Vietnam Killing Spree Revelations Shock US

Because these guys got wigged out on thai stick and started slaughtering everything in sight, we should blame Preston Manning and the Reform Party for wanting another alternative to the Lying Liberals? Izzy Asper and the CBC are responsible for mass slaughters in the the 1960's? Osama Bin Laden misguided defense of the keeper of the two shrines was the result of US soldiers killing indiscrimanantly 40 years ago?<p> You want somehting to chill the bones and boil the blood? Try these: <a href='http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/21/2367/2543'>Here</a> and <a href='http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.asp?id=8F6FDEAE-9DE4-4840-BE40-6F6D9688CCFB'>here.</a><p> <p>---<br>"History does nor repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

Are you saying Izzy Asper and the CBC are both corporate media? And
what does the CBC have to do with uniting the right, war in vietnam etc?
I brought up the corporate media because this kind of news is usually
ignored by the corporate media.

Are you saying that Osama Bin laden being funded by the US
government to fight commies, then becoming an (alleged) mass
murderer is thematically unrelated to US soldiers fighting commies and
then becoming mass murderers? Osama is a child of the same policy as
the Vietnam war. Nixon - Reagan - Bush, man. Think about it. If you\'re
going to go all pro-Vietnam war... Thai stick indeed... a cheap excuse...
it\'s called war. You send people in to kill other people, tell them they
are defending the free world, and make sure they become aware that no
punishment will happen as long as you only kill the non-white enemy.

Are you saying Reform Party foreign policy like \"When a democracy such
as Canada advances its sovereignty and interests, in keeping with ideals
shared by other Western democracies, that process itself constitutes a
moral purpose.  Sometimes this pursuit of the national interest may
appear to contradict idealistic considerations...\" is thematically unrelated
to US government cover-up of massacres against civilian so-called
commies? That quote is from a document that is now missing from the
alliance website, but it was still their official policy document during the
2000 Election as the alliance.

Are you saying Bush\'s conservative-movement sham war on terror, a
direct descendent and replacement for cold-war imperial strategy,
invading Afghanistan and Iraq, killing civilians etc, increased defence
spending, cutting social services to fund huge armies, is thematically
unrelated to Alliance party conservative military-funding, cut-social-
spending, why-didn\'t-we-invade-Iraq-too pro-America boosterism?

---
“Sex, Drugs, Love, Marx...”
Flick Harrison’s new digital feature
MP3, trailer, scenes and stills at:
http://www.armedrabble.org/sdlm.htm

<i>If you're going to go all pro-Vietnam war.</i><p> Don't go reading statements that I haven't written. Vietnam was the biggest mistake in modern warfare. Iraq is looking to be bigger.<p> You make some good points, but why not make them in the article? Wouldn't that be better for discussion?<p> <p>---<br>"History does nor repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

<i>Are you saying Bush's conservative-movement sham war on terror, a direct descendent and replacement for cold-war imperial strategy, invading Afghanistan and Iraq, killing civilians etc, increased defence spending, cutting social services to fund huge armies, is thematically unrelated to Alliance party conservative military-funding, cut-social-spending, why-didn't-we-invade-Iraq-too pro-America boosterism?</i><p> No, I'm not. Bush is setting himself up as a dictator. That is very much different from increasing military spending. Right now, Canada can't patrol the northern arctic routes. Under international law, we will lose that area if we do not show a military presence on all of Canada's holdings every two years. Terrorism issues aside, our coast guard should at least have enough fuel money in its budget to patrol the coastlines for drug running and people smuggling. Even by plane. Right now, it doesn't.<p> The government has a duty to protect it's citizens. By not funding the military, they are negligent in that duty. The only NATO country that spends less on it's military than Canada is Luxembourg. We could be invaded by Iceland! Friggen Iceland! Does that make you feel safe?<p> As for the proponents for reduced spending on the military, they say that no one would invade us because of our proximity to the US. I also read on this site that our increased economic reliance on the US is worrisome to many people. Well, which is it? Do you want a strong Canada or do you want the US's big stick to protect us? Just as a side point to that, what if the country invading us IS the US? What then?<p> With the way Bush is getting oil hungry, is it so far off that invasion to protect oil supplies applies not only to Iraq, but to Alberta? What would we do? Send our young men up in helicopters that their grandparents flew? All 10 of them?<p> I'm not talking US style Billion dollar jets and death rays from space, I'm talking Austraillian or even German style military spending. Well trained, defensive, highly mobile forces. I see the PC and Alliance party as wanting what is good for Canada, not what is good for Bush.<p> <p>---<br>"History does nor repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

