The Exposed Truth of Jean Chrétien

[NightTrain]

than an evil meglomaniac with a napoleonic complex all the time.

I have to assume you're talking about Bush? Really?


Why do you feel our President is an evil meglomaniac with a napolenonic complex?

 

[eric]

NT, they are used to Slick Willy, the draft dodger !

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NightTrain
I have to assume you're talking about Bush? Really?


Why do you feel our President is an evil meglomaniac with a napolenonic complex?

Cheers partially misguided Canadian bashers

It would cite two examples due to lack of time:

1. His recent war in Iraq seemed little more than a debacle to topple a oil rich country and give out large engineering a reconstrunction contracts to his buddies. I would cite Halliburton as the main centre of my thesis. His orignal cassius belli was to destroy WMD. However Iran and North Korea are readily admitting they have programs and not only that are rattling their sabre. Still, Bush would appear to be, from a diplomatic and military stand point, sitting on his proverbial thumbs. Doesn't that strike you as odd from a crusader against WMD and terrorism? I certainly hope it wasn't to fix daddy's mistakes that would indeed be most cruel.

2. His under-the-radar elimination of the EPA's Clean Air laws. Eliminate the requirement for power plants to upgrade their environmental controls including, but not exclusive to the emissions of Ozone, NOx, SO2 and particulate emissions. Now the savy observer would say "Hey he's put out a new regulation for air pollution that targets NOx, SO2". This is true, but if you get down to the nitty gritty, his requirements would require little more than the most basic air filter be installed at plants, wheras the technology is there to not only boost plant efficiency, but improve air pollution using catalytic air scrubbers.

Evil? Sending your fellow americans to die in a war that no one can figure out the main cause of war with the exception of rather insideous pretexts, is evil in my books.

Meglomaniac? Projecting american power in a non-peaceful content during a time where domestic security is paramount would seem to a world observer to be no less imperialistic than that of the 18th and 19th century British.

Napoleonic Complex? Perhaps unfair, but in the minds of many, Bush would be an excellent candidate for this trait especially.

Now I think it would be fair to apply the traits of meglomaniac and napoleonic complex to chretien especially with his "legacy" for when he retires, but I genuinely think he's got a bit of Trudeauism in his blood and trying to mark himself in history, positively, as he sees it. Whether or not he is indeed doing that is completely different matter open for debate.

 

[NightTrain]

A good post, I'll respond tonight when I get home from work.

 

[NightTrain]

I'm not sure if you've perused the other forums yet, I've already touched on a few of these points :

Since '91, several things have happened that proved to the world that Saddam was more of a threat than originally thought.

A) Saddam attempted to have a former U.S. President assassinated.

B) The Czechs caught one of Saddam's toadies meeting with Mohammed Atta (remember that great guy?) & promptly expelled him.

C) Since there was a proven Al Qaeda / Saddam connection, we couldn't afford to take the chance of Saddam giving one of his newfound friends a weapon that was capable of wiping out millions of Americans or our Allies.

D) The new-n-improved foriegn policy states that we will make no distinction between terrorists and the States that harbor them. Saddam clearly had terrorist links & you can't dispute that.

E) After 9/11, it was painfully made clear to us that we couldn't afford to sit back and wait for terrorist plots to mature - being proactive rather than reactive is the new watchword. To not actively eliminate threats before they arrive on our shores would be completely asinine.


Your point number 2... really doesn't interest me so I'm not up on what the latest Greenie issues are. I live in Alaska & it's pretty damn pristine... I could care less about Cleveland or Detroit's ecological problems; if they're unhappy with things they are always able to pass stricter local pollution laws - there is nothing wrong with that course of action. Blaming the Federal guidelines (and the President, for that matter) is a very weak thing to do, and only uneducated sheep buy into the argument that they are unable to control what pollution is occurring at the local level.

See, you cannot have a State (or city, county, etc.) law more lax than Federal laws; but you can make them more strict - and that is done much more frequently than not.

Evil? Sending your fellow americans to die in a war that no one can figure out the main cause of war with the exception of rather insideous pretexts, is evil in my books.

See my response to your first point.

Meglomaniac? Projecting american power in a non-peaceful content during a time where domestic security is paramount would seem to a world observer to be no less imperialistic than that of the 18th and 19th century British.

Again, see my first response. Also, do you understand what 'Imperialistic' means? I'm not sure you do.

Our domestic security seems to be well in hand since 9/11, wouldn't you agree? Seems to an American observer that we're very capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously.

