You misquoted me, and as such, I suggest that, like WingNut, you learn to read.

I did not say that Washington counseled a "blind eye". I never made that claim, so nice try. I said that Washington counseled against long term alliances -- the exact claim you have made for him! I said that if we were to turn a blind eye to the world, and maintain no long term alliances, as Washington counseled -- this country would have ended centuries ago. You name for me, one country, with an established central government, that has existed for over 200 years, that maintained no long-term alliances, in the modern world. However, you do have to provide your definition of "long-term alliance". I ask this because an "alliance" between Saudi Arabia and the United States didn't begin until around 1940. That puts the alliance between Saudi Arabia at around 67 years now. In terms of the world and its history, that is not very long.

Secondly -- you may call the government in Saudi Arabia a dictatorship, but it deosn't make it so. Your throwing a juvenile tantrem over that now, doesn't make you right. Your actions remind me of a 4-year old, falling to the floor, kicking and hitting the floor with your fists because he says the sky is green. Just because you might call the sky green, doesn't make it true genius.

So, either quote accurately and debate honestly, or get lost.

If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.

Haters of mankind... funny... however, I have asked you to show me where I have said anything remotely close to that. Give it a try once -- you know, research something? I have shown you your words, but you can't even come close to showing me anything remotely close to what you keep saying about me. You tried saying that I hate all non-Americans... but you couldn't prove that. Now, you expand to calling me a hater of all man-kind? Try and prove it. Give it a shot...

However, moving on from your idiocy... into more of your idiocy (imagine that, you can't post without inserting idiocy into your statements).

Are we bringing more terrorists to Iraq? Yes, and funnily enough, I don't think that Unsane would deny that, and neither do I. However, that is NOT what you have been saying. You have been saying that Iraq is making more terrorists -- which is an unproven statement. I'd much rather fight terrorists on foreign soil, then our own. You, on the other hand, would much rather watch innocent Americans die in a struggle between terrorists and the US military. If this is not true, why are you so adamently against us fighting terrorists in Iraq?

Secondly: how can you say, that we are aggressors in Iraq, but not Afghanistan? In both cases, we invaded to depose the sitting governments at the time. In both cases, neither government was responsible for the attacks of 9-11. By what logic do you make the claim, that we are aggressors in Iraq, but not Afghanistan? You see why you're an idiot yet? You see no similarities when there are plenty, and ignore similarities, when there are. If you see us as the bad guy in Iraq, you MUST see us as the bad guy in Afghanistan. Anything to the contrary, is more of that whole liberal nonsensical argument, "I support the troops, but not the war." It's BS, and not unlike you to spout it.

__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.

Come now, WhichWhine.  You are smarter than that.  The far-reaching majority of the missions the Canadian Forces support are humanitarian in nature.  (This is even the case in Afghanistan; yes, they have lost  some troops to combat, but the whole reason the Canadians took on the Afghanistan mission is because of underlying humanitarian reasons.)They shy away from anything that doesn't make them FEEL so WARM and GOOD inside!!! 

They do missions, in other words, that are best left to MSF or the IRC. 

The Canadian Forces had not participated in major combat missions since the Korean War when they took up the Afghanistan missions.  From 1953 to 2003 or so, all they did was go on UN peacekeeping missions.  And they still do; although I cannot imagine how they can transport their own personnel organically.  Other than their "feel-good" missions that you doubtless love, their forces did nothing. 

In fact, in 1969, when they re-organized into the Canadian Forces as they are now constituted, PM Trudeau came quite close to withdrawing from NATO entirely.  He did slash their presence in Germany greatly; the nearby base I grew up closest to in Germany was in fact a Canadian base at one time until Trudeau pulled them out.  (There are no Canadian troops I am aware of in Germany now.) 

Why was all this done?  To be less like America, which, since you hate the United States, should make Pierre Trudeau a hero in your eyes. 

So, yes, the Canadians have chosen to be: whiny, toothless, powerless, and at the mercy of others, just like you want this country to be.  But they can afford it.  If anything happens to Canada, they'll just come crying to us anyways. 

Even so, in 1985, Canada suffered its worst act of terrorism ever when an Air India 747 was bombed over the Irish Sea on its way from Vancouver to New Delhi.  Applying your logic, the Canadians were nowhere near interfering in India's internecine struggles with its ethnic and religious minorities, and surely had done nothing to provoke the Sikh extremists said to have carried out the attack.  So then, why did it happen?

Or take last year for instance.  What did PM Stephen Harper do to earn a threatened decapitation? 

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)