Comments: House to meet in special session for Schiavo bill

Those who are trying to kill Teri will doubtless point out the added discomfort which will be caused in re-inserting the tube.

Which raises the question even more: knowing full well that this was likely to happen, why did they simply choose to not put fluid and nutrition through the tube, or better yet, delay a few more days to minimize the pain they're causing to Teri? Why did they feel the need to show their contempt of Teri (and, of course, of Congress) by removing the tube in the first place?

Every day it's becoming more obvious that their agenda has nothing to do with love for Teri or respect for her wishes.

Posted by Paul at March 20, 2005 05:13 PM

Paul wrote:

"Those who are trying to kill Teri will doubtless point out the added discomfort which will be caused in re-inserting the tube."

What a story! The Courts have been dealing with this specific issue for at least the past seven years, and the lady has been brain dead for the past 15 years, ever since her heart stopped and irreversibly damaged her brain. Doctors say she is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

And the Republicans are now going to elbow the Courts out of postion, and begin taking cases themselves. I suppose they are jealous of all the Democratic lawyers that keep beating them in Court, men like John Edwards.

Every Republican in the US is now busy flying back to Washington in a midnight emergency session to pass the required bills that would undo something like 200 years of judicial practices in America. Of course, it will also tell the world that in America, an independent judiciary is a joke. Wow! What a stunning demonstration of the "rule of law".

Even Emperor George II is getting in on the act, making a late night flight by helicopter back to Washington. Money is no object when it comes to Republicans saving people that are already brain dead.

What a country! Even Ancient Rome had nothing on these guys when it came to "giving them circuses".

In the meantime, I suppose that Gerry Falwell, is now going to visit Terri Schiavo's hospital room, and perform a "raising from the dead" ceremony. Rev. Falwell said that medical science is irrelevant if God tells him to "raise the dead".

Is it any wonder that these guys cannot put down the terrorists in the Middle East?

Posted by Joe Green at March 20, 2005 05:28 PM

I've wondered that too, Paul. No one is being harmed by prolonging Terri's life nor by allowing a full review of her case, so why the rush to remove the tubes?

This isn't a partisan issue, Joe, but you don't understand American politics because you filter everything according to your own narrow prejudices.

Posted by Debbye at March 20, 2005 06:30 PM

Gotta love Joe Green. He leaves all sorts of material to lampoon. And he thinks he just did a slam dunk.

"Even Emperor George II is getting in on the act..."
Americans love to hear a Canadian use this type pejorative to describe our President. While Joe chuckles to himself that he has scored a point with a reference to 'American royalty', he is apparently clueless to his own system of government which actually has a Queen as its head of state. Remarkable. While Joe uses “ Emperor George II “ as a fantasy insult, his reality is a constitutional monarchy to which Canadians submit themselves. We elect our head of state. Canadians count on royal breeding on the other side of the Atlantic to provide theirs.

Too bad Joe wasn't around when the Supreme Court upheld the 2000 Presidential election. We could have had a Canadian on George Bush's side telling his peers to grow up and accept the Supreme Court decision instead of hearing 'selected, not elected' for four mind numbing years.

All these people who are so anxious to kill off this woman should be ashamed of themselves. If you have been following this story in depth, you would know that only her ’sainted’ husband claims that she expressed a wish to be killed. Most suspiciously to all but the hatefully blind, he suddenly had this memory soon after a lawsuit was won and her care started eating into the money. Curious how her husband decided to finally “end her suffering” only after she received a large settlement, which was intended to provide for her future medical care. (!!!!) Those who draw a picture of a loving husband trying to carry out his dear wife’s wishes are either willfully ignoring the circumstances or are simply enjoying the opportunity to engage in hate.

And finally, Joe provides this gem, ”Is it any wonder that these guys cannot put down the terrorists in the Middle East?” A Canadian, with Canada's growing reputation as a coward and do-nothing in international affairs has the nerve to insult America for not ridding the ME of terrorists fast enough. Not even the french would allow themselves to be seen as so clueless as to play tough guy in a fight she ran away from. Only a Canadian...

