Canada bans Galloway

[Guest alex]

I'm not sure why any countries foreign policy (except Canada's of course) is even being discussed in this thread.

I'm sure you do even if it's gone off the agenda you wanted it to stick to.

[Park Life 71]

The issue for me is freedom of speech in a supposedly free country. So what if you find his views and his actions offensive? Deal with it ffs, don't call for censorship.

 

As tooner said earlier it's a farce that he gets into America ready to hit the $10 buffet and he can't get into Canada.

[Guest Stevie]

The view that Saddam was a monster the west effectively created is, however, a completely valid one to my mind. I'm by no means an expert but the US et al never had a problem with him while they were supplying him with arms to fight Iran. Funny that.

That said, when Galloway visited him it made for a pretty sickening scene. He might as well have given him the Eric Bristow.

All the west did was sell him arms to Iran, which he then ended up using on the perceived Western enemy Iran and eventually his own Iraqi people technically in Southern Kurdistan. By giving him these weapons did the west create the thought behind the monster. Was the west the engine the fuelled his vast torture chambers throughout Iraq. He was always a bad cunt, he would've found the weapons regardless if the west supplied them or not because he was one of the great cunts of our time, a paranoid bullying cunt, the weapons are almost secondary to the repression he put that country under with his iron fist and barbaric ways. Even if it was a bit of a stunt, which I certainly personally don't believe it was, the joy when he was toppled was captured beautifully when they were all stamping on the head of his statue. Anyone who gives Saddam Hussein a spor of respect, has about as much credibility as Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf.

I'm not defending what he did Stevie. The Iran-Iraq war though, could be seen as an extention of the Cold War in the same way that many other conflicts were with one side backing one and the other backing the other. What it shows the is that we in the West are culpable in creating an environment in which someone like Saddam was later able to do the terrible things he did. Yet our governments would have you believe he's some evil monster that almost came out of nowhere and which it was our duty to destroy for the good of the world and the good of Iraq, when in fact we were acting as selfishly when we defeated him as we were when we armed him.

I don't disagree with any of that, but if the west weren't arming him do you think he wouldn't be getting the arms from elsehwere? I think that point is irrelevant, USA are bastards everybody knows that, we do everything in our own interests, however I repeat, Saddam was barely human, that is the point, and the point is this media whore of a jock cunt that is George Galloway, typical Scottish Catholic conspiracy theorist that he is, is a disgrace to this country, and a disgrace to millions of Kurds throughout the region who have lost family members to this bastard who GG gives credance to.

Impossible to say on the first point but the Soviet Union were arming their enemy so it's doubful. And it's totally relevant.

Which is why I declined to say Soviet Union. The USSR and Iran have always been relatively close, I remember a bloke called Vladimnir Zhirinovski, an ultra nationalist in the mid 90's who many thought would gain power saying that Iran would be welcomed in to the Soviet family if he gained power. Mind he also said vodka would be free at all times if he did too, and they would nuke Japan and retake Alaska.

[Park Life 71]

America's biggest fear is that Russia will join the Euro trading zone. And it might happen, business links between Germany and Russia are at their highest point in history.

[Guest alex]

The view that Saddam was a monster the west effectively created is, however, a completely valid one to my mind. I'm by no means an expert but the US et al never had a problem with him while they were supplying him with arms to fight Iran. Funny that.

That said, when Galloway visited him it made for a pretty sickening scene. He might as well have given him the Eric Bristow.

All the west did was sell him arms to Iran, which he then ended up using on the perceived Western enemy Iran and eventually his own Iraqi people technically in Southern Kurdistan. By giving him these weapons did the west create the thought behind the monster. Was the west the engine the fuelled his vast torture chambers throughout Iraq. He was always a bad cunt, he would've found the weapons regardless if the west supplied them or not because he was one of the great cunts of our time, a paranoid bullying cunt, the weapons are almost secondary to the repression he put that country under with his iron fist and barbaric ways. Even if it was a bit of a stunt, which I certainly personally don't believe it was, the joy when he was toppled was captured beautifully when they were all stamping on the head of his statue. Anyone who gives Saddam Hussein a spor of respect, has about as much credibility as Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf.

I'm not defending what he did Stevie. The Iran-Iraq war though, could be seen as an extention of the Cold War in the same way that many other conflicts were with one side backing one and the other backing the other. What it shows the is that we in the West are culpable in creating an environment in which someone like Saddam was later able to do the terrible things he did. Yet our governments would have you believe he's some evil monster that almost came out of nowhere and which it was our duty to destroy for the good of the world and the good of Iraq, when in fact we were acting as selfishly when we defeated him as we were when we armed him.