Dr Caleb wrote: \"You make some good points, but why not make
them in the article? Wouldn\'t that be better for discussion?\"

I don\'t understand this statement.
-Flick

\'I see the PC and Alliance party as wanting what is good for Canada, not what is good for Bush.\' I disagree with this I think they want was it good for themselves period. They can\'t get in bed with the U.S. fast enough. I agree with your point on the military though, I have two sons serving in our military and I would like to think that they will be served by the country that they are willing to protect. I don\'t want to depend on the U.S.for protection,as their interests are seldom the same as Canada\'s and I do believe we need to fund the military. I believe that few people who are perceived as strong enough to defend themselves ever have to prove it. The U.S. did not have to invade Iraq, they chose that path and it has become quite evident that their motives were less than altruistic.

Yes, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was more a symbolic sign if weakness, than a credible necessity. As for our military, we do need to increases funding big-time, and we can -by changing our money policy, without even raising taxes. That being said, I\'m not sure that the PC/Alliance people want what is good for Canada. I believe they want to increase defence spending because the U.S. told them to. The U.S. only wants us to get stronger, because they assume we will never stop selling out. If they ever attacked us, of course they\'d rather we were small.

Your absolutely right about this. If we developed our own millitary equipment again, and spent the same as a country as Germany, there\'s no reason we couldn\'t have an even better military than most European countries, due to our immense talent. Personally, I\'m as left-wing as they come, but I recognize the importance of a sustainable, proud military, for defence and morale purposes. That being said, I think the main reason the PC/Alliance want more defence spending is because the U.S. told them so. Naturally, if the U.S. ever wanted to attack us, then of course they\'d drop the \"Improve your military\" ultimatum.

I`m so left wing that people beg for my right! But I have to agree with all of you who say that Canada MUST beef up it`s military. We should remember from the schoolyard that to rely on a bully for protection means that you`re subject to his whims and moods. And right now, we`re getting the short end of it relying on the USA! We can be self-sufficient if we want to! As for the PC`s and Alliance, well, no, they do not want what`s good for Canada! They`re both scary! They resemble the American republicans! And to quote Mel Hurtig, he said,\" An Alliance government would not be the final nail in the coffin of Canada. It would be the dirt being shovelled on top of the coffin as it was being lowered into the ground!\"

---
Dave Ruston

<i>"You make some good points, but why not make them in the article? Wouldn't that be better for discussion?"</i><p> Wasn't the point of publishing this article on a discussion board such as this, rather than in a weblog or news site; to discuss the article?<p> I read your statement: <i>[think about this article when you think about uniting the right, the corporate media, and the war on terrorism... - Flick]</i> as your Paxcil had worn off and asked you about it.<p> If you had expanded on the statement "[think about this article..." in the article, rather than the comments section, it would have made a better article for discussion IMHO is all...<p> <p>---<br>"History does nor repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

This is me, alright:

http://www.acmescenic.com/paxcil-pill.jpg

So, if you could drop the backhanded abuse, we could discuss
this. I don\'t feel the need to reiterate the most basic facts about the
last 50 years: Conservatives have pursued communists with a
psychotic vigour, committing murder and genocide along the way
(cambodia bombings, latin american death squads killing nuns
etc) right up to Reagan, and when the commies ran out they didn\'t
miss a beat before attacking Muslims in 1991 - which the Alliance
supports right up to the present-day War on Terror (tm). Show me
the gap between Alliance policy and Bush policy and then
perhaps I\'ll consider you less than mad.