Posted by mikem at March 21, 2005 12:05 AM

Two things:

1) an ABC news survey shows that Bush and his cronies are FAR out of touch with most Americans.
70% oppose the federal government intervention.
Tellingly, 50% of all evangelicals also oppose the intervention, as to 63% of Catholics.
(http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf)
Naturally, you will all just dismiss this as
"liberal" media bias, and cite some insane survey off of, say, newsmax or freerepublic, so no big one there. I'd like to take this oppurtunity to thank the liberal media for raising this non-issue to a hysterical fever pitch and giving American congressmen some juicy political fodder.

KUDOS!!!

More importantly:
2) This seems to be grossly unconstutional to me, not to mention out of step with many republicans positions. Congress and Bush seem to be trying to set up a centralized federal goverment with no checks and balances (read Supreme Court)

I await your talking points

Posted by Blackglasses at March 21, 2005 03:05 PM

First of all, the correct name to apply to political organizations that highly concentrate and centralize power is "fascism". And if Blackglasses applies that name to the Bush Administration, then he would be accurate indeed.

But also understand what a breathtaking assault has been made against the "rule of law" in the United States. Clearly if you do not like a Decision of the Court, you get your neighbourhood friendly congressman and republican spiderman to write a new law, pass it through Congress and the US Senate, and for an appropriate fee, you can get the President it sign it into law that same evening. As they say "money talks".

You see, voila, who needs the "rule of law" and who really needs an independent judiciary when you can have Republican lawyers acting as judge, jury and executioner. Not since the days of the Third Reich have we seen such "efficiency".

Ralph Klein does this same kind of shit in Alberta, or at least tries to. Ralph's problem however is a much better system of checks and balances in Canada which prevent a Premier from making appointments to the Court of Queen's Bench. And in Canada, the system of checks and balances prevents a Prime Minister from appointing Crown Prosecutors.

For all its PR and baloney, the United States is falling apart before our very eyes as a "nation of laws". Rather, its a nation of politicians who give or take away life depending upon the way the political winds are blowing. There exists no finer demonstration of this fact, then events of this past weekend.

Just look at how many people were executed by this Emperor, some without even the basics of proper representation. So much for the Emperor's "pro-life" stance.

What a terrible result you get when you let lawyers and Courts make basic decisions over life and death, and what even worse decisions you get when they are made on the battle field in Iraq for example, where over 98,000 innocent, functioning, civilians, women and children are murdered by the Emperor's weapons for the dubious cause of his wealth and power.

I wonder what Jesus would have said of their hypocrisy.

Posted by Joe Green at March 21, 2005 05:14 PM

Whew, what an effort it takes to take you seriously.

"centralized federal government": Look up centralized, then look up federal. Your might as well be referring to a "female woman", or as one nitwit did here, a "human woman".

"with no checks and balances (read Supreme Court)": Somehow you got the idea that not only are judges allowed to rule on the applicability and constitutionality of law, but that legislators are not allowed to pass laws, especially in Congress. Just what the heck are you trying to say? Look up checks and balances for a lesson in the American system before you waste time citing Bush's efforts (the executive) and Congress' efforts (the legislature) as violations of 'checks and balances'

Talking points, indeed.

Posted by mikem at March 21, 2005 05:16 PM

mikem wrote:

"A Canadian, with Canada's growing reputation as a coward and do-nothing in international affairs has the nerve to insult America for not ridding the ME of terrorists fast enough."

I suppose that is why Americans are flocking in record numbers to WebSites to buy Canadian pins and badges for their jackets and luggage so that they might pass themselves off as Canadians eh???

Look Mikey, its time to "fish or cut bait". Colin Powell, said the principle is simple, "you break it you buy it".

Well, you broke it, and you bought it. Canada under Jean Chretien had the integrity and the honesty to separate out the issues of terrorism and Bin Laudin, from American "pretexts" for waging Imperial wars for oil in the Middle East.

One other thing. Canada did not run away from ANY conflicts or wars. Ever! But neither do we get into wars on a spur of the moment, nor do we start wars where our vital national security and survival is not at stake.

Bush had options in this conflict, but he wanted to show the world how tough he was. Little runts like Bush and Hitler share that psychological feature I suppose, and we in Canada suffered when another runt, in the person of Brian Mulroney also was in power.

Maybe the lesson is not to vote for runts, particularly Conservative runts. They start wars the usually go badly.

Posted by Joe Green at March 21, 2005 05:24 PM

Wow, Joe. Almost every wingnut talking point in one breathe.

Posted by mikem at March 21, 2005 05:25 PM

"Maybe the lesson is not to vote for runts, particularly Conservative runts. They start wars the usually go badly."

