Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (41577)	11/20/2005 12:38:12 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 90947

"If Tuvalu is attacked, are you going to war? Or are some nations more equal than others?" Since 1982 we have superceded the BNA Act by repatriating the Constitution. We have been fairly independent since the 30's but nevertheless had formal ties to the Head of the British Commonwealth. The Queen is still formally our Head of State--and yes...Britain, as head of the Commonwealth IS more equal than Tuvalu. However, as you saw in the Falklands--Britain knows her children--even when they forget one another! "HEY! THere's 8 good atates" We have TEN provinces. Which are the two BAD ones?! "Last time we threatened to fight was under Polk in the 1840s. :-)" In 1985 you sent the Polar Sea through the Northwest Passage without permission. Watch it! "Your Head of State and Mother England are at war in Iraq." We are more independent since 1982 and Iraq is not quite the threat to Europe and Britain as Germany was. In any case, Britain is supporting an invasion. They are not at war, per se. And yes, you are right--we DO pick and choose. We did choose to send troops in WW11 and it was in defense of world freedom and loyalty to allies. We did NOT choose to send troops to Iraq. It was not easy to choose an independent vote of conscience over a sincere desire to get along with our British and American allies. But it was not difficult to apprehend that pre-invasion (U.S.) intelligence was either manipulated for political and economic interest or was unreliable in the extreme. Canada considered that the invasion undermined the World Body and ignored valid options. Having said that--there probably are Canadians fighting over there. Many Canadians suported the invasion. Many Americans (more now) did not. The rationale of self defense, though, limps along in a rather crippled fashion now for many Americans. But perhaps it was for the best. I reserve my judgement for 10,000 years. "Yet you seemingly accuse us of ignoring it." No. Not at all. I have pointed out that the WORLD has repeatedly ignored it. Just as the WORLD ignored women being murdered in Afghanistan. I have suggested it is time that the WORLD agreed to fight butchery and madness on a common front. "who made a practice at that time of giving their soldiers and sailors alcohol before battle." I can't blame the giving nor the taking. Lee Marvin (in his movies...ah-hmmm) had a few before he tackled breakfast--which was a few more...<gg>.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next