"harry" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 4:33 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in
...
Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

If your idea of participation includes soldiers with boots on the
ground, riding in tanks or APC's and actually firing a few bullets,
then
no - Canada was not an active participant in the illegal US-led
invasion
of Iraq.

I use the "felony accomplice" rule in rating participation. That's where
the driver AND the shooter get the death penalty even if the driver was
waiting outside in the car. You don't have to shoot a gun to help in the
war effort.

In the end, the US did not call for the "whip vote", and decided to
invade Iraq on it's own accord - not as a UN-sanctioned operation.

If you read some of my past posts, you'll see I didn't believe in either
of
the two latest wars. It's foolish to believe you can "deny terrorists a
base to operate" when they can simply move one country over. We forget
that
Timothy McVeigh operated freely in the US. Under Bush logic, we should
invade any US state that harbored McVeigh. We blamed the Afghanis for
allowing the Taliban to train terrorists yet WE couldn't remove the
Taliban
after ten years of effort by the world's strongest military. We expected
of
them what we couldn't do ourselves. US public opinion is now shifted
quite
strongly against the war. Took them long enough.

As for Iraq, I would have pressed the Saudis *hard* for reparations. The
terrorists were mostly Saudis backed by Saudi money. Iraq had little or
nothing to do with 9/11 although apologists will draw connections so
tenuous
it would make a climate change zealot blush.

--
Bobby G.

Ah well, the next war will be Iran. More taxpayer's dollars.
It's all whipped up by these ****ing Zionists.

The little Brit NAZI surfaces like a zit.