You mean like Vietnam, started by a liberal, escalated by a liberal, and ended by a conservative?

"I suppose that is why Americans are flocking in record numbers to WebSites to buy Canadian pins and badges for their jackets and luggage so that they might pass themselves off as Canadians eh???"

Hate to burst your bubble, Joe, but the numbers are the reverse of your little fantasy of Canada as a Mecca for the world or for Americans. More Canadians leave for America than the reverse. We just don't make a big deal out of it, as you would. But keep up the faith!

Your defense of Canada's cowardice is sad. It reminds me of a mother telling her child that it takes more courage to walk away from a fight than to stand up and take a punch if necessary. I don't fault the mother too much. She is trying to provide some dignity for a child who is just too scared to fight back. But for an adult to rely on childish reassurances is just sad. But what the hell. Canada has made sure that she is too weak to fight anyway, so just use that as a backup. The US, Britain and Australia will do the heavy lifting. Canada can count on that.

Posted by mikem at March 21, 2005 05:48 PM

Hmmm.... I seem to know the difference and understand the nuances between "Central" and "Federal", as well as the concept of checks and balances, yet you don't mikem.

As for "Federalism" -isn't this taking away the rights of the states here by the big meanies in Washington? Aren't state rights the new sexy cause in American political discourse?

That says a lot about the American educational system right there.

Also, maybe you want to check the US Constitution- not the Bill of Rights, but the Constitution.
Don't you find it grossly unconstitutional and quite QUEER that congress is conducting an emergency session for one person and one family?
I know that AM radio tells you its ok, but just think for a second. Look past your biases and prejudices and think instead of reguritating.***

(I realize it is useless talking to you though, as your online character reaches new levels of hilarity in its super troll attempts)

***Here: focus on this and ignore everything else. I imagine something like CANADA CANADA CANADA will be written. Again you derail the discussion and Debbye gets off scot free for making hilariously wrong statements like "this isn't a partisian issue".

Hmmmmm.....

Posted by Blackglasses at March 21, 2005 06:01 PM

"Don't you find it grossly unconstitutional and quite QUEER that congress is conducting an emergency session for one person and one family?"

No. And that you find it "grossly unconstitutional" is a fine example of your sense of reality and level of understanding.

Look, Joey, Blackglasses... whatever. Do as I suggest and look them up. Stop embarrassing your fellow Canadians.

You Canadians are really having to dig deep into your bag of HateAmerica to rationalize killing this woman. Why not just allow her to live and allow that Bush may be right this time? Does she have to starve to death so that Canadians can have something to hate Bush about? Let her live. Let her family take care of her. It is just pathetic that Canadians are in an uproar over Bush's attempts to save her life. Just what does Canada stand for, if anything?

Posted by mikem at March 21, 2005 06:23 PM

Besides the "CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADIANS" comments you always seem to make, you don't seem to have an understanding of the Constitution of the country you call home....Debbye.

You also do not know the difference between federalism and centralization, in any govermental system as seen by your ponderous (ignorant and confused?) silence. Once again you speak volumes about the glories of the American educational system.

Look, I know Rush Limbaugh said this morning that congress can control and override the courts, but you know that that's not true- you just can't admit it, because it would make your trolling persona look stupid. Disagree with Dubya, even for a second? Perish the thought! NO! must...stay the...course...

Hey: 70% of Americans are against this, as are 63% of Catholics and 50% of evangelicals! Hell, even some freepers are bothered by this!

Looks like Americans should be asking themselves what they stand for, if anything. (OH NO)

Also: as for Americans loving life so much, I guess that means that you personally love life so much you are against the Iraqi war and the death penality.Don't people die under unfairly in those situations?
Wouldn't be opposed to say, the iraqi war be indicative you embracing the "culture of life" that is sweeping through congress?

Posted by Blackglasses at March 21, 2005 08:19 PM

"Don't people die under unfairly in those situations?
Wouldn't be opposed to say, the iraqi war be indicative you embracing the "culture of life" that is sweeping through congress?"

What are you trying to say? For everyone's sake, please think before you type. One of the many reasons I often skip over your posts is this type of disjointed, grammatically tortuous effort. Aren't you the one who likes to call others stupid and dumb? Have some pride and LOOK IT UP.

