no WMD. The sham justification was presented to the U.N. and didn't receive the expected rubber stamp. No matter. They had every intention of attacking Iraq, before they ever went before the U.N. Do you seriously think that the U.S. had any intention of withdrawing the hundreds of members of the miliary amassed within striking distance of Iraq?? No matter what the decision of the U.N., the U.S. and Britain were going to attack Iraq. The U.S. claimed to have top-secret documents, pinpointing the location of the weapons' locations, but "couldn't" share the information with the U.N. inspectors because the information was "top secret". The war was launched. The U.S. sends in their own inspectors, with none, apparently, of the detailed information alluded to as to the WMD's location. They have found nothing so far, nor do they expect to. So, how much actual fact was involved? Isn't that the same thing as lying?? ............................ As for whether I served in the military, no I didn't. The U.S. had the draft during the sixties, when Vietnam was the war in progress. Canada had no draft and despite that, many of my highschool friends enlisted in the U.S. military, three of whom were killed. My father and all his brothers [7], served in the military, during WW!!, and two of them were killed, one was permanently disabled. My mother lived in London, when it was being bombed by the Germans, during WW11 and her apartment building, in a suburb, was levelled by one of them, while she was at work in the city. Both my parents thought that WW11 was justified and disagreed with the Vietnam conflict. As for the number of Iraqis who have been killed so far, you're right that there are no solid numbers, but our [Canada's] journalists put the number at thousands. I was not attempting to make the deaths of these people more sympathetic by mentioning children as numbering among the dead, but simply stating a fact. Yes the world is a dangerous place. I wasn't denying that. I also didn't say that war in self-defense was not justified. I say again that the U.S. was not in imminent danger, so this war is not a defensive one, but an unprovoked act of aggression, specifically not justified by the "rules of engagement" agreed to by the U.S. along with the other signators. Yes, I respect life and if that makes me a "bleeding heart", well then I guess I am and, as I say, I make no apologies for wanting a non-military solution to global conflicts. Wanting to be the most feared and militarily mighty and so being above international law is not IMO the way to any kind of co-existance, much less any form of peace.

SGud, You're right, of course, about Patti "Bown" and I knew that it wasn't "Brown". I edited. Thanks. Oops.

Canada was there Patty because England was there. Canada wasn't quite independent at the time. They had some degree of autonomy but not completely. Perhaps you could remind me of the details of the arrangement. I forgot the term used. Conn, Yes, Canada's constitution was held in England, by the British, although we didn't pay taxes to them. Our laws were based on English Common Law and still are. The "Speech from the Throne" was originally read by whoever the King or Queen was, but then was passed to our Attorney General, and is still read as a formality, at the opening of Paliament. Originally, our laws had to be approved by Britain, but they aren't any more. Pierre Trudeau, during his tenure, in the late 1960's, as Prime Minister, formally asked that our constitution be given to us, by England and it was. We had been independant of the British Empire for decades, for all intents and purposes. Our connection to the British is merely a cultural one, at best now. We are as independant as the U.S. is from Britain. However, during the early part of the twentieth century, we were part of the British Empire, and our army volunteered as a matter of course, as well as as a gesture of solidarity against a common enemy, Hitler. Oh, and GROPER, I don't hate Mr Bush. I simply thought, and still think that the war that Mr Bush has initiated was based on a series of deceptions and, although I don't hate him, I wonder how much of the intelligence he received was known, by him to be untrue. He may very well have been totally out of the loop. Of course, he doesn't, as far as I know, take the position that Truman took that "The Buck Stops Here" and if challenged will most likely point to underlings, who will fall on their swords, much as Reagan's underlings did, after the Iran/Contra affair.

You know the fish is a grouper. When GROPER suits up and joins the GROUND TROOPS in Iraq, he/she may be taken a little more seriously. LEADER??? Please. Bush is a puppet, at best.

There you go. AND if...if...if... If your aunt had balls, she's be your uncle. Not relevant. Iraq was contained and was not a threat to the U.S. DEFENSE of the U.S. was not an issue. The U.S. was not in danger of being attacked by Iraq, and I think you know that. That is the only justification for launching a war on another nation. The fabled WMD were bravado at best and I think that this administration knew that, or they wouldn't have launched an attack. Did you pay attention to what methods the Iraqis used in retaliation?? Holy man!!! If being the "tough guy" of the world was the goal, then the "Mission Accomplished" banner was true. But, at what price?? If the war were fought on the ground, without the massive destruction and death meted out, impersonally from the air, do you think that we would be so anxious to kill thousands of innocent people, looking each one in the eyes.............for power for the few and, yes, OIL??? More importantly, would YOU be willing to die for this??? Or are you just willing to let young men and women on both sides and Iraqi children, die for you???

I'd be interested in seeing "The Groper's" views. This is an open discussion. Some come for the fireworks. Perhaps your gut is right though. GROPER?? OOPS. He's gone. So is "anonymous". I guess the call to cook or get off the stove was taken seriously. NOJ?? What's your view?? Now he's gone too. Seems to be contageous.

You're right. There is no analogy between the Second World War and this invasion of Iraq. I mentioned it, only because it was raised as an analogy. In this case, the west is the aggressor, expanding their power base. This is not a defensive war, though it may very well become one. The Middle East has been a constant war of guerillas and of state-sponsored terrorism, for the last fifty years. This is a war or agression in Iraq, on the strength of dubious justification, an invasion, if you will.......by the West.