I don't disagree with any of that, but if the west weren't arming him do you think he wouldn't be getting the arms from elsehwere? I think that point is irrelevant, USA are bastards everybody knows that, we do everything in our own interests, however I repeat, Saddam was barely human, that is the point, and the point is this media whore of a jock cunt that is George Galloway, typical Scottish Catholic conspiracy theorist that he is, is a disgrace to this country, and a disgrace to millions of Kurds throughout the region who have lost family members to this bastard who GG gives credance to.

Impossible to say on the first point but the Soviet Union were arming their enemy so it's doubful. And it's totally relevant.

Ironically the Soviet Union also helped arm Iraq.

To a far lesser extent though, I'd guess. The point is, anyway, that in conflicts like this, countries not 'directly' involved, arm and provide help in other ways to the side they want to win. And this inevitably leads to a mess further down the line when said conflicts are resolved. Look at Afghanistan for another example. Plenty more as well.

[Guest Stevie]

What has this got to do with the view of GG? Just because the US were wrong how does that make him any less wrong?

Exactly. Wanks.

 

 

You two clowns ever wondered why the U.S. was so sure Iraq had WMD's?

What's that got to do with George Galloway supporting tyranic bastards who think nothing of mass genocide?

 

Cause that is U.S. foreign policy (when it serves them).

 

Stevie you especially disappoint me in the way you can't de-link England in your head from America's foreign escapades which do little or nothing for us and in the current case in Iraq is actually harming us. I always had you down as one of the free thinkers on this board. Man up for fuck sake. GG is a cunt and SH is a cunt, but the bigger picture is that we have been supporting these cunts around the world.

Do you think I'm happy that we're perceived as America's dog. The fact is in a military sense, since Reagan was scuttling Thatcher (and I bet he was "I won't be long Dennis darling"), we have militarily stuck to them like glue, jumped when they said jump, and it's a fucking disgrace because there are few countries I would less rather be associated with in the world than those corrupt secretive materialistic bastards. The fact is until our foreign policy changes drastically we will sadly always be linked with them.

[Guest alex]

The view that Saddam was a monster the west effectively created is, however, a completely valid one to my mind. I'm by no means an expert but the US et al never had a problem with him while they were supplying him with arms to fight Iran. Funny that.

That said, when Galloway visited him it made for a pretty sickening scene. He might as well have given him the Eric Bristow.

All the west did was sell him arms to Iran, which he then ended up using on the perceived Western enemy Iran and eventually his own Iraqi people technically in Southern Kurdistan. By giving him these weapons did the west create the thought behind the monster. Was the west the engine the fuelled his vast torture chambers throughout Iraq. He was always a bad cunt, he would've found the weapons regardless if the west supplied them or not because he was one of the great cunts of our time, a paranoid bullying cunt, the weapons are almost secondary to the repression he put that country under with his iron fist and barbaric ways. Even if it was a bit of a stunt, which I certainly personally don't believe it was, the joy when he was toppled was captured beautifully when they were all stamping on the head of his statue. Anyone who gives Saddam Hussein a spor of respect, has about as much credibility as Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf.

I'm not defending what he did Stevie. The Iran-Iraq war though, could be seen as an extention of the Cold War in the same way that many other conflicts were with one side backing one and the other backing the other. What it shows the is that we in the West are culpable in creating an environment in which someone like Saddam was later able to do the terrible things he did. Yet our governments would have you believe he's some evil monster that almost came out of nowhere and which it was our duty to destroy for the good of the world and the good of Iraq, when in fact we were acting as selfishly when we defeated him as we were when we armed him.

I don't disagree with any of that, but if the west weren't arming him do you think he wouldn't be getting the arms from elsehwere? I think that point is irrelevant, USA are bastards everybody knows that, we do everything in our own interests, however I repeat, Saddam was barely human, that is the point, and the point is this media whore of a jock cunt that is George Galloway, typical Scottish Catholic conspiracy theorist that he is, is a disgrace to this country, and a disgrace to millions of Kurds throughout the region who have lost family members to this bastard who GG gives credance to.

Impossible to say on the first point but the Soviet Union were arming their enemy so it's doubful. And it's totally relevant.