Napoleonic Complex? Perhaps unfair, but in the minds of many, Bush would be an excellent candidate for this trait especially.

Speculation & certainly opinion. I'll pass.

 

[Isaac Brock]

For the most part a well thought out a polite response, so i'm inclined to do the same.

Originally posted by NightTrain
I'm not sure if you've perused the other forums yet, I've already touched on a few of these points :

Since '91, several things have happened that proved to the world that Saddam was more of a threat than originally thought.

A) Saddam attempted to have a former U.S. President assassinated.

B) The Czechs caught one of Saddam's toadies meeting with Mohammed Atta (remember that great guy?) & promptly expelled him.

C) Since there was a proven Al Qaeda / Saddam connection, we couldn't afford to take the chance of Saddam giving one of his newfound friends a weapon that was capable of wiping out millions of Americans or our Allies.

D) The new-n-improved foriegn policy states that we will make no distinction between terrorists and the States that harbor them. Saddam clearly had terrorist links & you can't dispute that.

E) After 9/11, it was painfully made clear to us that we couldn't afford to sit back and wait for terrorist plots to mature - being proactive rather than reactive is the new watchword. To not actively eliminate threats before they arrive on our shores would be completely asinine.

I understand your points quite clearly and have heard it many times before. I have heard many of these Iraq-Al Qaeda "proven" connections that have been purpotted by both the intellegence community and media in general. I believe i am in no position to refute what they say because quite simply I am not in an intelligence agency. However, the past would indeed show that what the intelligence community says to the public can distort the truth somewhat to an extent that . For example:

1) British intelligence dossier on WMD programs used by both the British and the US as the cassius belli for the Iraq war. Entire sections were taken from undergraduate thesis based on literature searches and from the web. The dossier was brought up in english parliament and an official apology made for those sections.

2) American WMD dossier with locations of "current" WMD sites. They came, the went, the conquered they looked. In fact your SoS even showed these photos in the UN. Inspector's prior to the war reviewed the same mobile WMD factories and found no trace. Bad luck? Maybe, but i don't care whether they truly thought they were mobile factories or not. The point is moot. The fact is that they were wrong.

I'm not saying that the US intelligence community deceitful or always wrong. Far from it.. many good deeds have come from it. The point is that the case was not made for the whole WMD.

Now let me be very clear. If the US said to Iraq, "Hey! You're oppressing your people and i have proof you have ties to terrorists (which I certainly would disagree with you and say that it is a grey area at best, but will give you the benefit of the doubt) and change or I will change it for you." I would have much more respect for that. I'd okay i may not agree with the methods, but yeah i can respect that, but we all know that not to be the case for war, they certainly pumped up that angle when the WMD didn't surface.

I simply ask you this as a moderate Canadian, who is not anti-american in any way. Was Iraq really a greater threat to world peace and security than Iran or N. Korea, both who are suspected of having or actively pursuing nuclear weapons. I believe NK has even stated it would pursue a first strike strategy if conflict arose with the US in any capacity? Iran is huge in harbouring islamic militants and probably many times more that Iraq.

So Why Iraq? Why not the greater threats? If the goal is to liberate oppressive regimes, why not Libya, Lebanon, Myanmar and Saudi Arabia? I'm afraid i think i know the answer to that question... and i think you might too.

Your point number 2... really doesn't interest me so I'm not up on what the latest Greenie issues are. I live in Alaska & it's pretty damn pristine... I could care less about Cleveland or Detroit's ecological problems; if they're unhappy with things they are always able to pass stricter local pollution laws - there is nothing wrong with that course of action. Blaming the Federal guidelines (and the President, for that matter) is a very weak thing to do, and only uneducated sheep buy into the argument that they are unable to control what pollution is occurring at the local level.

See, you cannot have a State (or city, county, etc.) law more lax than Federal laws; but you can make them more strict - and that is done much more frequently than not.

I'm sorry my point doesn't interest you, but it doesn't make it any more or less valid. I respectfully believe that you are dead wrong in your assessment of federal environmental regulations. Federal environmental guidelines, like we have in Canada, close the loophole of allowing the moving of mass polluting industries and power generators to areas with looser controls, to provide power and services for areas with the strict controls. It simply levels the playing ground. As for the link to the president, there's nothing weak about it, it was his bill, and his buddies will indeed greatly benefit from it. I see nothing wrong with my train of logic.

Again, see my first response. Also, do you understand what 'Imperialistic' means? I'm not sure you do.