How the fuck long do think it would be before your upper West side apartment building would be owned by a Chinaman, or a North Korean, or a Russian, or a Canuck, or a German, or a Frenchman (strike that...they are in capable of doing ANYTHING aggressive), or anybody else with any power? It's really too bad we waged war on Germany and Japan in 1941. They didn't really mean any harm. I'll tell you this...BUSH will be the President one year from today despite all the weeds & seedser liberals. Dean is sickening. He has defintely forgot about 911. DEEP But, the war against Germany started in 1939, not 1941 and Canada was there. The Americans didn't get involved in WW11, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. They may have "saved France's ass in WW11", but the millions of people being slaughtered and terrorized by Hitler was of little importance, apparantly. The U.S. and every other country in the world refused to accept refugees from central Europe, notably the SS St Louis when Hitler was menacing Germany. Subsequently, those people went to the gas chambers.

I'll let the insult pass. But, read your history. Canada is not, and never has been "do nothing". Considering that, despite being bigger than the continental U.S., we have a population of about 30 million, about the same as two of your largest cities, we're very supportive when the need is actually justified. In fact, the Americans had the whole world's support, after Sept 11, including Canada, which sent troops to Afghanistan. Our guys are still there, getting killed by terrorists. Iraq was not an imminent threat. The world community was not convinced that it was. There may very well be 60 countries "supporting" the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, but how many had, or have troops on the ground?? It's easy to say, "you go and Godspeed, we're with you", to remain at the spoils of war table, than it is to actually refuse to send troops on a mission which doesn't pass the smell test and didn't have international support, with actual troops and financing, not just encouragement. We, and every other country had the option of simply continuing our support of the big dog south of us, with troops and money. It took a certain amount of courage to say "no" to our neighbours to the south, when we were expected to fall in line. We were expected to send our enlisted men and women to be killed, as we did when we joined the attack on Afghanistan. Now that money is needed, the Bush administration has not refused to accept our 300 million dollars, for help in the reconstruction. We are paying a huge economic price for making that choice and there are those who feel that we should have paid for favourable status with the U.S. with our children's lives. Your President as much as said that. The blood of your young men and women are paying for the means to your progress, not to mention the many more lives sacrificed by innocent Iraqis. Well, if every American can continue to use up the fossel fuels, then I guess it will be worth it. What do I know??

My point, as you well know, was that the ONLY reason that the U.S. attacked Iraq was that that area of the world [including the surrounding areas] have OIL. I suspect that if Iraq had actually had WMD and were a formidable adversary, they wouldn't have been attacked. If you recall, when the U.S. attacked, the Iraqis knew it was coming, but retaliated with old Russian weapons and continue to launch "small" attacks, using guerilla tactics. Had they had the arsenal of WMD, still not found, if ever there was a time to use them in retaliation, that would have been the time. Doesn't that make you wonder?? Also, small attacks, by guerilla factions, can and probably will continue, indefinately. Occupation would only work if the people want the occupiers there. Even though the people are happy as clams at high tide that Saddam Hussein is gone, they want their country back. They want to run their own affairs and benefit from controlling their own resources, OIL. What are the chances of that happening? So, why not just short-sheet these people who are standing in the way of progress and flatten them all? If humanitarian concerns are not in the equation, why pretend they are?? Being the biggest, toughest, meanest dog in the world worked for years, during the Cold War. Russia didn't attack because they knew that if they did, the U.S. would have launched the WMD, permanently trained on their country. The Russians used the same rationale, with their WMD trained on the U.S. An uneasy peace resulted. The reason that the U.S.'s developing and stockpiling every known WMD in existance was tolerated by the American people was that they were represented as DETERRENTS. Despite the asperations of the administration now in place, most American citizens don't support the idea of bombing all countries who MAY someday be a threat, as a pre-emptive measure.

I suppose that's one way to prevail. However, the U.S. DOES have WMD and I suspect that the reason they didn't follow Harry Truman's lead and not just drop two atom bombs on them, but obliterate Iraq and turn it into a parking lot, is that they have OIL. If they just had camels, sand and PEOPLE, Iraq would be a parking lot right now. It also occurs to me that if the neutron bomb [the one which kills all living things, but doesn't destroy the terrain, or the OIL] would have been the perfect solution, if humanitarianism is of no concern. While I certainly don't disagree that Saddam Hussein was a boil on the buttocks of the world, he isn't the only despot on whose watch murders and atrocities occurred. In the last decade, almost ten million Africans have been slaughtered by an ongoing, brutal civil war. If the U.S. were only concerned with humanitarianism, what prevented them from stopping that atrocity?? I HAVE NOT forgotten September 11, 2001, but revenge for that obscenity cannot go on until eternity. Also, revenge for that attack should have been directed, not at Iraq, but at Saudi Arabia, where ALL the terrorists, including Osama bin Laden originated. bin Laden is still at large and the Saudi Arabians are in no danger of being attacked. What the hell. Why not bomb the entire Middle East into a parking lot? That would certainly speed up the development of alternate energy sources. What else does that area of the world have that we want?? Also, India and Pakistan are a bit of a problem, so, as long as the military might of the U.S. are in the neighbourhood....................