Which is why I declined to say Soviet Union. The USSR and Iran have always been relatively close, I remember a bloke called Vladimnir Zhirinovski, an ultra nationalist in the mid 90's who many thought would gain power saying that Iran would be welcomed in to the Soviet family if he gained power. Mind he also said vodka would be free at all times if he did too, and they would nuke Japan and retake Alaska.

Not sure what point you're trying to make there.

[Park Life 71]

The view that Saddam was a monster the west effectively created is, however, a completely valid one to my mind. I'm by no means an expert but the US et al never had a problem with him while they were supplying him with arms to fight Iran. Funny that.

That said, when Galloway visited him it made for a pretty sickening scene. He might as well have given him the Eric Bristow.

All the west did was sell him arms to Iran, which he then ended up using on the perceived Western enemy Iran and eventually his own Iraqi people technically in Southern Kurdistan. By giving him these weapons did the west create the thought behind the monster. Was the west the engine the fuelled his vast torture chambers throughout Iraq. He was always a bad cunt, he would've found the weapons regardless if the west supplied them or not because he was one of the great cunts of our time, a paranoid bullying cunt, the weapons are almost secondary to the repression he put that country under with his iron fist and barbaric ways. Even if it was a bit of a stunt, which I certainly personally don't believe it was, the joy when he was toppled was captured beautifully when they were all stamping on the head of his statue. Anyone who gives Saddam Hussein a spor of respect, has about as much credibility as Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf.

I'm not defending what he did Stevie. The Iran-Iraq war though, could be seen as an extention of the Cold War in the same way that many other conflicts were with one side backing one and the other backing the other. What it shows the is that we in the West are culpable in creating an environment in which someone like Saddam was later able to do the terrible things he did. Yet our governments would have you believe he's some evil monster that almost came out of nowhere and which it was our duty to destroy for the good of the world and the good of Iraq, when in fact we were acting as selfishly when we defeated him as we were when we armed him.

I don't disagree with any of that, but if the west weren't arming him do you think he wouldn't be getting the arms from elsehwere? I think that point is irrelevant, USA are bastards everybody knows that, we do everything in our own interests, however I repeat, Saddam was barely human, that is the point, and the point is this media whore of a jock cunt that is George Galloway, typical Scottish Catholic conspiracy theorist that he is, is a disgrace to this country, and a disgrace to millions of Kurds throughout the region who have lost family members to this bastard who GG gives credance to.

Impossible to say on the first point but the Soviet Union were arming their enemy so it's doubful. And it's totally relevant.

Ironically the Soviet Union also helped arm Iraq.

To a far lesser extent though, I'd guess. The point is, anyway, that in conflicts like this, countries not 'directly' involved, arm and provide help in other ways to the side they want to win. And this inevitably leads to a mess further down the line when said conflicts are resolved. Look at Afghanistan for another example. Plenty more as well.

 

Word.

[Park Life 71]

What has this got to do with the view of GG? Just because the US were wrong how does that make him any less wrong?

Exactly. Wanks.

 

 

You two clowns ever wondered why the U.S. was so sure Iraq had WMD's?

What's that got to do with George Galloway supporting tyranic bastards who think nothing of mass genocide?

 

Cause that is U.S. foreign policy (when it serves them).

 

Stevie you especially disappoint me in the way you can't de-link England in your head from America's foreign escapades which do little or nothing for us and in the current case in Iraq is actually harming us. I always had you down as one of the free thinkers on this board. Man up for fuck sake. GG is a cunt and SH is a cunt, but the bigger picture is that we have been supporting these cunts around the world.

Do you think I'm happy that we're perceived as America's dog. The fact is in a military sense, since Reagan was scuttling Thatcher (and I bet he was "I won't be long Dennis darling"), we have militarily stuck to them like glue, jumped when they said jump, and it's a fucking disgrace because there are few countries I would less rather be associated with in the world than those corrupt secretive materialistic bastards. The fact is until our foreign policy changes drastically we will sadly always be linked with them.

 

Good to hear.

 

My mental turmoil is this, I want an EU army with us and Germany leading it, but on the other hand I want to keep our economy one stage de-linked from the EU zone so we can stay competitive.

[Fop 1]

The view that Saddam was a monster the west effectively created is, however, a completely valid one to my mind. I'm by no means an expert but the US et al never had a problem with him while they were supplying him with arms to fight Iran. Funny that.

That said, when Galloway visited him it made for a pretty sickening scene. He might as well have given him the Eric Bristow.

