BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus

Subject: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:57 PM

Canada is so insignificant to Bush that he can't even thank Canada for fighting the Taliban for him. I hope this slight was enough to make Harper realize that regardless of sucking up to Bush, it has been to no avail. I think its sickening that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and then expected Canada to mop up without so much as a 'much obliged'. I hope Canada pulls its troops and tells the U.S. to find someone else to fight its wars.

"Bush reeled off a list of several countries making contributions in Afghanistan in his speech, but failed to mention Canada, which has about 2,500 Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan, one of the largest contingents fighting in the Taliban heartland."

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/070215/w021524A.html

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: heric
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 12:11 AM

I wouldn't take it personally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmX23l0ouo8

or this (left hand / right hand)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vtfmQ5Audg

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 12:13 AM

dianavan, what did you expect from the Commander & Chief of NATO? There's not much mind there for so much going on in it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: number 6
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 12:14 AM

Thanks for that link dianavan.

Disgusting .... that is not only an insult to Canada ... but most tragically an insult to the Canadians that have sacrificed their lives for what?

We should withdraw our troops now.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 12:14 AM

Thanks for the laugh.

I needed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 12:16 AM

Oh dear.

The laugh was provided by heric.

Thanks again.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Jim Lad
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 12:40 AM

"Message to Bush the ignoramus" .....Which one?

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: kendall
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:45 AM

It could be worse, how would you like to have him as the head of YOUR government?

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: gnu
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:49 AM

We do, Kendall. His name is Stephen Harper. BUT, he's even more dangerous because he can speak English.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 11:54 AM

A child of about three was wearing a T-shirt printed with the slogan,
"Already smarter than Bush".

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: kendall
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 01:12 PM

Hehehehe where can I get one?

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 06:16 PM

When exactly did the US invade Afghanistan dianavan?

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 06:35 PM

Definition of an Invasion according to:

**Subject: RE: BS: Foreign nation invades Iraq-
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 06:48 PM

It should perhaps be explained what an invasion really is so BB won't get confused again...

An invasion is a full scale military attack across the borders of a sovereign nation by infantry and mechanized and air forces of a foreign power, possibly with the aid of naval forces as well, if it is a seaborne invasion. It is done with the intention of conquering and occuping the recipient of the attack. It involves the direct use of massive lethal firepower by the above forces on the recipient.**

Now when did that occur in Afghanistan dianavan?

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:23 PM

Oh, pardon me, I should have said major assault.

I think the U.S. should finish what it started instead of expecting others to go in and finish the job.

Besides that, Bush doesn't even know Canada is over their trying to mop up after him.

Thanks but no thanks.

Bring the Canadian troops home.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:47 PM

Bush probably isn't all that sure where Canada is. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Peace
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 07:48 PM

Bush is a fuckin' asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:50 PM

"When exactly did the US invade Afghanistan "

After the UN authorised it to...

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Jim Lad
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 08:55 PM

Yep! Right after the "With me or agin me" speech

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 09:45 PM

"Yep! Right after the "With me or agin me" speech "

So, Jim Lad, those who don't believe that 'the US invaded Afghanistan' must be AGAINST George than, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:45 AM

Thank you Foolstroupe - "After the UN authorised it to."

All foreign troops serving in Afghanistan are there at the specific invitation of the Afghan Government and with the full backing of the UN.

I therefore have some good news for dianavan with regard to remarks made in her opening post:

"I think its sickening that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and then expected Canada to mop up without so much as a 'much obliged'. I hope Canada pulls its troops and tells the U.S. to find someone else to fight its wars."

Feel sickened no more Dianavan - The US did not invade Afghanistan.

Canadian troops are serving in Afghanistan at the behest of the UN/NATO/Afghan Government - Not at the behest of the USA.

Contingent size dianavan down in the south and east of the country, where most of NATO partners dare not venture, you have the following foreign troops (excluding Pakistani Pashtuns) fighting in order of contingent size (top three):
- US Forces
- UK Forces
- Canadian Forces

The latter make up 2,500 troops out of a grand total of 33,000. Pull them out if you wish, they have every reason to be agrieved, but their sense of grievence should not be directed at the US but at their fellow NATO members who clearly are just not pulling their weight, this is after a NATO mission, being undertaken at the request of the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:50 AM

Bush didn't forget the contribution of Iceland. How many soldiers do they have in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 04:30 AM

Daianvan, I fear you are conflating Iraq and Afghanistan. Nato involvement in Afghanistan is at the request of the Afghan government, and - in my opinion - is wholly justified.
The troops are involved in frequent and dangerous contacts with the Taleban, and are trying to protect the country's infrastructure from a bunch of fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages.
For a flavour of what they're up against and how they're coping, there's a very good despatch here.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM

"Canadian troops are serving in Afghanistan at the behest of the UN/NATO/Afghan Government - Not at the behest of the USA."


Ho! Ho! Ho!

But the UN is just a lackey of the USA... who provides a majority of the funding - so the right wingers tell me....

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:13 AM

Bush does not mean to insult by inference or non inclusion. Nor can he deliver what is on his teleprompter with any reliability.


Aswe have heard on a daily basis for the last SEVEN YEARS was
What the President/ingnoramus meant to say was...


He actually said that Dick Cheney and himself have suffered the ultimate sacrifice. The sacrifice of their privacy during campaign months.

He actually wanted a picture of himself running way ahead of a IRaq US veteran who was running on two articficial legs.