Posted by mikem at March 21, 2005 11:44 PM

Oh I have. I've also studied it at an academic level. Naturally, FOX and El Rusho can find their own "experts" to make Bushie look good, but then again they can also find people who justify torture and say that Bush isn't committed to the total fiscal runiation of the United States.*

I'm not going to bother positing ther pertinant sections because I am so sure not only do I know it like the back o' me bum, but I also relish the fact that you are totally oblvious to the political and burecratic structures on which your country was founded. Guess that doesn't make you a true American, does it mikem?

Why, being that ignorant of American political life means (by your own deifintion) that you're nothing more than a CANADIAN!!!(oh no!)

Additionally, since most Americans oppose the congress' grossly unconstiutional intervention, the question arises: why does American hate the "culture of life"?

Hey: since you're a little puppet whose all for the will of the majority of the American people via polls and everything (they want the war, love bush and whatnot) does that mean that you now have to hate "the culture of life" as mikem ?

If you oppose the will of the American people, does that mean you hate America?

I think you do.


*PS: once the US economy totally collapses in the foreseeable future, it's gonna be like the late 1970s and early 1980s all over again. And you know what that means: AWESOME PUNK BANDS

Posted by Blackglasses at March 22, 2005 11:34 AM

Actually, there is one cogent point that has emerged from Blackglasses's rant: the president and Congress have proceeeded despite poll numbers against the legislation.

Imagine proceeding on the basis of legality and morality instead of poll numbers!

This case has a lot of side issues. The mandate of doctors to "do no harm" has been slowly changing over the years, and Americans need to weigh a great many factors centering on how we treat our disabled citizens.

Congress showed great wisdom in making this a bill for a specific case. Now we have to step back and consider the far-reaching implications of this and other cases including the right to live and the right to die.

It is also a reminder to make a living will.

Posted by Debbye at March 22, 2005 06:55 PM

Debbye wrote:

"Congress showed great wisdom in making this a bill for a specific case. Now we have to step back and consider the far-reaching implications of this and other cases including the right to live and the right to die."

Actually, Congress disgraced itself before the whole world. In making this single case, they began creating "Ralph Klein Law", or if you like, "privatized laws". Of your 285,000,000 souls, many with similar problems, instead of petitioning the Courts, will now write their favourite Congressman and your friendly neighbourhood spiderman, and seek the same remedy.

This act by the US Government has held the "rule of law" in contempt. It has probably also violated your Constitution as well, which provides for a separation of powers.

Unlike the US Congress, the Canadian Parliament DOES HAVE the HISTORIC RIGHT TO CONVENE ITSELF AS A COURT OF LAW. But it has never done so in the history of Canada since 1867 since Confederation.

Because of the US Constitution, its highly doubtful that the Congress can constitutionally overturn a Court Decision. Only the Supreme Court can do that, PROVIDED that all the proper and normal due processes are followed.

No sitting American President has so threatened your Constitution like this one has since the days of Richard Nixon and Watergate.

Can you find even a single example in the entire history of the United States that ever passed such a privatized law that has no precedent?

A sad day all around. For everyone. Everyone is covered in shit, even the family. Only exception is Terri's sister who understands what is going on and understands her sister as only sisters can.

This debacle actually holds up "American values" to the world and shows them to be as shallow and many of America's enemies claim.

Its as if everything that America ever stood for has been debased and desecrated.

Even the normal civility that used to exist and be extended to families in grief has been turned into a Larry King Live circus.

I wonder what Ike would have said. I wonder what Churchill would have said to Ike to console him.

Diefenbaker would have been in full flight against those that perverted Congress and the "rule of law". Mike Pearson would have been saddened for our southern neighbours. Trudeau would have been academic and might have tried to make suggestions that might have worked. And Joe Clark even, would have been at least telling Americans how badly we felt for them. Not unlike what Louis St. Larent would have been saying about Joe McCarthy, in private of course.

How has this great stream of independent American jurisprudence come down to this? How did the bold vision of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin come to this end?

Where Congress will pass laws to protect the "living dead", but will fail to protect its own citizens from deranged killers with guns because of a perverse and twisted perspective on guns?

What a fucked up country!

Posted by Joe Green at March 22, 2005 09:58 PM

Contents of post deleted.

Posted by Blackglasses at March 22, 2005 10:17 PM

Observe the passion that Joe feels on this subject. The overwrought fears and predictions. The intensity of his rage.