All the west did was sell him arms to Iran, which he then ended up using on the perceived Western enemy Iran and eventually his own Iraqi people technically in Southern Kurdistan. By giving him these weapons did the west create the thought behind the monster. Was the west the engine the fuelled his vast torture chambers throughout Iraq. He was always a bad cunt, he would've found the weapons regardless if the west supplied them or not because he was one of the great cunts of our time, a paranoid bullying cunt, the weapons are almost secondary to the repression he put that country under with his iron fist and barbaric ways. Even if it was a bit of a stunt, which I certainly personally don't believe it was, the joy when he was toppled was captured beautifully when they were all stamping on the head of his statue. Anyone who gives Saddam Hussein a spor of respect, has about as much credibility as Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf.

I'm not defending what he did Stevie. The Iran-Iraq war though, could be seen as an extention of the Cold War in the same way that many other conflicts were with one side backing one and the other backing the other. What it shows the is that we in the West are culpable in creating an environment in which someone like Saddam was later able to do the terrible things he did. Yet our governments would have you believe he's some evil monster that almost came out of nowhere and which it was our duty to destroy for the good of the world and the good of Iraq, when in fact we were acting as selfishly when we defeated him as we were when we armed him.

I don't disagree with any of that, but if the west weren't arming him do you think he wouldn't be getting the arms from elsehwere? I think that point is irrelevant, USA are bastards everybody knows that, we do everything in our own interests, however I repeat, Saddam was barely human, that is the point, and the point is this media whore of a jock cunt that is George Galloway, typical Scottish Catholic conspiracy theorist that he is, is a disgrace to this country, and a disgrace to millions of Kurds throughout the region who have lost family members to this bastard who GG gives credance to.

Impossible to say on the first point but the Soviet Union were arming their enemy so it's doubful. And it's totally relevant.

Ironically the Soviet Union also helped arm Iraq.

To a far lesser extent though, I'd guess. The point is, anyway, that in conflicts like this, countries not 'directly' involved, arm and provide help in other ways to the side they want to win. And this inevitably leads to a mess further down the line when said conflicts are resolved. Look at Afghanistan for another example. Plenty more as well.

 

They were pretty close although not completely consistently so, the USA tends gets all the stick, but actually a lot of stuff came from the USSR (and then later Russia).

[Fop 1]

What has this got to do with the view of GG? Just because the US were wrong how does that make him any less wrong?

Exactly. Wanks.

 

 

You two clowns ever wondered why the U.S. was so sure Iraq had WMD's?

What's that got to do with George Galloway supporting tyranic bastards who think nothing of mass genocide?

 

Cause that is U.S. foreign policy (when it serves them).

 

Stevie you especially disappoint me in the way you can't de-link England in your head from America's foreign escapades which do little or nothing for us and in the current case in Iraq is actually harming us. I always had you down as one of the free thinkers on this board. Man up for fuck sake. GG is a cunt and SH is a cunt, but the bigger picture is that we have been supporting these cunts around the world.

Do you think I'm happy that we're perceived as America's dog. The fact is in a military sense, since Reagan was scuttling Thatcher (and I bet he was "I won't be long Dennis darling"), we have militarily stuck to them like glue, jumped when they said jump, and it's a fucking disgrace because there are few countries I would less rather be associated with in the world than those corrupt secretive materialistic bastards. The fact is until our foreign policy changes drastically we will sadly always be linked with them.

 

Good to hear.

 

My mental turmoil is this, I want an EU army with us and Germany leading it, but on the other hand I want to keep our economy one stage de-linked from the EU zone so we can stay competitive.

 

The major problem with an EU army is the same as with a completely linked economy, that is it would be France pulling all the strings to their own benefit (how the hell they've got away with their latest car industry protectionism scam I've no idea).

[Park Life 71]

What has this got to do with the view of GG? Just because the US were wrong how does that make him any less wrong?

Exactly. Wanks.

 

 

You two clowns ever wondered why the U.S. was so sure Iraq had WMD's?

What's that got to do with George Galloway supporting tyranic bastards who think nothing of mass genocide?

 

Cause that is U.S. foreign policy (when it serves them).

 

Stevie you especially disappoint me in the way you can't de-link England in your head from America's foreign escapades which do little or nothing for us and in the current case in Iraq is actually harming us. I always had you down as one of the free thinkers on this board. Man up for fuck sake. GG is a cunt and SH is a cunt, but the bigger picture is that we have been supporting these cunts around the world.