My comments above were only meant in an editorial fashion, but OK here goes,<p> <i>So, if you could drop the backhanded abuse,</i><p> No abuse intended. If you're referring to the Paxcil comment, it was meant as humour. As in, I thought you've slipped a cog, one sandwich short of a picnic, et al. Like <a href='http://www.stopabductions.com/main.htm'>these</a> guys. That comment, out of context had me wondering, so I asked you about it. I have noticed a bit of hostility from you whenver I ask you about comments you make, in trying to understand your viewpoint. This is the internet. You can't read my face, or see my body language; so you don't know my intentions. Perhaps it's your nature, but I don't assume anyone has hostile intentions toward me. The printed word can't hurt me. "Never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by stupidity"<p> <i>we could discuss this. I don't feel the need to reiterate the most basic facts about the last 50 years:</i><p> The most basic facts are one thing, how you percieve them is what I'm trying to figure out. You obviousally have a different viewpoint than I do, and being an objective right wing Capitalist, I like to see both sides of an argument.<p> <i>Show me the gap between Alliance policy and Bush policy and then perhaps I'll consider you less than mad.</i><p> It is logically impossible to prove a negative, ie: you can't prove what I didn't do last week. Logically impossible, which is why our justice system is an adversarial system, where innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. All I can do to answer your request is demonstrate three examples.<p> 1) Bush has held 'Enemy Combatants' on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for two years, outdoors in unprotected 'cages'. They are subjected to physical and mental abuse daily. Ashcroft has also kept hundreds locked up after September 11th 2001, without rights to see family, council or even be charged with any sort of a crime.<p> 2) The Alliance is calling the government to task on why a Canadian Citizen, Mahar Arar, was deported back to his country of origin, Syria by way of a CIA interrogation camp in Jordan, and jailed for a year without any charges. Perhaps as opposition, they have to do this politically, but they are doing it nonetheless.<p> 3) In 1970, one bomb that killed one person and injured another detonated in Quebec, and one person was kidnapped. The Liberal Prime Minister declared the War Measures act in force, effectively turning Canada into a police state, giving the RCMP powers to detain and hold people without charge and for indeterminate amounts of time.<p> Terrorist tend to be Muslim, Muslims do not tend to be terrorist. By going after Terrorists, undoubtedly a vast majority will be Muslim. Does ethier Bush or the Alliance have all Muslims in their sights in the "War on Terrorism". I doubt that too. I do find it interesting however, that when former Republican Guards, who have removed their military uniforms against the Geneva Convention in Iraq bomb the Red Cross, they are called 'Terrorists', but when the same thing happens in Haifa, by a group that has declared war on Isreal, the Palestinians are called 'Militants'.<p> Did Bush have a policy to make the US a police State before his election? I doubt it. Does the Alliance/PC/CPC have an agenda to turn Canada into the 52nd State? I doubt it. Were the Liberals correct in enacting the War Measures Act? I think so. The Liberals have done more in the History of Canada to undermine our place in the world than any other party. But that's only because they've had more time to do it. Mulroney, in his short stint as PM is responsible for both the GST and NAFTA, for which I hope he will ever burn in the afterlife. But I think the Alliance has the Canadian people in mind, along with their rights and freedoms. It's up to us to fight for those rights and freedoms so they are not taken away. Would the NDP do any better? I don't know. Let's elect them to the opposition for a term and see.<p> But I do know the Liberals are awfully quiet on why Mahaer Arar was jailed without charge for a year. History will tell.<p> <p>---<br>"History does nor repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

You can always count on Mel to exaggerate. What is Mel saying? That it\'s all over, yet we shouldn\'t give up? There\'s no reason to beleive that we couldn\'t ever escape the American grasp someday, even if the Alliance were elected. IT would be dreadfully hard, but I think it would be at least POSSIBLE, once the United States ceases to exist as an empire.

I realize Mel wants to avert the unfortunate, and \"Drum up support,\" but I\'m not sure his nonsensical gibberish will help at all. He cares so much about this countrym that he\'s overly pessimistic.

Yeah, Dave. It\'s funny that Canadians ever bought the \"We don\'t need a military, forget national pride, the U.S. will protect us crap.\" This U.S. has a history of doing what it takes. Why should we ever have trusted them in the first place?