 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / March 2008RV'ing in Canada
My wife & I are planning on retiring in a couple of years. We plan on traveling in the 48 states & Alaska with our 5th wheel RV. We would also like to travel through Canada. We've heard Canada is a beautiful country with many sights and attractions to see & enjoy. My concern is the actual traveling through Canada. Since we are US citizens, what type of legal requirements do we have to worry about? I assume a passport would be required. What about driver's licenses? Would I need a commercial license? Perhaps a Canadian addendum to my license? What about insurance on my truck/RV? My truck is a diesel that needs ultra low sulfur fuel. Is this readily available? Currency is anouther concern. Would it be a good idea to carry a reasonable amount of Canadian currency? My wife is concerned about medical care. How difficult will it be to get routine medical care or even medical care in an emergency? I'm sure this is just a start on the things I should be concerned about. I'd appreciate any help anyone can provide. Is there a good source of info within the Canadian government I could utilize? David Read between your questions > My wife & I are planning on retiring in a couple of years. We plan > on > traveling in the 48 states & Alaska with our 5th wheel RV. We would > also like to travel through Canada. We've heard Canada is a > beautiful > country with many sights and attractions to see & enjoy. We have traveled in every province and territory, most several times, except Nunavut, because there are no hard surface roads connecting that territory to the lower 48. There are beautiful sights and attractions all over Canada, as well as some areas you just have to travel through to get to the others - just like the USA. > My concern is the actual traveling through Canada. Since we are US > citizens, what type of legal requirements do we have to worry about? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my > license? What about insurance on my truck/RV? Every year, it's suppose to start "next year" that you have to have a passport to drive into or out of Canada. It hasn't happened yet, but we went ahead and got the passports to be on the safe side. We always want to get back home. ;-) Your valid USA driver's license is good all over Canada AS LONG AS your rig is legal for Canadian roads. The thing that I've heard about that gets the most attention is, towing a toad behind a motorhome without functioning braking when in mountains. Your US insurance is also good in Canada, BUT you will need to let your insurance company know you are driving into Canada, so they can issue a Canada endorsement. With most companies, this is free. > My truck is a diesel that needs ultra low sulfur fuel. Is this > readily available? Fuel for your rig is available everywhere you can drive. The only caution I would make is, if traveling in the sparsely populated areas, refuel at 1/2 tank level. The reason, we have arrived at stations that had temperary power outage in the area. > Currency is anouther concern. Would it be a good idea to carry a > reasonable amount of Canadian currency? Don't get currency exchanged until you get into Canada. You get a decent exchange rate at the exchange window in the visitors centers, but we have gotten better exchange rates from inside tellers at the banks - EXCEPT The Bank of Montreal. Check the foreign transfer fees on any credit card you may use. Some are substantial. > My wife is concerned about medical care. How difficult will it be > to > get routine medical care or even medical care in an emergency? If you need medical service in Canada, go to the clinic. Sometimes the clinic is free standing and sometimes a separate entrance to a hospital. Te cost of service in a clinic will be a fraction of cost if you walk into the hospital. The last time we used a clinic, the cost was $65.00 Canadian. If on Medicare, you have to pay and then apply for medicare payment. > I'm sure this is just a start on the things I should be concerned > about. I'd appreciate any help anyone can provide. Is there a good > source of info within the Canadian government I could utilize? Do a google search on travel in Canada & Canada - US border crossing. There is always restrictions on food items, pets, tobacco, booze, drugs and GUNS. > David The people in Canada, as a whole, are very friendly and go out of their way to make your stay there very enjoyable. The most scenic: The Rocky Mountain area & the Canadian Maritimes, including Newfoundland & Labrador. A suggestion: On your 1st trip into Canada, sign up for a caravan trip. They know all the CURRENT "gotches", rules & regulations and make all your reservations. That way you get the feel of traveling in Canada before you go on your own. I have been on caravans into Canada & Mexico with Adventure Caravans and think they give as good a trip for the mony as any. Tom J > Read between your questions > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > attractions all over Canada, as well as some areas you just have to > travel through to get to the others - just like the USA. So have we. We've been from the Yukon to Labrador, but we also skipped Nunavut for the same reasons. >> My concern is the actual traveling through Canada. Since we are US >> citizens, what type of legal requirements do we have to worry about? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> my >> license? What about insurance on my truck/RV? I strongly suggest that you do not enter through the Province of Quebec. We met a couple last night who had a similar nightmare to our 2002 one entering through Quebec. Once you have entered Canada through Ontario or New Brunswick or wherever, you should have no problems with the border people. Be aware that in the Province of Quebec there is only one official language: French. Road signs will all be in French and even those who speak English will make a concerted effort to lead you to believe that they don't understand you. Montreal and Quebec City are beautiful places to visit, but you must be aware before hand of the challenges to travel there. Barring Quebec, Canadians are warm and friendly hosts. >> Currency is anouther concern. Would it be a good idea to carry a >> reasonable amount of Canadian currency? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > banks - EXCEPT The Bank of Montreal. Check the foreign transfer fees > on any credit card you may use. Some are substantial. We always used our ATM card. Usually at the closest bank that had a place to park the RV to where we entered. We used our Visa card to charge most things, but you should call your credit card bank and find out what the rate is. Also, tell the credit card company that you intend to use the card in Canada. > The people in Canada, as a whole, are very friendly and go out of > their way to make your stay there very enjoyable. The most scenic: > The Rocky Mountain area & the Canadian Maritimes, including > Newfoundland & Labrador. I love the Canadian Rockies. Some of the most beautiful scenery on the North American Continent is there. In fact, after we went to Alaska, we decided that the scenery was nicer in the Canadian Rockies and the roads (and people) were more civilized. Someday we'll go back to Newfoundland. It's a magical place with the most wonderful people we have had the honor of meeting. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are also lovely. > A suggestion: On your 1st trip into Canada, sign up for a caravan > trip. They know all the CURRENT "gotches", rules & regulations and > make all your reservations. That way you get the feel of traveling in > Canada before you go on your own. I have been on caravans into Canada > & Mexico with Adventure Caravans and think they give as good a trip > for the mony as any. We did New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI on our own and met up with Adventure Caravans in North Sydney, NS to go with them to Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a great trip. Friends of ours also did the same thing a few years later and were extremely happy. Other friends did the entire Maritime trip with Adventure Caravans and some loved it and others felt it was a bit much. The benefit of a caravan is that just about everything is provided for you - camping - many meals - all sightseeing (plus suggestions for places to visit on your own when you have free time) - help when you have a problem, etc. Have a safe and enjoyable trip.  SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life Welcome to Canada! There is so little difference between our two countries that you usually can't tell the difference. The outskirts of any North American city is virtually identical. It used to be that fuel prices in Can were signifigently higher, but that gap is closing (sigh). Make sure that you have the appropriate drivers licence for the size of the rig you are driving. B.C. can be sticky if you are pulling a trailer over 10k with no weight endorsement. If you are legal in you state, you will be ok in Can.If you are driving cross country, don't forget the prairies. spend a few days exploring, it will be worth the time spent. Dave in Saskatchewan. > Read between your questions > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > Tom J > Welcome to Canada! > There is so little difference between our two countries that you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the > time spent. Dave in Saskatchewan. Everything I have read about B.C. & the proper license for the proper weight rig has involved Canadian drivers, mostly from Alberta, without the proper endorsements. What B.C. will ticket for, is towing a dingy in mountains without brakes that are actuated by the tow vehicle. I've been back & forth across B.C. several times in US caravans and only once did we come up on a B.C. check point & they waved us right through, while inspecting Canadian large rigs. As longs as you are properly licensed in your state, I don't see a problem. Tom J >Everything I have read about B.C. & the proper license for the proper >weight rig has involved Canadian drivers, mostly from Alberta, without >the proper endorsements. That Alberta thing is a bit of a surprise, since they have the most relaxed licencing laws in all of Canada. They are the only province that doesn't require a special licence for hauling trailers exceeding 10,000 lbs. Dunno about motorhomes though. Licencing requirements tend to be pretty much standardized across all of North America, with standard licences being restricted to: - trailers not exceeding 10,000 lbs (that may be changing) - motorhome and/or combined with toad exceeding 22,000 lbs. I can understand why the mountain province might be a bit more zealous about enforcing these regulations in other parts of Canada. Like . . . when is the last time you heard about a runaway motorhome disaster in the Prairies? :-) >What B.C. will ticket for, is towing a dingy in mountains without >brakes that are actuated by the tow vehicle. BC has loosened up on that one a bit in response to protests: Bad karma for tourism, and all that sort of thing. The last I heard, they had increased to requirement for toad braking to 4000 lbs. Since I've never towed, my recollection may not be accurate. Just an area to check out if it may be pertinent. Since tourism in BC is such a major aspect of the provincial economy, they tend to be really sensitive to issues that might compromise that particular cash cow. 'Course, if you are going to be arrested, it will probably be by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (Duh!) The entire Force is riddled with corruption, with neanderthal goons on the front lines. Canadians are still reeling from the shock: how the RCMP summarily dealt with a confused tourist from eastern europe at the airport. He didn't speak any English; and after being stranded for 8 hours at the Vancouver Airport started to get a bit agitated, because whoever was supposed to pick him up, never showed up. After 8 hours of this, being unable to communicate with anyone around him, he picked up a cheap airport coffee table and smashed it on the floor. So . . . the wondrous RCMP goon squad called to come in and take care of the matter. Fortunately, the entire RCMP summary execution the tourist was caught on video tape by someone in the airport. Although the tourist had not threatened anyone, the RCMP didn't really care! Their mission from the outset was to TAKE HIM OUT! From the time the RCMP arrived at the airport, to the time this brave burly RCMP squad they had Tazered him to death took 26 seconds!! From the outset, they never once tried to communicate with him. Without so much as attempting to exchange so much as a single word, nor having any clue as to what was going on; these RCMP goons just marched in, and continuously Tazered him until he was dead!! All has been quiet since then. No one seems to care. At the moment, this is the RCMP's shame; but if the current Canadian Harper Government a does not deal with this atrocity, then it becomes Canada's shame, with a justice system running just a tad behind Mexico. Stan Birch Newmarket, Ontario > 'Course, if you are going to be arrested, it will probably be by the > Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (Duh!) The entire Force is riddled > with > corruption, with neanderthal goons on the front lines. I guess maybe I'm looking for the best side of the RCMP when I'm in Canada?? I have visited many of their facilities, eat with them in the mess hall, talked to many of then along the way, and even been lake fishing in a RCMP boat with a couple of them after they got off work. They docked the boat near where we were fishing from shore & ask if we was catching anything. We said so far, no. About an hour later they came back and said they would like to take me and the other guy I was fishing out to some flats in the lake. We went with them & had good luck!! Those lake trout were the best I ever ate!! This was between Watson Lake & Ross River. YEA!! RCMP!! Tom J Tom J >> 'Course, if you are going to be arrested, it will probably be by the >> Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (Duh!) The entire Force is riddled [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I guess maybe I'm looking for the best side of the RCMP when I'm in >Canada?? Well . . . this is another side of them that you are fortunate to not have discovered. Here is the video someone took of the 4 big honkin' RCMP thugs executing a distraught tourist who had been held by Customs for the past 10 hours for no apparent reason, other than his inability to speak English: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IJqdL40lvU Sorry, Stan. I've been watching this aspect of this thread since you took your signature, anti-establishment stance. My turn... > Here is the video No, thanks. I saw the video the day after it happened. My opinion then, as now, is that this unfortunate person chose easily the WORST place to misbehave: An airport. The man also forgot the old adage: When in Rome, do as Romans do. This means speak the prevalent language or have some other reliable means to communicate with those in the immediate vicinity. It is NOT incumbent upon the locals to accommodate the visitor regardless of their place of origin. Even so, confronting officers with firearms transcends all social/cultural/language barriers: Calm down and behave. Breaking furniture, no matter how cheap, even if it is YOUR furniture, is not appropriate in virtually all venues, particularly in an airport. That this foolish foreigner had a physical condition that made him predisposed to heart failure was another good reason why he should not have lost his composure. That he succumbed to the jolts of a Taser, while, annually, countless tens of thousands of others do not, is NOT the fault of the fine, upstanding officer of the RCMP that was FORCED to zap him. Simply put: Unlawful acts do not magically become lawful because the perpetrator wishes it so or because they were "wronged" or inconvenienced in some manner. Had he remained calm and played the system, he might have become financially improved through litigation. Now he's dead. He lost on all counts. SignatureJR >That he succumbed to the jolts of a Taser, >while, annually, countless tens of thousands of others do not, is NOT >the fault of the fine, upstanding officer of the RCMP that was FORCED to >zap him. Oh crap! They weren't forced to do any such thing. There were four big cops against one little confused tourist. As for safety, I consider them to be lethal weapons; and they should not be placed in the hands of idiots! The very same day, the Police in Montreal tazered a motorist to death for a traffic infraction; and a month later, the police in Halifax executed an agitated paranoid schizophrenic who was off his meds. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/11/22/taser-death.html These people were not criminals. And for some, it may have been questionalbe whether they should be kept institutionalized, or be allowed to function in society with sub-normal capacity. This weapons are being used far too flippantly. We saw a video around the same time, of a Colorado highway patrol officer tazering someone merely because they would not sign a traffic ticket. IMO, tazers should be banned. >stan.birch@hotmail.com wrote: >Licencing requirements tend >to be pretty much standardized across all of North America, with >standard licences being restricted to: > >- trailers not exceeding 10,000 lbs (that may be changing) >- motorhome and/or combined with toad exceeding 22,000 lbs. By "North America" I guess you are excluding the US. <g> Most states don't require any special licence for RVs, and as near as I can tell no state has your 22,000 pound limit on standard drivers licenses. http://changingears.com/rv-sec-state-rv-license.shtml SignatureDave >My wife & I are planning on retiring in a couple of years. We plan on >traveling in the 48 states & Alaska with our 5th wheel RV. We would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Would I need a commercial license? Perhaps a Canadian addendum to my >license? What about insurance on my truck/RV? Passports are now required by the US for re-entry into the US. The Canadians are quite friendly. One suggestion upon crossing ANY border. Upon approaching the border be sure to remove your sunglasses so they can watch your eyes. Then answer their questions honestly and simply. Do not volunteer information. The Canadians will accept any driver's license that is legal in your home state, same as in the US. As to insurance, check with your carrier. Some companies require an endorsement for Canada and others do not. Normally there is no extra charge for this. >My truck is a diesel that needs ultra low sulfur fuel. Is this >readily available? Using Flying J as an example <www.flyingj.com>, they ONLY have the ULSD available in Canada. You should have no problems. >Currency is anouther concern. Would it be a good idea to carry a >reasonable amount of Canadian currency? Currency exchange can be a problem. I recommend that you use your credit cards as much as possible. Your bank will obtain the best exchange rate they can in most cases. If you find that you need Loonies, I recommend going to a bank. They usually give the better rate of exchange than you will get on the economy. You may find a few places that will not take US dollars or credit cards and will need a small amount of Canadian currency (Loonies). >My wife is concerned about medical care. How difficult will it be to >get routine medical care or even medical care in an emergency? The only medical we have had to obtain in Canada was a routine blood test for which I had to pay. >I'm sure this is just a start on the things I should be concerned >about. I'd appreciate any help anyone can provide. Is there a good >source of info within the Canadian government I could utilize? I think you will be amazed at how similar the two countries are. The area I suggest you be concerned about is Quebec. They are very pro French and many times won't even talk to you unless you speak French. And they drive like the French, i.e. nutso. They think nothing of passing on blind curves and going up hills. I found their influence to be quite strong in Ontario also and detoured back into the states to go around those two provinces to get to the Maritimes. Otherwise, it is a great country and great people. In Saskatchewan, go to Prince Albert National Park. Well worth the detour.... George >David SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Not sure if it's an insurance indorsement or just a statement that the ins is valid in Canada (might mean the same for all I know). I can go on line and download the card from my insco, but I already know it's valid. You can also carry policy if it's stated in there. Some folks will say that they've never been checked -- I haven't either, but I've also never had an accident or ticket -- That's when you get checked. I used my debit card at ATMs, but I would advise getting some coins before you go if there are toll bridges before you get some cash and then get some change (Voice of experience here, looking for change in Vancouver at night...). Get passport. Makes everything simpler and if you win a cruise in the Med, you can leave instantly <g>. Canadians (aka EhLanders) are great people, even the ones who speak French (as long as you try to speak a little). Try to order the tourist guides for the provinces you intend to visit ahead of time, or pick one up as soon as you get there (Tourist Info Center) as they are very useful and have listings of campgrounds along with prices. Pete > I think you will be amazed at how similar the two countries are. The > area I suggest you be concerned about is Quebec. They are very pro [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > George Just how far into Ontario did you get? According to the 2001 census 70.5% of the population have English as their mother tongue while for French it is 4.5% http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/ontario_e.php As a non-French speaking Canadian, I have often traveled in and through Quebec with very few problems. The Quebecois are warm and friendly people if you make an honest attempt to be understood. This is no different than going to Argentina, say, and expecting to converse in English. If however, you adopt an attitude of superiority or "why can't you speak my languauge" you will not be received with open arms. By the way, if you do not go to Ontario you will miss, IMHO, one of the great Canadian drives. That being along the north shore of Lake Superior. Fantastic scenery and some beautiful National and Provincial Parks. Brian > As a non-French speaking Canadian, I have often traveled in and through > Quebec with very few problems. The Quebecois are warm and friendly people > if you make an honest attempt to be understood. That has not been our experience or that of most Americans who have traveled to Quebec. We get many Quebecois who winter here in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas and I have tried to be helpful to them as I have enough French to be of some assistance. Though there are always exceptions, most of them don't even show gratitude for our help. We were visiting friends in Montreal who were natives of Montreal, though English-speakers. The fellow was a retired educator and spoke fluent "local" French, yet the waitress at the restaurant we ate in laughed in his face and made fun of his accent. If we encountered a single couple in our travels, they were usually friendlier, but they tend to travel in groups and will have nothing to do with the other campers in an RV park. By and large, I find the Quebecois to be just plain rude. The French speaking people from New Brunswick, however, are just as warm and friendly as other Canadians. SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life >> As a non-French speaking Canadian, I have often traveled in and through >> Quebec with very few problems. The Quebecois are warm and friendly people [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >speaking people from New Brunswick, however, are just as warm and >friendly as other Canadians. You have to keep in mind that Quebecois are not REAL French, they are Faux-French. As wanna-bees, they try much harder... Pete >> By and large, I find the Quebecois to be just