Canadian flag on the backback myth

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 21:51:24 -0500, Ken Pisichko wrote:

Ken Pisichko wrote:

Xomicron wrote:

Terrorists don't give a **** if you're Canadian. They're probably
chuckling at your false sense of security.

Not what I said. They sure don't give a damn about US citizenship and US
property - that is for sure, as events since 9/11 have shown.

One more point - in spite of what you say, remember where your US bound
aircraft landed.

That actually does remain quite weird a story. Granted, GW ran for cover
and most likely left no one at the help. Still, when whoever that is who
decided it decided to close off US airspace, my guess is the planes en
route were not even thought off.

Those aircraft flew into safe havens because there was no option! There was
no false sense of security because those airports were the only hope for
those originally flying towards then-insecure USA.

In hindsight, Canada ought to have charged a hefty fee for US-registered
planes who insisted in landing in Canada. Something like a million
buck/pax. Choice of that or the Atlantic. Still better than the US whose
choice was the Atlantic or getting shot down, right?

But no, Chretien was just too nice and he apparently had no hesitation in
doing the necessary for handling US government stupidity.

In hindsight, Canada ought to have charged a hefty fee for US-registered
planes who insisted in landing in Canada. Something like a million
buck/pax.

Damn, you are one sick puppy.

Glen

dr nick wrote:

"http://www.iamnotamerican.com" wrote in
message


these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Let's see...Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Persian Gulf II...certainly
seems to have been some wars in the last 59 years.


Have they won any though?

They were doing good until us Yanks came along.

--
Chris F
Long Island, USA.

"When the Lord calls me home ... I will leave with the greatest love for
this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future, I know that
for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead." - Ronald Reagan
Nov. 5, 1994

"millions of men and women who live in freedom today because of the
policies he pursued."..."so many odds and with such humor and humanity
made Ronald Reagan a truly great American hero." - Former British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way
he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for
keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people
everywhere," - former President Clinton

"Ronald Reagan won America's respect with his greatness, and won its
love with his goodness. He had the confidence that comes with
conviction, the strength that comes with character, the grace that comes
with humility, and the humor that comes with wisdom," Bush said, reading
from a prepared statement. "He leaves behind a nation he restored and a
world he helped save. - President G.W. Bush

"If you go to Eastern Europe, he is one of the most beloved people in
the world." - former New York city mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

"Reagan was a statesman who, despite all disagreements that existed
between our countries at the time, displayed foresight and determination
to meet our proposals halfway and change our relations for the better,
stop the nuclear race, start scrapping nuclear weapons, and arrange
normal relations between our countries," - Mikhail Gorbachev


"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." - Ronald Reagan

devil wrote in
news
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 23:31:39 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

devil wrote in
news
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:36:52 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

Ken Pisichko wrote in :

Bogart wrote:

The US won't "win"

Really? Where is Saddam? Where are the Sunni thugs who ruled
that country with an iron fist? Who makes up the new Iraqi
government and what are their goals? How many newspapers are now
being published in Baghdad free of censorship? How many women make
up that new governing council? How many young girls are for the
first time going to school in Iraq? How is it that Iraq now has
more social infrastructure in place than it ever did under Saddam?
I understand you're mad. Rabid dogs get mad. What I don't
understand is your ignorance and your willingness to spread it all
over the world via the usenet.


My my, so this is your definition of winning. OK so the US finally
got ****ed off at Saddam AFTER supporting him and giving him all
those WMDs to fight those dastardly Ayatollas ... Why did you let
him go on for so long?

Ask Bill Clinton.

and will hand over the stinking mess they started (with their
invasion) for someone else to deal with while at the same time
extolling their mattra "WE won the war!! WE won the war!! What
revisionistic bull****.

Your superpower does not have the ability to create peace, just to
"win" by killing all opposition and flattening the country. Kinda
like the German Panzer division did when they opened up on the
Polish Calvary at the beginning of WW II. Even though they overran
Poland they had nothing but trouble for the rest of the "war".
Then the Germans were defeated. The US won't win the peace
offensive because they do NOT have the capability. If they did
have that capability why do they pass off the destroyed
countryside to someone else AND ask them to get involved in the
peace process.

