Blogs @ Augusta.comLooking for photos? Check out Spotted

Recent comments

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Please sign in to post or comment.

It's time to attack Canada

Posted by The_Weasel on December 13, 2005 - 4:03 PM

Last week, the Secretary of Defense made it clear that the biggest problem in Iraq was not the insurgents, al-Qaida operatives or the deadly roadside bombing. It was, in fact, the media.

The media is focusing on the negative things like bombings, kidnappings and torture, which make it really hard for the Iraqi government to attract tourists to their desert paradise.

Now that the Iraqi election is over, a major accomplishment for the U.S. government, it’s time to turn our attention to other countries we need to invade.

There are some obvious choices: North Korea and Iran. But after a bruising war in Iraq, the U.S. should look for an easier target.

The Weasel suggests Canada.

Attacking our neighbor to the north would have many advantages. They speak the same language, the cost to transport our troops to the war zone would be minimal and they have oil. OK, the oil is locked in rocks that have to be cooked, but global warming will take care of that over time.

Using the same evidence used to make a “case against Iraq,“ The Weasel will now make a case that a clear and present danger to the U.S. lurks right across our border - the evil empire of Canada.

* * * *

Clearly, Canada and their regime will stop at nothing until something stops them.

- Surveillance has shown Canada has at least 18 ice cream trucks that could be converted to mobile biological weapons labs.

- Audio tapes of intercepted phone conversations between Canadian military officers show the Canadian army is prepared to strike the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.

Here is the transcript that proves it:

Unidentified soldier #1: Hey, Bob. Got the time.
Unidentified soldier #2: Eh?

Unidentified soldier #1: Time, Bob. Got the time?
Unidentified soldier #2: Thursday.

Obviously, they are speaking in a very clever code.

- The Canadian government conveniently could not find al-Qaida operative Ahmed Ressam for more than a year, while he lived among friends in Canada. Perhaps it was the 130 pounds of plastic explosives, two 22 oz. plastic bottles of nitro glycol, and a map of LAX he was hiding behind that made him so difficult to find.

- Recently declassified satellite pictures show what might have been 15 munitions bunkers that could have contained weapons of mass destruction. The site was hurriedly “bulldozed“ just before a retail store was built on the land.

- If a nuclear missile were to be fired from Niagra Falls, Canada, it would strike the U.S. in .0097 seconds. According to civil defense officials, that would barely give this country enough time to duck and cover.

- Most Canadians would be delighted to be invaded, especially those French-speaking citizens. The residents would welcome us with flowers, or maple syrup, or something. It’s a “slam-dunk!”

* * * *

The Weasel will return after the holidays with predictions for 2006.

-Pop goes The Weasel

Submitted by stormin96 on December 18, 2005 - 8:01 AM.

As a Canadian reading this article it is quite humourous. Perhaps the reason you would choose to invade is the easy access to health care and the fact most Canadians couldn't shoot a gun if they had one. It is nice to read an article on Canada so that our neighbours to the south remember we are here.


Submitted by ddfelak on December 24, 2005 - 8:26 AM.

What a waste of time to read what you wrote.


Submitted by mydtwc on December 31, 2005 - 12:06 PM.

ddfelak, Weasel's reasoning for attacking Canada is as sound as our reasons for attacking Iraq. You know! The exaggerated intelligence on the "Weapons Of Mass Destruction". The "We are Liberating The Iraqi people". You know the Iraqi people that 80 percent of want us out of the country. The Iraqi people that 40 percent of think it is alright to kill Americans. Of course there's always the good old standby 9/11 reason. You know the 9/11 that it has been proven that Saddam Hussein or Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with.

Now while I'll be the first to admit Hussein was a bad bad man that needing getting rid of, does that rise to the level of justification for a pre-emptive strike on a soverign nation? If it does there are a lot more we had better be making pre-emptive strikes against that present much more of a threat and danger to this country than Iraq ever did or could.