plain rude. The French >> speaking people from New Brunswick, however, are just as warm and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pete This was a hoot... My wife speaks French. She wrote one of her graduate degrees in Paris and the other in Grenoble. When we were last in Quebec, she got quite tired of listening to mangled French. The Quebecois published policy is that Parisian French is the standard. She would often passively correct the things said to her. Then they would find out that we were not even Canadian, worse yet were American (not anti-American sentiment). To get your French corrected by an American, did not settle well. But she would often take the time to explain if it were possible. She did after all teach the language at a university for a while. Well, Parisians think my wife is from out of town because of her accent, but the locals that I talked to in the countryside all asked why I put up with a Parisian (meaning my wife). Matt Colie >>> By and large, I find the Quebecois to be just plain rude. The French >>> speaking people from New Brunswick, however, are just as warm and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Matt Colie My son has a master's in French Lit, spent a year at a university in Strasbourg, among other places, and taught freshman French at UMich. On the phone, French speakers don't know he isn't and in person (red hair and freckles) American is far from the first guess. I believe that a typical American trying to speak a few words of French is so hurtful to the French ear that they quickly go to English just to make it stop, kinda like an NYC accent in other parts of the US. When I have visited there, I have found Parisians to be OK, although my ex noticed that many people seemed to have learned English in a short time because after the first Gulf War people seemed to use it more. Pete > I believe that a typical American trying to speak a few words of > French is so hurtful to the French ear that they quickly go to English > just to make it stop, kinda like an NYC accent in other parts of the > US. LOL! The first time I was in French-speaking Canada was in the late 1950's on a family car trip. My dad was pretty fluent in French, having taken it in high school and college, but when he tried his French on the locals, they answered him in English. I suppose the fact that he was born, raised and educated in New York City didn't help. :-) SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life > I believe that a typical American trying to speak a few words of > French is so hurtful to the French ear that they quickly go to English > just to make it stop, kinda like an NYC accent in other parts of the > US. I know one former American professor of French who was told by a Parisian (in French) that she had "an accent like a pig." So at least now we know that pigs speak French. I speak very little French-just enough to get around, eat, get a hotel, take a taxi or Métro ride-yet I found last year that Parisians were very friendly to me. It might have helped that I was wearing a tee shirt that read, "Nous sommes désolé que notre president soit une idiot. Nous n'avons pas voté pour lui.":-) Ken H >> I believe that a typical American trying to speak a few words of >> French is so hurtful to the French ear that they quickly go to English [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ken H I'm going to Paris in the Fall. Where do I get a shirt like that? SignatureJanet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life >> It might have helped that I was wearing a tee shirt that read, >> "Nous sommes désolé que notre president soit une idiot. Nous >> n'avons pas voté pour lui.":-) > I'm going to Paris in the Fall. Where do I get a shirt like that? Good show, Janet: Spread your DOLLAR$ around *AND* your anti-American, unpatriotic sentiment. Doing so, you'll no doubt enjoy improved service at the quaint bistros. Keep that little pinky up. Be sure to display your prized shirt on a sunny weekend at any American military cemetery near Normandy. (So much for your credibility.) Don't hurry back. <barf> :( JR > Good show, Janet: Spread your DOLLAR$ around *AND* your anti-American, > unpatriotic sentiment. To criticize an American political figure is not unpatriotic. Was it Samuel Johnson who said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel?" See http://www.samueljohnson.com/refuge.html <snip> > Be sure to display your prized shirt on a sunny weekend at any American > military cemetery near Normandy. The French remain deeply grateful for our part in the liberation of their country. We are deeply grateful for the sacrifices made by the men. One's sentiments regarding the current administration do not reflect on that gratitude. Indeed, we are reminded as to how far we have fallen lately. We bring honor to those fallen by recognizing our current dilemma. Would your sentiments regarding such a shirt be the same if the president's name were Clinton? I see where Ken Harrison <sptrain98@earthlink.net> whined concerning the stupid shirt: >Would your sentiments regarding such a shirt be the same if the >president's name were Clinton? Yes, but <plonk> Will Sill The self-appointed Curmudgeon of Sill Hill > Would your sentiments regarding such a shirt be the same if the > president's name were Clinton? For me it certainly would. I couldn't stand Clinton but he was my president and I respected the office of the president. I never bad mouthed Clinton or anything else about my country when traveling to foreign lands. The message you're spreading is far more than just about a single person you don't like. I see where Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> contributed concerning the joyful reporting of a "hate Bush" tee shirt (assuming I understood the jist of the message): >Good show, Janet: Spread your DOLLAR$ around *AND* your anti-American, >unpatriotic sentiment. Janet and Harrison ought to - but can't - see the diference between their liberty to express dissent at home and going abroad to insult our country and our Presdident. A pox on both of them. Will Whiners whine. It's what they do. > In article <47e2f096$0$23894$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, > Be sure to display your prized shirt on a sunny weekend at any American > military cemetery near Normandy. Those who fell at Normandy did not sacrifice for an unnecessary and poorly executed war. > Those who fell at Normandy did not sacrifice for an unnecessary and poorly > executed war. Poignant, but very true. kh >> Those who fell at Normandy did not sacrifice for an unnecessary and >> poorly executed war. > > Poignant, but very true. It gave me no pleasure to say that. >> Those who fell at Normandy did not sacrifice for an unnecessary and >> poorly executed war. > > Poignant, but very true. During WWII there was the far liberal left that said much the same about USA involved in Europe. There was talk about the war being for corporate profit, unnecessary sacrifices and poorly executed. They fought to keep the USA out of it and shared their rants once the USA was. >>> Those who fell at Normandy did not sacrifice for an unnecessary and >>> poorly executed war. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > profit, unnecessary sacrifices and poorly executed. They fought to keep > the USA out of it and shared their rants once the USA was. Well after four years, they were proven wrong, weren't they . . . . > "miles" <nope@nopers.com> wrote in message >> During WWII there was the far liberal left that said much the same about >> USA involved in Europe. There was talk about the war being for corporate >> profit, unnecessary sacrifices and poorly executed. They fought to keep >> the USA out of it and shared their rants once the USA was. > Well after four years, they were proven wrong, weren't they . . . . Not to the far left at the time. They were all for going after Japan and against going to war with Germany. To them it was all about corporate profit and political power. They said the same rhetoric they are now. The difference today is that the enemy is rather hard to define and identify with. That was not the case in pretty much all wars of the past. There are no loud calls to expand operations there. My view is that the war must be fought somewhere. No country attacked us so the argument about Iraq could be made about anywhere. Just being in Afghan isn't nearly enough. Afghan isn't the only place where Al Queda camps exist. They're all over the world. It doesn't draw them into the battle as being in the heart of the issue itself. I'm for the war but strongly against how it's been carried out. The far left seems to want to return to the years of treating terrorism as a police matter. Just arrest a few low life thugs after the fact. Been there, done that and lost on 9/11. The far left talks loud about whats being done wrong but nothing on whats right. No solid plans on how to fight terrorism. Only talk about what they don't like and much of it hate based rather than focused specific issue based. For the most part I agree with their complaints but that doesn't offer a solution to a huge problem of how to deal with terrorism. >> Well after four years, they were proven wrong, weren't they . . . . My view is > that the war must be fought somewhere. No country attacked us so the > argument about Iraq could be made about anywhere. Just being in Afghan > isn't nearly enough. Now that is just sad. To think that we would lash out anywhere because we felt a need to lash out. I can't explain that sort of attitude. Afghan isn't the only place where Al Queda camps > exist. The weren't in Iraq. You are a pathetic excuse for an American. > "miles" <nope@nopers.com> wrote in message > My view is >> that the war must be fought somewhere. No country attacked us so the >> argument about Iraq could be made about anywhere. Just being in Afghan >> isn't nearly enough. > Now that is just sad. To think that we would lash out anywhere because we > felt a need to lash out. I can't explain that sort of attitude. Lack of defending this country is an attitude I can't explain. Can you? Saddam was a menace to any peace process in the middle east. He meddled with most of his neighbors. Kill 2 birds with one stone. Again, if no country attacks us yet we were attacked then just where to you wish to fight this war? > Afghan isn't the only place where Al Queda camps >> exist. > > The weren't in Iraq. Never said they were. Saddam was a thorn to stability in the middle east. He needed to go. I'd rather draw al queda and company there than here. > You are a pathetic excuse for an American. Whats pathetic is fighting terrorism based on political hate rather than offer any solution. I have asked you many times what you solution to fighting terrorism is. Instead you retort with what we shouldn't do and lash out with pure hatred. So once again I ask you, if we pull our troops our of Iraq, then whats next on the war on terrorism specifically? >> "miles" <nope@nopers.com> wrote in message My view is >>> that the war must be fought somewhere. No country attacked us so the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > country attacks us yet we were attacked then just where to you wish to > fight this war? A pathetic ex post facto excuse. >> Afghan isn't the only place where Al Queda camps >>> exist. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Never said they were. Saddam was a thorn to stability in the middle east. > He needed to go. I'd rather draw al queda and company there than here. So we lash out at a country and are the direct cause of thousands of innocent deaths because we can. >> You are a pathetic excuse for an American. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lash out with pure hatred. So once again I ask you, if we pull our troops > our of Iraq, then whats next on the war on terrorism specifically? I am ashamed to think that you are a fellow American if you cannot bring yourself to see the evil we brought to Iraq. Sure you will yell Saddam, Saddam! That does not excuse our invasion. At some point in the100 years we will be there, we will have caused the deaths of far more Iraqis than Saddam had. You are sick and stupid. > So we lash out at a country and are the direct cause of thousands of > innocent deaths because we can. We need to fight Al Queda somewhere and under Saddam there were already 10,000's of innocent deaths you seem to ignore. Would you rather have more deaths over here? > I am ashamed to think that you are a fellow American if you cannot bring > yourself to see the evil we brought to Iraq. Sure you will yell Saddam, > Saddam! That does not excuse our invasion. At some point in the100 years > we will be there, we will have caused the deaths of far more Iraqis than > Saddam had. Huh? This is your answer to my question? I asked what your solution to dealing with terrorism is after we pull our troops out of Iraq. You CAN'T answer because you have none but you do have hate and nothing more. > You are sick and stupid. Hate is whats sick and stupid. >> So we lash out at a country and are the direct cause of thousands of >> innocent deaths because we can. > > We need to fight Al Queda somewhere and under Saddam there were already > 10,000's of innocent deaths you seem to ignore. Would you rather have more > deaths over here? And we invade and cause 10,000s of more deaths because we use the excuse of fighting Al Qaeda where it wasn't. That only impresses stupid people. Can you bring yourself to at admit that the invasion of Iraq was a huge error? > Can you bring yourself to at admit that the invasion of Iraq was a huge > error? Heck, no. It was a HUGE success. Despite having found no WMD (they WERE there), we now have a strategic presence in the Middle East and will well into the future. Regardless of a dwindling insurgency that is motivated by a 7th Century, ingrained hatred of the West, it will work to the benefit of MANY nations that we are there. It's a sh*tty job, but somebody had to do it. Signature:) JR > Heck, no. It was a HUGE success. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's a sh*tty job, but somebody had to do it. Darn right! When we were 'friends' with so many other countries as the left claims we were attacked and 9/11 was planned. Now they seem to want to go right back to the days of the past in dealing with the problem. No thanks. > When we were 'friends' with so many other countries as the > left claims we were attacked and 9/11 was planned. Now they seem to > want to go right back to the days of the past in dealing with the > problem. No thanks. Just remember the timeline: Between January 1993 and January 2001 we were universally loved and respected everywhere. (Of course, you must forget the U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers, WTC 1993, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc, etc.) Outside that eight-year period, we were - and are now - the scum of the Earth. Life's funny like that, ya know? Signature:) JR > Between January 1993 and January 2001 we were universally loved and > respected everywhere. (Of course, you must forget the U.S.S. Cole, the > Khobar Towers, WTC 1993, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc, etc.) > > Outside that eight-year period, we were - and are now - the scum of the > Earth. Well Waco and Ruby Ridge weren't foreign matters but your point holds true. 9/11 was planned and it's operatives trained during this 'loving' time period. >> Heck, no. It was a HUGE success. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to go right back to the days of the past in dealing with the problem. No > thanks. There you go conflating 9/11 with Iraq just like Bush and Cheney do. I am starting to think that lashing out at Iraq was just simple act of revenge against the Muslim world in your minds. > There you go conflating 9/11 with Iraq just like Bush and Cheney do. I am > starting to think that lashing out at Iraq was just simple act of revenge > against the Muslim world in your minds. Oh geez. Please tell us what country attacked the USA and where the war against Al Queda and company should be exactly. Afghanistan perhaps? Sorry, that country would not draw them in like a presence in the middle east. Your problem is that you do not see the need to fight on a large scale anywhere. We need to fight them head on and I'd rather not fight them in this country. You seem to want just that. >> There you go conflating 9/11 with Iraq just like Bush and Cheney do. I >> am starting to think that lashing out at Iraq was just simple act of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > scale anywhere. We need to fight them head on and I'd rather not fight > them in this country. You seem to want just that. Attacking the innocent for a crime of others is highly immoral not to mention stupid. You attitude toward this disgusts me. > Attacking the innocent for a crime of others is highly immoral not to > mention stupid. You attitude toward this disgusts me. Saddam was not innocent by any means. Liberals screamed to go into Bosnia, Croatia, Somalia etc. for the same reasons Saddam was guilty of. You refuse to answer the question as to where we should fight Al Queda and other terrorist groups when no specific country attacked us. That disgusts me to no end. >> Attacking the innocent for a crime of others is highly immoral not to >> mention stupid. You attitude toward this disgusts me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other terrorist groups when no specific country attacked us. That > disgusts me to no end. Saddam was innocent of 9/11 and the rest of his country was innocent of bothering us. The war we stupidly set off has killed far more than Saddam would have killed for whatever reason over the last five years. As for where we need to fight Al Qaeda, I have told you many times, where they are: Afghanistan and somehow Pakistan. Not where they weren't - Iraq. As for the Bush inspired Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Iraqis will get them in ways we can only dream of if we get out of their way. The idea that seemly perfectly intelligent people would fall for the "we need to fight them over there instead of over here" by attracting them to a place where they weren't, as though there were a finite number of fighters who can be killed off and not worried about thereafter, disgusts me. I suspect that you and your like are simply trying to rationalize your blind loyalty to a stupid man and his stupid party. >>> Attacking the innocent for a crime of others is highly immoral not >>> to mention stupid. You attitude toward this disgusts me. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I suspect that you and your like are simply trying to rationalize your > blind loyalty to a stupid man and his stupid party. I wonder what people would find out if they did research on who, way back when, funded Al Qaeda, and who helped to train and set up Saddam in power? And as an afterthought what part of the Constitution gives the president the power to declare war? On the latter I figure most will say the War Powers Act. But wouldn't that be in direct conflict with Section 8 of said Constitution? I don't recall any Amendment passed that has changed that 'minor' issue. If anyone can help me out on these questions I'd appreciate it. SignatureSteve - From behind a hill somewhere in WV During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell > I wonder what people would find out if they did research on who, way > back when, funded Al Qaeda Oh geez. Not that worn out rhetoric. Al Queda, the Taliban etc. did not exist as they do today. Bin Laden was insignificant and not known as a leader of any terrorist group at the time. He was just part of a group of rebels fighting Russia. Good grief. >> I wonder what people would find out if they did research on who, way >> back when, funded Al Qaeda [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as a leader of any terrorist group at the time. He was just part of a > group of rebels fighting Russia. Good grief. Don't know that it's 'worn out' or not, but they did get substantial backing from our government. And not that this thread needs to continue anymore, but tell me again how our governments 'help' given to all those rebels in their 'time of need' endeared them to us? SignatureSteve - From behind a hill somewhere in WV He couldn't hit a tile floor with a bladder full of beer. -- TV golf announcer David Feherty > As for where we need to fight Al Qaeda, I have told you many times, where > they are: Afghanistan and somehow Pakistan. Not where they weren't - Iraq. Most who are in Iraq did not come from Afghanistan nor Pakistan. Fighting in Afghanistan would do little. We are there and while I'd like to see our numbers greater, having 100,000 troops there would do little. They would not be drawn there in large numbers. > As for the Bush inspired Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Iraqis will get them in ways > we can only dream of if we get out of their way. The Iraqi's are not capable of such on a large enough scale. > The idea that seemly perfectly intelligent people would fall for the "we > need to fight them over there instead of over here" by attracting them to a > place where they weren't, as though there were a finite number of fighters > who can be killed off and not worried about thereafter, disgusts me. Thats because you are clueless as to the scope of global terrorism and the threat they present to not only the USA but much of the rest of the world as well. They are not anywhere in particular. Fighting them as we are is weakening their infrastructure. Their own ranks have changed sides in large numbers. Your desire to just give up and return us to the pre 9/11 days of fighting terrorism disgusts me. >> As for where we need to fight Al Qaeda, I have told you many times, where >> they are: Afghanistan and somehow Pakistan. Not where they weren't - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > our numbers greater, having 100,000 troops there would do little. They > would not be drawn there in large numbers. How many Al Qaeda were in Iraq before Bush invaded? >> As for the Bush inspired Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Iraqis will get them in >> ways we can only dream of if we get out of their way. > > The Iraqi's are not capable of such on a large enough scale. They seem to be doing a fine job right now. There is nothing like knowing the language and teritory. >> The idea that seemly perfectly intelligent people would fall for the "we >> need to fight them over there instead of over here" by attracting them to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > weakening their infrastructure. Their own ranks have changed sides in > large numbers. We are inspiring their recruiting with Bush's Folly in Iraq. Please admit to this. > Your desire to just give up and return us to the pre 9/11 days of fighting > terrorism disgusts me. Whatever gives you this absurd idea? > How many Al Qaeda were in Iraq before Bush invaded? The bigger question is where did they come from? Very few came from Afghanistan which is where you seem to want to fight the war. You just don't comprehend global terrorism nor its threat and make the incorrect attempt to treat it more like a conventional war. Al Queda is worldwide. No country attacked us. The only way to fight them is to draw them where they will go. Afghanistan isn't doing that and yet you want to put more troops there. Sounds as if in reality you do not wish to fight this war anywhere and just give up. How many more 9/11's waged from no particular country before you'll understand? > They seem to be doing a fine job right now. There is nothing like knowing > the language and teritory. They are? The Iraqi's are not doing a fine job right now. Their biggest battle the past couple days is Basra but it's using considerable numbers of USA troops and air support as well as logistics. The recent battle is promising in that they are taking more of the load but they're not to the point of taking over 100%. >> Your desire to just give up and return us to the pre 9/11 days of fighting >> terrorism disgusts me. Whatever gives you this absurd idea? Thats been your rhetoric. You wish to fight them where they are even though they are in dozens and dozens of countries. Any single one of them would not draw them into battle. The only place that would is the heart of the middle east. You don't like us there so that leaves us returning to the pre 9/11 days of doing little but waiting for another attack to occur and arresting a few thugs. >> How many Al Qaeda were in Iraq before Bush invaded? > > The bigger question is where did they come from? You don't want to talk about that, do you? Very few came from > Afghanistan which is where you seem to want to fight the war. You just > don't comprehend global terrorism nor its threat and make the incorrect > attempt to treat it more like a conventional war. Al Queda is worldwide. > No country attacked us. The only way to fight them is to draw them where > they will go. Is there a limited supply of these guys? Afghanistan isn't doing that and yet you > want to put more troops there. Sounds as if in reality you do not wish to > fight this war anywhere and just give up. How many more 9/11's waged from > no particular country before you'll understand? You don't seem to understand that you don't attack a place where your enenmy isn't. >> They seem to be doing a fine job right now. There is nothing like >> knowing the language and teritory. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > promising in that they are taking more of the load but they're not to the > point of taking over 100%. Not yet, but they have a far better chance of succeding on the ground than we do because they are local. >>> Your desire to just give up and return us to the pre 9/11 days of >>> fighting terrorism disgusts me. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to the pre 9/11 days of doing little but waiting for another attack to > occur and arresting a few thugs. Ho you are so full of it that it is pathetic. Go raise your strawmen somewhere else. What a stupid mess. >>> How many Al Qaeda were in Iraq before Bush invaded? >> The bigger question is where did they come from? > > You don't want to talk about that, do you? Oh ya I do. You seem to want to attack the country where they are coming from. By all means do tell. List ALL of them. Every single one of them. > Is there a limited supply of these guys? There is a limited means for them to wage war. Already their support structure is waning. Their own members have turned against them. > You don't seem to understand that you don't attack a place where your enenmy > isn't. This is NOT a conventional war. There isn't any one area that they are. They are in almost every country in the world. You want a war of convenience and make it pretty. Not going to happen. Saddam was a mennace to peace in the region. He needed to go and in the process we draw in our enemies to fight there. > Not yet, but they have a far better chance of succeding on the ground than > we do because they are local. Thats why they are being used. Trouble is you blasted Bush for using locals that knew the terrain in Afghanistan rather than our own troops. Quite the hypocrite!! You're political hate filled motives are now quite clear. >>>> How many Al Qaeda were in Iraq before Bush invaded? >>> The bigger question is where did they come from? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Quite the hypocrite!! You're political hate filled motives are now quite > clear. I don't have time for your Bush apologetics and excuses. It is sick. > I don't have time for your Bush apologetics and excuses. It is sick. Ahhh...I knew your true hatred would come out. It's all about Bush isn't it? I don't like Bush either (I can hear ya scream the liberal rhetoric of 'ya sure ya don't'). Least your true rhetoric came out loud and clear! >> I don't have time for your Bush apologetics >> and excuses. It is sick. > It's all about Bush isn't it? It's hard to believe, but I honestly believe they are still ticked-off about the 2000 election. Ya know, the same, tired rant: Bush was SELECTED, not elected. OF course, that's a crock: The U.S. Supreme Court did NOTHING more than simply stop the counting. > I don't like Bush either I don't, either - much. And it has NOTHING to do with the war. Suffice it to say that he has been a disappointment for more than a few reasons. One thing is for sure, I may have disliked William Jefferson Clinton to a pretty high degree, but there was NEVER any hatred. If the man had chosen to tell the truth while under oath, I would've had a LOT more respect for him, regardless of his politics. Our society, indeed all nations that offer some form or another of freedom to their citizens, is under threat like no other: Islamofascism. Despite far to many peoples' pleading desire to "just get along", I am absolutely confident that typical diplomatic and "feel good" measures are a complete waste of time. Given the threat we face, I couldn't be more pleased that we now have a significant, probably permanent presence in the Middle East. I think we're going to need it sooner rather than later. What really saddens me is that I believe we will have to endure another (or more) 9/11 before enough people realize the threat we face. I am gravely concerned that we may have devolved to the point where, as a society, we don't have the collective will to fight this enemy. We are that rich, fat, dumb and happy. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. Signature<sigh> JR > I don't, either - much. And it has NOTHING to do with the war. Suffice > it to say that he has been a disappointment for more than a few reasons. Yep. So has much of the Rep party. Thing is, that doesn't mean the Dems are the solution. I really don't agree with very many of his policies, from healthcare to immigration etc. > One thing is for sure, I may have disliked William Jefferson Clinton to > a pretty high degree, but there was NEVER any hatred. Yep. I disliked him considerably and disagreed with his policies worse than even Bush. But I did not hate. I took issue with particular policies on a case by case basis, not across the board hate. > Given the threat we face, I couldn't be more pleased that we now have a > significant, probably permanent presence in the Middle East. I think > we're going to need it sooner rather than later. Yep. But the general public is clueless as to the seriousness that terrorism poses. They won't fight what they can't see directly in front of them. I see where Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> contributed a succinct summary of the Iraq situation, since "Dan Listermann" and fellow morons continue to believe "that the invasion of Iraq was a huge error". Jim sez: >Heck, no. It was a HUGE success. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It's a sh*tty job, but somebody had to do it. The battle for Iraq is OVER. We won decisively.The war against Islaamic Jihadists rages on. Is the razor-thin Democrat majority gonna help the fight or sabotage it? Will Sill >I see where Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> contributed a > succinct summary of the Iraq situation, since "Dan Listermann" and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Democrat majority gonna help the fight or sabotage it? > Will Sill Unfortunately Will, the Democrat party has been hijacked by the extreme liberal left so they will continue to oppose any action that smacks of national pride and sefl-sufficiency. If anyone wishes to argue the hijack part of my statement, one need only to review the situation in which Sen. Liebermann found himself after he flew in the face of the Democrat power bosses by supporting the war in Iraq. When I think about the War on Terror and the Iraqi conflict, I am reminded of Reagan's response when asked about his view of the Cold War - "We win....They lose!"