" No sitting American President has so threatened your Constitution..."

" A sad day all around. For everyone. Everyone is covered in shit, even the family. Only exception is Terri's sister who understands what is going on and understands her sister as only sisters can. {Oh, so NOW a family member's opinion counts.}
This debacle actually holds up 'American values' to the world and shows them to be as shallow and many of America's enemies claim.
Its as if everything that America ever stood for has been debased and desecrated."

Yeah, incredibly enough Joe has reached this conclusion because the US Congress demanded that Terri Schiavo's case be reviewed by judges to insure that her civil rights (to not be starved to death) have been adequately addressed. The world is ending because elected representatives are demanding an accounting of the procedures that will result in a brain damaged, healthy woman (not terminally ill or "on life support for 15 years" as the push polls have falsely stated) being starved to death on the word of a greedy ex-husband who perjured himself previously in court on this very case.
This is not a right to die issue, since her wishes are not known. This is a right to not have an ex-husband decide that his ex-wife should die before the money meant to provide medical care for her dries up.
Canadians like Joe Green are anxious to find something, anything, to damn America for to salve their shame at being on the wrong side on issues of freedom and democracy around the world. To this end, Joe vomits up this overwrought concern that a judge's ruling be accepted without any interference from the other two 'checks and balances'. On another day, Joe would be condemning the American judicial system as disgraced and shameful, bought and paid for because he did not get a ruling he wanted on captured terrorists.
Thanks for your sudden respect for American court rulings, Joe. I think though that America will survive having members of Congress express concern for an individual's life. Our's is a democracy, not a constitutional monarchy like Canada. We have more respect for the individual in America and we demand representatives who will speak up for the defenseless.

Lastly, “What a fucked up country!” By Joe's thinking, America is so because hundreds of the highest elected representatives in the land will drop everything and travel thousands of miles to defend a helpless woman.
Canada should be so screwed up.

Posted by mikem at March 23, 2005 12:33 AM

Mikey wrote:

"Our's is a democracy, not a constitutional monarchy like Canada. We have more respect for the individual in America and we demand representatives who will speak up for the defenseless."

Bullshit! America is a republic, not a democracy. Canada is a confederation, not an "indisolvable union". And Canada is a "constitutional monarchy" where the head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is the reigning monarch without any political power. She and the Governor General who stands in her place, have never embarrassed us as Canadians by being drunk at an official State Dinner (Bush I in Japan for instance).

I have never heard more bullshit about American "individualism" than that posted above. I for one am very glad NOT TO BE AN AMERICAN. I live in a country where the "rule of law" are not empty political slogans. In Canada, Martha Stewart would have been able to talk to officals and police officers and anyone else without any special powers as "agents of the government". Lying to police officers and government officials in Canada is not a felony. You have to lie on a weighty and sworn matter before the Courts in Canada before you get into legal difficulty and the reasons should be obvious and clear. Up here, police officers are not goons with guns, and telling them to "stick their heads where the sun don't shine" is not a "felony". Of course, in Canada, there is no such thing as a "felony" to begin with.

So Martha Stewart would not be in jail if she were a Canadian, while Bernie Ebbers would have been in Criminal Court long before all the civil nicities have played out in the US for CEOs bound for the executive suite in a minimum security federal "golf and country club". Corrections Canada does not operate such prisons in Canada, nor are they "contracted out" or "privatized".

And this mess for Terri and her family, would have never become such a waste of public and private resources. Part of the reason for the difference is that Canadian judges are EXPECTED to be COMPASSIONATE and are given LATITUDE in making their rulings and are expected to apply their UNFETTERED DISCRETION. And these same judges function faithfully with the "common law" that in Canada dates back to the Magna Carta without any interruption by revolutions and civil wars.

These features for the most part in the US have been lost with the Revolution, and the Constitution weighs as heavy as a communist manifesto upon the people.

What other country on earth would allow its judiciary to be opened to such grim charges of "constitutional killings of innocent life"?

Ultimately, Terri is the victim of the American Revolution that installed this perverted and twisted legal framework upon a people. The American Federalists that installed this "republic" were the very antithesis of democrats. They were in fact, the political perverts that the United Empire Loyalists fled when they moved to Ontario and resettled under the Crown and fought to defend their new homes from these wild eyed American revolutionaries.

At least the US Courts DID reflect one aspect of America that is true. This is a society where the culture of death is everywhere.