You need to look more closely at WW2 history. The two countries
who were the chief architects of WW2 - Germany and Japan were both
leveled by the United States and both rebuilt via the Marshal Plan
into first world countries by the same United States of America.

Oh, the USA won the war! More revisionist bull****. Why were RCAF,
RAF, RAAF and RNZAF aircrews bombing the AXIS powers? For practice?
Why are there thousands of British, Canadian, French, Australian,
New Zealand and other ALLIED soldiers buried all over this earth
adjactent to or near the cemetaries of AXIS warriors?

They weren't accomplishing much until the Americans arrived.

Surely you must mean the Soviets? Who al;most singlehanded defeated
the Nazis, while the US were more or less tied in the Pacific?

Who do you think was supplying the Soviets? The Americans of course. We
were supplying their war machine as well as fighting a two front war.

The Soviets would have been overrun if it wasn't for American
assistance and intervention in the European theater.

So? The Soviets almoat singlehandedluy defeated the Nazis.

No, they didn't. If there was no Western front the Soviets would have been
beaten.

"http://www.iamnotamerican.com" wrote in
:

in a recent article, ANONYMOUSE ) said:

these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Let's see...Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Persian Gulf
II...certainly
seems to have been some wars in the last 59 years.

No declared wars.

devil wrote in
news
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 23:50:26 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

Scott Willing wrote in
:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 02:13:19 +0000 (UTC), Xomicron
wrote:

Scott Willing wrote in
m:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:30:16 +0000 (UTC), Xomicron
wrote:

(sneakysneak) wrote in
m:

Xomicron wrote in message
...

You may hate us but you're still our bitches.

Your ID handle is from some Futurama episode

No, it isn't, but yours is from a well known homosexual.

When USA is self-sufficient in terms of their
energy demands, yes.

The US has the potential to be, but we prefer to use up everyone
else's oil first.

Don't look now sonny, but you actually used up your *own* first.

And, things have been looking dicey in Saudi Arabia for quite some
time now. That's why Bush is over in Iraq making a lousy show of
ramming democracy down peoples' throats.

The liberals seem to believe that Arabs are not genetically capable of
democracy and think it would be better if we just let them kill each
other and threaten the rest of the planet.

It would appear that the right wingers seem to believe that Arabs are
not genetically capable of democracy either, since they apparently
need bombs, missiles, tanks, 15000 dead civilians and an occupying
force to "free" them and "help" them to determine their own future.

Your numbers are inflated and have no basis in fact.

I am not aware that the thugs at the White House have been publishing
official fgures for Iraqi civilian casualties. So why not take his
guess as a valid starting point?

Because it isn't valid.

Xomicron wrote:


So? The Soviets almoat singlehandedluy defeated the Nazis.

No, they didn't. If there was no Western front the Soviets would have been
beaten.

I met an interesting man today, a former U Boat captain. According to him,
Germany lost the war at the battle of Kursk (May/43). They were in full
retreat. His own father defied orders and pulled back from his position in
Chechnya, and according to him, German troops headed west in the hope of
surrendering to the Allies because they could not hold back the soviets.

Xomicron wrote:

"http://www.iamnotamerican.com" wrote in
:

in a recent article, ANONYMOUSE ) said:

these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Let's see...Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Persian Gulf
II...certainly
seems to have been some wars in the last 59 years.

No declared wars.

90,000 plus combat deaths without declaring war. What's wrong with this
picture.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 01:30:34 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

devil wrote in
news

So? The Soviets almoat singlehandedluy defeated the Nazis.

No, they didn't. If there was no Western front the Soviets would have been
beaten.


???

Really? They would have come up to the Atlantic shores. In 1944,
Germany was on its last legs already, having been soundly beaten on the
Eastern front.

No more young boys to draft, no reseouce except some trickling in from the
US, etc.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 01:31:24 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

"http://www.iamnotamerican.com" wrote in
:

in a recent article, ANONYMOUSE ) said:

these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Let's see...Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Persian Gulf
II...certainly
seems to have been some wars in the last 59 years.

No declared wars.

All illegal wars, right? A rogue state, engaged in terrorism, I suppose.