He is beyond ignoramus

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:05 AM

Thanks for the link Carrots, my son was on that one, we'd made contact with him on Christmas Day, but he didn't phone in on New Years Day for fairly obvious reasons if anybody reads the link. Had to wait until the 8th until he got word through.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:50 AM

Teribus:

I am very glad he got through --- it was a nasty series of scraps. Here's hoping he gets back to you hale and hearty.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:50 AM

Amen and godspeed.
What's said here doesn't matter a hill of beans in relation to that, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: GUEST,ib48
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:23 PM

sod off you stupid yank git,is that ok?

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:43 PM

"He actually wanted a picture of himself running way ahead of a IRaq US veteran who was running on two articficial legs." Donuel

Don, are you aware that when one says 'actually', one is confirming that the information is true?

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:45 PM

Yes, NATO involvement in Afghanistan is at the request of the Afghan government. However, it was the U.S. who started the ball rolling. Like I said, Bush started it and Bush should finish it. If he hadn't decided to invade Iraq, he would have had enough troops to do the job right. Instead, he dragged Canada into Afghanistan via NATO.

"At approximately 16:15 UTC (12:15 p.m. EDT, 20:45 local time) on Sunday October 7, 2001, American and British forces began an aerial bombing campaign targeting Taliban forces and al-Qaeda."

"From January 2006, a NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) force started to replace U.S troops in southern Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. The British 16th Air Assault Brigade (latter reinforced by Royal Marines) formed the core of the force in Southern Afghanistan, along with troops and helicopters from Australia, Canada and the Netherlands."

I do not disagree that the Taliban should be toppled but for Bush to overlook the contributions of Canadian troops is ignorant and insulting. He is a poor excuse for a commander.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Peace
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:47 PM

He's a bloody idiot. I still don't understand why he hasn't been impeached. Thank God that the troops have many layers of General officers between them and that numbnut's orders.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:57 PM

'Bush, the Ignoranus'- does that mean we should ignore his rear?

(oh. never mind.)

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Peace
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:01 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: gnu
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:54 PM

But the UN is just a lackey of the USA... who provides a majority of the funding - so the right wingers tell me...."

Hmmm... isn't the US the only country that does NOT provide funding? Indeed, I was under the impression that the US is in arrears with dues to tune of millions of dollars. Anyone know the real story?

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Peace
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:57 PM

The Shadow knows, gnu, the Shadow knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:04 PM

Actually yes.

The picture was taken at Camp David.
All pictures taken at Camp David are by the Presidential staff photographer and are authorized by the President.


Today I heard "The British are leaving! The British are leaving!

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:04 PM

Up for Grabs, it appears


"For years, an annual controversy has erupted over whether the United States owes member dues to the United Nations. The controversy has led many critics to label the United States a "deadbeat" nation, unwilling to pay its "fair share" to support the world body. Opponents counter that the United Nations actually owes the United States money: The United States has continually footed the bill for peacekeeping activities, well beyond its required share. The United Nations has failed to repay that money.

"To unravel this accounting mystery and decipher the true state of affairs, we must take a look at some of the history and bookkeeping of the last several years.

"Who Owes Whom?
In 1997, this issue made headlines when Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland) introduced the United Nations Erroneous Debt Act. Bartlett pointed out that, according to a 1996 General Accounting Office (GAO) Report for fiscal years 1992-1995, the United Nations actually owes money to the United States. Between 1992 and 1995, the United States spent $6.6 billion on peacekeeping activities in Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Somalia. Of this amount, the United Nations reimbursed the United States for only $79.4 million. And of the original $6.6 billion, the United Nations was only willing to count $1.8 million toward U.S. dues.1

Hence, the congressman did some calculations:

$6 .6 billion - U.S. voluntarily paid for peacekeeping
- $1 .8 billion - U.N. counted toward U.S. dues/assessments
$4 .8 billion - U.N. owes to U.S.
- $0 .079 billion - U.N. paid to U.S.
$4 .7 billion - U.N. owes to U.S.
- $1 .3 billion - U.S. "debt" to U.N. (according to Kofi Annan*)
$3 .4 billion - final figure: U.N. owes to U.S.

* Kofi Annan is the Secretary General of the United Nations

"Based on these calculations, Rep. Bartlett concluded that the United States owed no money to the United Nations. In fact, the United Nations owed the United States $3.4 billion. He designed his bill to stop all U.S. payments of assessed or voluntary contributions to the United Nations until our nation's overpayments have been credited or reimbursed.

"The Administration's Response
The Clinton administration argued that the congressman and his supporters came to "flawed conclusions." A fact sheet released by the U.S. State Department in 1998 stated that the United States should not expect reimbursements for all U.N.-sanctioned peacekeeping operations. "When the U.S. undertakes peacekeeping operations that are not under U.N. control, it does so without any expectation of U.N. reimbursement," the document states.

"Therefore, it would seem that, under this definition, anytime the United States takes military action to assist or carryout a U.N. resolution, we have to foot the bill. The administration is saying the United States has a right to require reimbursement only when it has yielded its sovereignty by placing American troops under foreign control."

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: gnu
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 02:43 PM

As for the comments above about Canada pulling out.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20070226/ca_pr_on_na/harper_afghan_aid

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: gnu
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 02:43 PM

Oops.... don't hold your breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Message to Bush the ignoramus
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 03:08 PM

Harper is being evasive. I want to know what this means:

"... most of which are also supported by NATO allies."

"Now it's time to consolidate those security gains on the ground."

Dion was right when he pointed out, "that Canadian military spending in the south has outpaced its aid contribution by nine times."

I hope the additional money goes to reconstruction efforts and not more military and lets hold Harper accountable for every penny.