Posted by Joe Green at March 23, 2005 09:45 PM

Oh my Lord. A real life unashamed Loyalist, in the 21st Century at that. How intriguing. How cute.

"the Constitution weighs as heavy as a communist manifesto upon the people."

I love this. Even our enemies have expressed admiration for our Constitution, but Joe compares it to a communist manifesto. Great educational system up there guys and gals!

Take a pill, Joe. You burned yourself out apparently and have started sputtering.
Thanks for the laugh. And I'm sure your Lords in Britain appreciate your peasant loyalty.

Posted by mikem at March 23, 2005 11:24 PM

Notice I allowed the Bush/Queen remark to pass. Out of loyalty to our allies I make it a habit not to mention all the humiliation the Royal Family brings to Britain.
But... My first inkling of just how easily ignorance and arrogance can creep into inbred bloodlines was Princess Margaret'ss visit to Chicago, "Irishtown, USA", where she told the Irish Mayor Jane Byrne that "the Irish are pigs, all pigs". Real class act, that one. Real awareness of the outside world. A perfect symbol for Loyalists like Joe.

Posted by mikem at March 23, 2005 11:39 PM

Mikey wrote:

"Oh my Lord. A real life unashamed Loyalist, in the 21st Century at that. How intriguing. How cute."

That is 100% correct! I stand shoulder to shoulder with John Diefenbaker on that one, who was a Conservative. A Pregressive Conservative who believed in "One Canada".

Her Majesty said at his funeral, "He never waivered". I agree and I hope the same can be said of me someday.

No higher tribute can be paid to a Canadian leader.

Its not "cute". Its "real".

Posted by Joe Green at March 24, 2005 04:11 PM

Mikey wrote:

"I love this. Even our enemies have expressed admiration for our Constitution, but Joe compares it to a communist manifesto. Great educational system up there guys and gals!"

We Canadians are not your enemies. God help you if you were.

But that does not mean that because we are your friends that we "admire" your Constitution. I think its a pretty imperfect instrument and rather inferior to our system of Government and our Parliament.

And yes, Canadians do have one of the finest education systems in the world, and its also why most Canadian cities outrank American ones in terms of the best places to live on this planet.

You need to take up this competition seriously. Go back and try to beat us with infrastructure, efficiency and plain old quality.

There is no reason that Seattle for example cannot be as good or even better than Vancouver. But the facts are that right now, its far behind. Your problem is that you refuse to see these things as important, but for many other people around the planet, these are pretty important factors.

Posted by Joe Green at March 24, 2005 05:25 PM

"We Canadians are not your enemies. God help you if you were. (!!!!)

Canada, international tough guys. Beware awakening the sleeping giant. This is too much. You guys can't even transport your own troops. You're afraid of your own shadow and Joe is online warning us not to make enemies of mighty Canada.

I wont bother to check your 'facts', Joe. You have no credibility, so I will just assume you made them up, just as you have done in previous threads. (Maybe you're mixing Canadian with American figures)

The fact is, Joe, that tens of millions of people are not trying to get into Canada. They are trying to reach America.

But keep reassuring yourself. Canadians have made an entire industry out of trying to convince themselves that their feelings of inferiority are misplaced.

In any case, you have that royal Head of State thing to fall back on. Having a Queen to bow before is a nice modern quality of life issue that Canada has held onto.

Posted by mikem at March 24, 2005 09:57 PM

MIKEM ON DATING:

DICKS GO IN MY MOUTH! PLEASE JAM THEM IN!!

Posted by Blackglasses at March 25, 2005 03:22 PM

Mikey wrote:

"Canada, international tough guys. Beware awakening the sleeping giant. This is too much."

Don't let it worry you. In the First World War, Canada entered and fought from 1914 to 1918.

America joined in 1917.

In the Second World War, Canada entered and fought from 1939 to 1945.

America joined at the end of 1941, on December 7.

But don't let that get you down. While Americans were dropping bombs on Canadian troops in Afghanistan, NATO forces led by Canada came within a whisker of catching Osama Bin Laudin.

Do you know who he is Mikey? He is the fanatic responsible for the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington. Don't get him mixed up with Saddam Hussein. Saddam is an Iraqi.