Our domestic security seems to be well in hand since 9/11, wouldn't you agree? Seems to an American observer that we're very capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously.

Please do not insult my intelligence as I would not venture to insult yours. I know very well what imperialistic means and am aware of its use in my context. If i was to draw a parallel in past history I would bring up:

1. The Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia in 1914 that used the murder of the Archduke to justify the "pacification" of Serbs to promote "security" in the balkans

2. Similarily the many Russian invasion of Polland to "protect" their fellow slavic brothers from the grasp of germany.

3. The turkish invasion of cyprus to "protect" the Turkish minority.

I certainly hope that Iraq will not join that list and hold out hope nonetheless. As for domestic security, my friend I wish you all the best unlike what you may or may not think Canada would never wish another 9/11 for you. Domestic security is certainly tighter now doubt and frankly, as it should be. However, as an outside observer I simply believe that your foreign policy will ignate the powderkeg of hatred on all sides (I can already see it now in both the Middle East and the rise and anti-Islam in america) and i don't think any domestic security system in the world could help you then. But let us both hope that it never comes to that.

Cheers.
P.S. Mind any spelling or grammatic mistakes, it is late and i simply too tired to reread.

 

[NightTrain]

A superb post, thank you. I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence, as you've shown you're obviously educated & polite, to boot.

I get annoyed that the 'Imperialistic' label gets thrown around like it does, so my apologies if I sounded insulting. If the USA was truly Imperialistic, we'd own a tremendous amount of real estate in Europe, the Far East & the Middle East.

I'll respond further tomorrow... it's late here & I'm beat.

Shakes,
NT

 

[eric]

Yes NT, I must agree, finally a gentleman with whom you can debate in an intellectual manner. Isaac, please excuse us, if some of our previous posts carry a sharp edge. We many times find ourselves debating with people who want nothing more than an argument or to make a political statement. They are not here for debate or intellectual discussion but rather to force their narrow point of view. There is no free exchange of ideas, just argument.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Thank you for your warm reception. You will probably find me to be a moderate in most things, but opinions, where opinions are due.

I am a proud Canadian no doubt, but that hardly blinds me from Canada's own problems (and I am aware of many) and I would expect the same in your pairs of shoes. As far as I'm concerned, "My country, right or wrong" is complete rubbish on any side!

I look forward to discussing and debating issues relating to my country and elsewhere as long as blind hatred does not get invloved which incenses me greatly.

Always keep two pints on the table and your wits about. Don't worry, you'll do fine.

 

[NightTrain]

1) British intelligence dossier on WMD programs used by both the British and the US as the cassius belli for the Iraq war. Entire sections were taken from undergraduate thesis based on literature searches and from the web. The dossier was brought up in english parliament and an official apology made for those sections.

Yep. The Brits really did have a few things go embarassingly wrong. Heads rolled, and probably will continue to roll over that and a couple of other mishaps that recently happened within their intel community.

2) American WMD dossier with locations of "current" WMD sites. They came, the went, the conquered they looked. In fact your SoS even showed these photos in the UN. Inspector's prior to the war reviewed the same mobile WMD factories and found no trace. Bad luck? Maybe, but i don't care whether they truly thought they were mobile factories or not. The point is moot. The fact is that they were wrong.

No question that American intel was wrong in where they said the WMD sites where - AFTER the boots hit the ground, that is. I'm pretty sure there was good evidence & spy reports as to where they were prior to the invasion.

Where are they now? I don't know. You can bet that Israel is actively trying to find that out - they want to know where they went probably more than we do.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that Saddam didn't have his WMD playtoys - otherwise, why would he play the games he played? It wasn't just the USA that said he had them - every nation involved in the UNSC knew they had them, and demanded that he comply with resolutions for inspections. The whole world watched that cat-and-mouse game.

Besides, another fact that seems to get overlooked is that he had them and used them in the past. Documented fact. No country that I'm aware of has ever acquired WMDs and later washed its hands of them.

I simply ask you this as a moderate Canadian, who is not anti-american in any way. Was Iraq really a greater threat to world peace and security than Iran or N. Korea, both who are suspected of having or actively pursuing nuclear weapons. I believe NK has even stated it would pursue a first strike strategy if conflict arose with the US in any capacity? Iran is huge in harbouring islamic militants and probably many times more that Iraq.

I would say that the proven Al Qaeda connections demanded immediate attention. Things developed mighty fast & there was suddenly a great urgency to protect America NOW. Time to wrap up things that could be dealt with immediately.