Do you think I'm happy that we're perceived as America's dog. The fact is in a military sense, since Reagan was scuttling Thatcher (and I bet he was "I won't be long Dennis darling"), we have militarily stuck to them like glue, jumped when they said jump, and it's a fucking disgrace because there are few countries I would less rather be associated with in the world than those corrupt secretive materialistic bastards. The fact is until our foreign policy changes drastically we will sadly always be linked with them.

 

Good to hear.

 

My mental turmoil is this, I want an EU army with us and Germany leading it, but on the other hand I want to keep our economy one stage de-linked from the EU zone so we can stay competitive.

 

The major problem with an EU army is the same as with a completely linked economy, that is it would be France pulling all the strings to their own benefit (how the hell they've got away with their latest car industry protectionism scam I've no idea).

 

 

Bloody French!

[Guest alex]

The view that Saddam was a monster the west effectively created is, however, a completely valid one to my mind. I'm by no means an expert but the US et al never had a problem with him while they were supplying him with arms to fight Iran. Funny that.

That said, when Galloway visited him it made for a pretty sickening scene. He might as well have given him the Eric Bristow.

All the west did was sell him arms to Iran, which he then ended up using on the perceived Western enemy Iran and eventually his own Iraqi people technically in Southern Kurdistan. By giving him these weapons did the west create the thought behind the monster. Was the west the engine the fuelled his vast torture chambers throughout Iraq. He was always a bad cunt, he would've found the weapons regardless if the west supplied them or not because he was one of the great cunts of our time, a paranoid bullying cunt, the weapons are almost secondary to the repression he put that country under with his iron fist and barbaric ways. Even if it was a bit of a stunt, which I certainly personally don't believe it was, the joy when he was toppled was captured beautifully when they were all stamping on the head of his statue. Anyone who gives Saddam Hussein a spor of respect, has about as much credibility as Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf.

I'm not defending what he did Stevie. The Iran-Iraq war though, could be seen as an extention of the Cold War in the same way that many other conflicts were with one side backing one and the other backing the other. What it shows the is that we in the West are culpable in creating an environment in which someone like Saddam was later able to do the terrible things he did. Yet our governments would have you believe he's some evil monster that almost came out of nowhere and which it was our duty to destroy for the good of the world and the good of Iraq, when in fact we were acting as selfishly when we defeated him as we were when we armed him.

I don't disagree with any of that, but if the west weren't arming him do you think he wouldn't be getting the arms from elsehwere? I think that point is irrelevant, USA are bastards everybody knows that, we do everything in our own interests, however I repeat, Saddam was barely human, that is the point, and the point is this media whore of a jock cunt that is George Galloway, typical Scottish Catholic conspiracy theorist that he is, is a disgrace to this country, and a disgrace to millions of Kurds throughout the region who have lost family members to this bastard who GG gives credance to.

Impossible to say on the first point but the Soviet Union were arming their enemy so it's doubful. And it's totally relevant.

Ironically the Soviet Union also helped arm Iraq.

To a far lesser extent though, I'd guess. The point is, anyway, that in conflicts like this, countries not 'directly' involved, arm and provide help in other ways to the side they want to win. And this inevitably leads to a mess further down the line when said conflicts are resolved. Look at Afghanistan for another example. Plenty more as well.

 

They were pretty close although not completely consistently so, the USA tends gets all the stick, but actually a lot of stuff came from the USSR (and then later Russia).

I don't know the figures. It was a more general point anyway, as I'm sure you were aware, rather than an attempt to demonise the US. These matters are inevitably very complex, which is why it's best not to view them in terms of black and white, good and evil etc.

[tooner 243]

Please don't paint Canada with the same brush as our PM. As I said before the guy is a robot

 

I mean who the fuck poses with a kitten? Worse, who the fuck votes for the prick?

 

Harper has all the foreign policy savvy of a wet fart. The man/robot is clueless, last fall the after the election, the other parties got together to take down the government b/c it's a minority. Then the Conservatives start in with "the Canadian public has made their choice", yeah they did Stevo, and they gave you a minority. So undetered with the damage to the democratic process Stevo decides to ask the Govenor General to end parliament (Pro-rog(u)e)(SP?) before the other parties can get a vote to become a coalition. The poor GG (not george), has no choice but to accept the request. So for the the first time in the history of Canadian Parliament the gov't has used this leverage (which is normally used to end parliament prematurely in the face of being ahead of schedule and out of things to vote on) to stop the democratic process. Freedom my ass!!!!

 

So it doesn't surprise me that "we've" made ourselves look the fools again.