Oh yes, one more detail. Most of the terrorists that attacked the US and triggered the NATO forces of Canada, France and Germany into action, were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Saudi Arabia is an American Ally that shares extensive business interests with the Saudi based Bin Laudin Group of Companies, Carlyle Group and the Bush Family group of companies in Houston.

And the Saudi attacks succeeded primarily because they were able to obtain all the things they needed from within the United States including the four large airliners that were filled with fuel and hijacked while on domestic flights within the United States. Even providing safe transport out of the United States after the attack for the Bin Laudin Family members after all US Airspace was closed to all traffic.

Do you have any doubts that one of these days, NATO and the Canadians will kill Bin Laudin? I don't. And they are going to do it with or without American help. In fact, given the above "help", it would be perhaps better if the Americans stayed out of the way.

The casualties we take from the Taliban fighters is bad enough.

Posted by Joe Green at March 26, 2005 03:12 PM

"NATO forces led by Canada came within a whisker of catching Osama Bin Laudin."

Nato forces led by Canada????? Bwahahaha. Whose planes did you rent to bring in your troops, Great Leader??? Bwahaha

Nato forces led by Canada.............. In your approved history books, no doubt.
Just so you'll know, Einstein, your 'aggressive' forces were playing war games at night when they were mistaken for enemy forces. They were practicing war while a war was being fought, not exactly an indication of a busy aggressive force if your commander feels it necessary to play pretend war. The US apologized a million times for it, something I notice that British and Canadian forces do not require of their commanders when they do the same. In fact, those were the FIRST Canadian 'combat' casualties in the war ( April'02), despite the fact that the war began in October'01 and Taliban forces fled in Nov/Dec'01.

We appreciate the Canadian contribution, Joe, and I have always admired the individual Canadian soldiers (who overwhelmingly were supportive of Iraqi Freedom), but you have timid leaders with timid citizens supporting them.

And yeah, the US joined on December 7th, 1941 while you were getting your ass kicked all over the globe and turned everything around. We were holding you above water prior to December 7th with our economic and manufacturing might and we saved your forces from defeat with American forces and leadership.

Thanks for bringing up WWI and II. We don't like to because we are accused of rubbing it in when we do. I usually demure out of humility, but since you brought it up, there it is. And don't worry, when it gets right down to it, we will save your weak souls again.

Nato forces led by Canada.... Too rich. What a fantasy land your mind dwells in.

Posted by mikem at March 26, 2005 07:14 PM

"The casualties we take from the Taliban fighters is bad enough."

In fact, Joe, Canadian forces had not suffered any casualties from the Taliban, 6 months into the war.

Posted by mikem at March 26, 2005 07:18 PM

BesIDes you not Knowing anything abou the command structure of NATO mikem (funny- but then again you dont even know about how your own country's government works, so its par fo the course :-p) I AM now posting oyur post MADE LESS GAY AND MORE FUNNY:

"NATO forces led by CAMBODIA came within a whisker of catching Osama Bin Laudin."

Nato forces led by CAMBODIA????? Bwahahaha. Whose planes did you rent to bring in your troops, Great Leader??? Bwahaha

Nato forces led by CAMBODIAN.............. In your approved history books, no doubt.
Just so you'll know, Einstein, your 'aggressive' forces were playing war games at night when they were mistaken for enemy forces. They were practicing war while a war was being fought, not exactly an indication of a busy aggressive force if your commander feels it necessary to play pretend war. The US apologized a million times for it, something I notice that British and CAMBODIAN forces do not require of their commanders when they do the same. In fact, those were the FIRST CAMBODIAN 'combat' casualties in the war ( April'02), despite the fact that the war began in October'01 and Taliban forces fled in Nov/Dec'01.

We appreciate the CAMBODIAN contribution, Joe, and I have always admired the individual CAMBODIANsupportive of Iraqi Freedom), but you have timid leaders with timid citizens supporting them.


And yeah, the US joined on December 7th, 1941 while you were getting your ass kicked all over the globe and turned everything around. We were holding you above water prior to December 7th with our economic and manufacturing might and we saved your forces from defeat with American forces and leadership.

Thanks for bringing up WWI and II. We don't like to because we are accused of rubbing it in when we do. I usually demure out of humility, but since you brought it up, there it is. And don't worry, when it gets right down to it, we will save your weak souls again.

Nato forces led by CAMBODIA.... Too rich. What a fantasy land your mind dwells in.

Posted by Blackglasses at March 27, 2005 01:01 AM