Was Iraq a greater threat than Iran? Yep. But, they're still dirty, and everyone knows it. With any luck, the democracy next door will take care of the Iran problem from within.

North Korea? I don't know. There wasn't evidence that I'm aware of with NK conspiring with known terrorists - let alone one that ended up flying an airliner into the WTC. However, NK is going to require a little bit different of an approach, for obvious reasons. It's a more dangerous animal, to be sure, and they haven't been forgotten. They're under a microscope, and have been ever since they admitted they'd been lying about their nuclear program.

Why not the other 'evil' countries? One at a time


As far as your EPA argument goes.. I've always been of the opinon that things are always more fair all the way around when dealt with on a local level. If there's an industry that's being irresponsible, then there is room for improvement in State laws - which are almost always implemented faster than the Federal beauracracy can manage.

Domestic security is certainly tighter now doubt and frankly, as it should be. However, as an outside observer I simply believe that your foreign policy will ignate the powderkeg of hatred on all sides (I can already see it now in both the Middle East and the rise and anti-Islam in america) and i don't think any domestic security system in the world could help you then. But let us both hope that it never comes to that.

Amen.

But I don't see any other course of action that's feasible other than the course we're on right now. We didn't ask for the mission to eradicate militant muslims, it landed in our lap. Literally. There's only one language those animals understand, and that's brute force.

Eight years of a weak President led up to this, and now we're paying for his weakness in spades.

 

[Bry]

Really enjoyed those Bushisms, Vyxen. That's some funny shit.

Speaking of funny shit, these attempted "rebuttals" from JIMnJANEENG are about as half-witted as they come. Not response-worthy.

Cheers!

 

[janeeng]

Who asked for your opinion anyway? You think I come on here looking for scores on how good of a post or not it was? I come on here to make fun of people like you, asswipe!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
Really enjoyed those Bushisms, Vyxen. That's some funny shit.

Speaking of funny shit, these attempted "rebuttals" from JIMnJANEENG are about as half-witted as they come. Not response-worthy.

Cheers!

Go die from Sars, you drunk uneducated canadian dolt!

I'm betting top dollar you're just one of that fat bastards friends!

Well, no matter, an opinion from a canadian is like an opinion from a rock.

 

[5stringJeff]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

jim and jane, you two are too funny!

I'm not much of a roaster... but that's too funny.

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by janeeng
Who asked for your opinion anyway? You think I come on here looking for scores on how good of a post or not it was? I come on here to make fun of people like you, asswipe!

ah, shutup you blowhard ass-kissing Jimnyc echo. I have no time.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
ah, shutup you blowhard ass-kissing Jimnyc echo. I have no time.

Try this maneuver: Take 50-60 paces backwards. Take several deep breaths. Sprint forward at full speed doing a triple somersault through the air, and disappear up your own asshole that you're busy talking out of.

 

[janeeng]

shut up, not that's just so intelligent, sorry, I don't believe in ass kissing with my Brother! You sorry excuse for living! go away you MOLE!!!!

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Go die from Sars, you drunk uneducated canadian dolt!

I'm betting top dollar you're just one of that fat bastards friends!

Well, no matter, an opinion from a canadian is like an opinion from a rock.

Another fascinating take from a blithering idiot! thanks for going out of your way to prove my previous post.

I've no connection to Vyxen. In fact that was my first post. But I don't need to read too much to see your responses are inappropriate.

And I'm not uneducated, nor drunk, nor Canadian. But Isaac is clearly the only poster here with a brain on his shoulders, and he's canadian. Perhaps you'd like to forward your insults on to him!

Have a nice day. OOps, yours son must be home from school by now, and I'm sure there's dinner to prepare.

 

[janeeng]

Yes, be gone LOSER!! go back in your hold TROLL!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
Another fascinating take from a blithering idiot! thanks for going out of your way to prove my previous post.

I've no connection to Vyxen. In fact that was my first post. But I don't need to read too much to see your responses are inappropriate.

And I'm not uneducated, nor drunk, nor Canadian. But Albert is clearly the only poster here with a brain on his shoulders, and he's canadian. Perhaps you'd like to forward your insults on to him!

Have a nice day. OOps, yours son must be home from school by now, and I'm sure there's dinner to prepare.

Am I supposed to care that you think my responses are inappropriate? You and your opinions can suck my ass.

You come here solely to start trouble and illicit responses, and by golly you'll get them!

Now, get lost, before I slap you on the back of your head and knock your dick-shaped Popsicle out.