[Guest Stevie]

Please don't paint Canada with the same brush as our PM. As I said before the guy is a robot

 

I mean who the fuck poses with a kitten? Worse, who the fuck votes for the prick?

 

Harper has all the foreign policy savvy of a wet fart. The man/robot is clueless, last fall the after the election, the other parties got together to take down the government b/c it's a minority. Then the Conservatives start in with "the Canadian public has made their choice", yeah they did Stevo, and they gave you a minority. So undetered with the damage to the democratic process Stevo decides to ask the Govenor General to end parliament (Pro-rog(u)e)(SP?) before the other parties can get a vote to become a coalition. The poor GG (not george), has no choice but to accept the request. So for the the first time in the history of Canadian Parliament the gov't has used this leverage (which is normally used to end parliament prematurely in the face of being ahead of schedule and out of things to vote on) to stop the democratic process. Freedom my ass!!!!

 

So it doesn't surprise me that "we've" made ourselves look the fools again.

Just looking at that picture of your president got me thinking, I've never seen him before, and I don't think I could name one Canadian president ever. Did one not pat the Queen on the arse or something I remember that. It's not because I'm not interested in world affairs, I am, but Canada, second biggest country in the world, for it's geographical size and population, it just never gets a mention, it's just there like I say. Clearly it's a very beautiful country, but it's a forgotten about place some what, I wonder why it is, or at least not publicised. No matter what people say, Britain is one of the most written about places on earth, even the yanks show us on their screens.

[Guest alex]

Some geezer called Mulrooney in the 80s? Only one I can think of. Sure you're on about some Aussie politician re: the Queen btw. Touched her back, when guiding her to meet people iirc, going against royal etiquette, or whatever.

[Park Life 71]

That pic sure don't help your Canada ain't boring craic.

[Guest Stevie]

It's like that website www.birminghamitsnotshit.com you just think why bother when everyone knows it is. That fire as well reminds me of the room where Clark Kent shags Lois Lane at Niagra Falls.

[Renton 22686]

It's like that website www.birminghamitsnotshit.com you just think why bother when everyone knows it is. That fire as well reminds me of the room where Clark Kent shags Lois Lane at Niagra Falls.

 

I've got this book '501 greatest cities in the world' or something. The UK has loads of entries including some really shitty places like Bangor. Birmingham is conspicuous by its absence.

[Meenzer 15913]

Some geezer called Mulrooney in the 80s?

Aye. And all I know about him is his son used to host Canadian Idol.

[Guest Stevie]

It's like that website www.birminghamitsnotshit.com you just think why bother when everyone knows it is. That fire as well reminds me of the room where Clark Kent shags Lois Lane at Niagra Falls.

 

I've got this book '501 greatest cities in the world' or something. The UK has loads of entries including some really shitty places like Bangor. Birmingham is conspicuous by its absence.

Where in the top 20 is Newcastle?

[The Fish 11128]

Fucking hate Birmingham, it's worse than Liverpool and Sheffield in my eyes. Ity's just a sprawling mess. A link on that site Stevie mentioned directs you 2km out of the city to find somewhere good for a night out...

[Guest Stevie]

Fucking hate Birmingham, it's worse than Liverpool and Sheffield in my eyes. Ity's just a sprawling mess. A link on that site Stevie mentioned directs you 2km out of the city to find somewhere good for a night out...

Are you missing a 0 out there Fish?

[tooner 243]

That pic sure don't help your Canada ain't boring craic.

 

 

HAHAHA......exactly my point though. No wonder people think we're boring.

 

Trudeau was the most well known Prime Minister (Stevie were in the Commonwealth), as for royal antics he did slide down the bannisters at Buckingham Palace and did a piruette behind 'Liz when she visited.

 

This international amnesia of all things Canadian is what fuels our passive/aggressive nationalistic side.

check out this vid

 

Edited March 25, 2009 by tooner

[Guest Stevie]

That pic sure don't help your Canada ain't boring craic.

 

 

HAHAHA......exactly my point though. No wonder people think we're boring.

 

Trudeau was the most well known Prime Minister (Stevie were in the Commonwealth), as for royal antics he did slide down the bannisters at Buckingham Palace and did a piruette behind 'Liz when she visited.

 

This international amnesia of all things Canadian is what fuels our passive/aggressive nationalistic side.

check out this vid

 

I thought that was mountains in Cyprus. I don't think it's international amnesia of Canada neither, because you have to have some knowledge of a place to lose in the first place before it becomes amnesia.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Stevie