... Still sounds good applied to the current situation... Dave D > Unfortunately Will, the Democrat party has been hijacked by the extreme > liberal left Tell us all about how the Republican party has not been hijacked by the extreme conservative right. . . . > Tell us all about how the Republican party has not been hijacked by the > extreme conservative right. . . . What???? The current Republican elected party from Bush on down is certainly NOT conservative let alone extreme conservative. Bush is NOT a conservative. >> Tell us all about how the Republican party has not been hijacked by the >> extreme conservative right. . . . > > What???? The current Republican elected party from Bush on down is > certainly NOT conservative let alone extreme conservative. Bush is NOT a > conservative. Who can blame anyone from running away from that dork and the other twits the conservatives elected? The loyalty of the "conservatives" is painfully thin. They are at least minimally capable of seeing the total failure, but instead of trying to fix it, they abandon the product of their efforts claiming that he was "not conservative." What is Bush, "Liberal?" > Who can blame anyone from running away from that dork and the other twits > the conservatives elected? The loyalty of the "conservatives" is painfully > thin. They are at least minimally capable of seeing the total failure, but > instead of trying to fix it, they abandon the product of their efforts > claiming that he was "not conservative." What is Bush, "Liberal?" You really think Bush is conservative? Your only view is that he isn't Democrat so must be extreme conservative. Furthermore you feel that if you don't like Bush then the Dems must be the answer. Sorry, but Pelosi and company have not shown any signs they are the answer. Now we have 3 lousy choices for president none of which have a clue for an answer. >> Who can blame anyone from running away from that dork and the other twits >> the conservatives elected? The loyalty of the "conservatives" is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and company have not shown any signs they are the answer. Now we have 3 > lousy choices for president none of which have a clue for an answer. Like I said, if I supported him, I would be running away from the twit too. I don't think you are that stupid. Let's see you call Bush "Liberal." Come on, you can do it! > Let's see you call Bush "Liberal." Come on, you can do it! You already called him an extreme conservative which is very far from reality. He is certainly no conservative. Not with his refusing to veto most spending bills including the even larger ones since the Dems took control. >> Let's see you call Bush "Liberal." Come on, you can do it! > > You already called him an extreme conservative which is very far from > reality. He is certainly no conservative. Not with his refusing to veto > most spending bills including the even larger ones since the Dems took > control. Ah screw it, you can say it. . . >> Can you bring yourself to at admit that the invasion of Iraq was a huge >> error? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's a sh*tty job, but somebody had to do it. I suppose you don't consider yourself a Bush dead ender, do you? > Hate is whats sick and stupid. No kidding. And, no less, from the "side" that keeps telling us they are compassionate, caring, inclusive and fair. <koff, hack> It's going to be interesting after November 4th. They are going to go absolutely BONKERS! Signature:) JR >> Hate is whats sick and stupid. > > No kidding. And, no less, from the "side" that keeps telling us they > are compassionate, caring, inclusive and fair. <koff, hack> It's one thing to dislike particular issues and state reasons why. But the far left seems bent on pure hate with everything Bush, everything republican etc. I don't like many things about this war and how it's been carried out. I dislike Bush on a wide range of issues. I disagree with much of the current Rep platform. But I don't just across the board hate as so much of the left does. Not towards Reps, Dems, right or left. It's divisive and counterproductive to do so. The left doesn't offer solutions, only blame and what they don't like rather than what they do like...well...'cept they do love taxes. > It's going to be interesting after November 4th. They are going to go > absolutely BONKERS! Pelosi and company did not deliver or even begin to deliver on any of their pre-campaign promises. They tossed those in the trash and I think many are mad as hell as shown in the liberal controlled congress approval ratings. Ok, to sorta bend back onto topic: when will politicians allow the USA to find, use and refine it's own oil without cost prohibitive red tape. I've downsized my RV but enjoying the road and outdoors is getting expensive. > I've downsized my RV but enjoying the road and > outdoors is getting expensive. You ain't just-a woofin'. I just set a new record for the SS GhettoCruiser (Silverado 2500HD): $95 @ $3.059/gal Cornohol. Going back to a popup and mini pickup is looking more and more attractive every day. Signature<sigh> JR > I just set a new record for the SS GhettoCruiser (Silverado 2500HD): > > $95 @ $3.059/gal Cornohol. > > Going back to a popup and mini pickup is looking more and more > attractive every day. I bought my dream diesel last August. Diesel has risen over $1/gallon since. >>> Hate is whats sick and stupid. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I've downsized my RV but enjoying the road and outdoors is getting >expensive. I'll butt in here and point out that the validity or not of either sides' views or statements of 'fact' don't really matter. They are in a continuing war with each other and are constantly chewing on the other side's weak points, be they perceived or real. If they repeat anything often enough, it will be believed. If something is deemed unimportant to that war, it will be dropped and something else will become of interest. Was it right to depose slaughterers of the innocent in one area of the world, but not in another? Pete > Was it right to depose slaughterers of the innocent in one area of the > world, but not in another? Yes. You can't fight them all but some is better than none. The problem is that its politicians and whats to gain for them that decides who goes and who stays. Thats the wrong reason. > At some point in the 100 years we will be there It's refreshing to see that at least SOME lefties have accepted that fact. > we will have caused the deaths of far more Iraqis than > Saddam had. Even given your 100 years, we're gonna have to turn up the heat by quite a lot to accomplish that feat if we expect to set that record. > You are sick and stupid. Hehehehehe! You poor folks are SOOOOO predictable. Signature:) JR > During WWII there was the far liberal left that said much the same about > USA involved in Europe. There was talk about the war being for > corporate profit, unnecessary sacrifices and poorly executed. They > fought to keep the USA out of it and shared their rants once the USA was. Evidence, please. >> During WWII there was the far liberal left that said much the same >> about USA involved in Europe. There was talk about the war being for >> corporate profit, unnecessary sacrifices and poorly executed. They >> fought to keep the USA out of it and shared their rants once the USA was. > > Evidence, please. Oh geez. You that unaware of the liberal rhetoric prior to and during WWII? Songs written by liberals such as Pete Seeger or Woody Guthrie tell the sentiment the left had at the time. They blamed Britian and the USA for being war mongers...sound familiar? Between WWI and WWII the left were Hitler apologists. >> Evidence, please. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the USA for being war mongers...sound familiar? Between WWI and WWII the >left were Hitler apologists. Yes, and they stood by as Hitler rebuilt his military and when Old Man Kennedy was boosting their status they were putting into place, the means to kill his eldest son. Real smart. [snerk] $$$$$$$$$$$ Yours truly, Johnny Dollar! SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> During WWII there was the far liberal left that said much the same >>> about USA involved in Europe. There was talk about the war being for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the USA for being war mongers...sound familiar? Between WWI and WWII the > left were Hitler apologists. Evidence, please. Not opinions; evidence. >>> It might have helped that I was wearing a tee shirt that read, >>> "Nous sommes désolé que notre president soit une idiot. Nous [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > :( >JR |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message