# War In Iraq Debate



## scm77 (5 Feb 2004)

Me and a couple of my buddies were having a discussion about the war in iraq today.  I personally was always in favour of it.  Today one of my friends brought up a good point.

September 11, approx. 3000 people were killed by terrorists.  The attitude of America was kill those pieces of s--t that did this.  They go to war in Afghanistan and everybody supports it (mostly).

Saddam Hussein in the decades he was in power inprisons, tortures and executes hundreds of thousands of people, he invades two countries, he uses chemical weapons on his own people, he launched scuds at Israel, he violates UN resolutions and he fails to prove he destroyed all his chemical weapons.  All this and most a large percent of americans say "Oh leave him alone he hasn‘t done anything to us."  

The problem with the US is that alot of them are self centered.  They don‘t realise that the people in Iraq didn‘t have the freedom to protest agains their government.  The US is really the only country that can do anything significant to help them.  It doesn‘t matter if he didn‘t have any WMD‘s before the war because he had and used them in the past.  Saddam is gone for good.  The Middle East and the entire world are safer now.


There‘s not really a point to this thread, I‘m not asking any specific questions.  I just thought it was something interesting.  I would like to hear your thoughts about americans only caring about themselves and how attitudes changed from the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (5 Feb 2004)

Well, the US gave those chemical to Iraq in the 80‘s to fight the Iranians.  Back  in the 80‘s the US liked Saddam and didn‘t like Iran.  So the US supported Hussien, along with some other guys you were fighting the US enemy‘s of the 80‘s.  Hint Hint...its Osama.  There are pictures of Donnie Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and javing a laugh.  Back then old Donnie had a lot less grey hair.  So really, behind all this freeing Iraq reasoning.  It‘s really the US trying to get their toys back.


----------



## Paul F (6 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan:
> [qb]   Back  in the 80‘s the US liked Saddam and didn‘t like Iran.   [/qb]


I wouldn‘t say the US liked Saddam per say, more like he was seen as the lesser of two evils.


----------



## John Nayduk (6 Feb 2004)

Let's not forget that every country will act in their own best interest first.  That's the job of any government.  If the Americans choose not invade Iraq during those dark years, it was because it was not in their best interest.  The bad guys in Afghanistan became their best interest after 9/11.  I'm sure that if 9/11 hadn't happened, then they wouldn't give a rat's buttocks what happened in Afghanistan, either.  
Just because the U.S. have invested in their military and choose to be the big kid on the block doesn't make them obligated to do any thing for anybody who choose not to invest in their own militaries.  It's like if I don't invest in a lawn mower, why should my neighbour be obligated to come over and cut my grass for me UNLESS it bugs him so much that he can't stand it.  Then he's acting in his own best interest, not mine.  The result is the same; I get my grass cut but it's on his terms, not mine.
So if we don't bother to invest in our military, why should the Americans be obligated to help us out UNTIL it becomes in their best interest and then they will do it on their terms, not ours and we only have ourselves to blame.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Feb 2004)

Hey ARG would that work as well with dishes for the wife?


----------



## John Nayduk (6 Feb 2004)

Hasn‘t so far.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2004)

I‘ve given this example before, but I think it is a good analogy.  Was Lend-Lease morally wrong in the fact that it supported Stalinist Russia, a regime that was on par with Nazi Germany?



> Well, the US gave those chemical to Iraq in the 80‘s to fight the Iranians. Back in the 80‘s the US liked Saddam and didn‘t like Iran. So the US supported Hussien, along with some other guys you were fighting the US enemy‘s of the 80‘s. Hint Hint...its Osama. There are pictures of Donnie Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and javing a laugh. Back then old Donnie had a lot less grey hair. So really, behind all this freeing Iraq reasoning. It‘s really the US trying to get their toys back.


I would like to see the proof on this.  I can‘t see the American‘s giving Saddam WMD as well as arming Israel at the same time.  If I recall, the Soviet Union was the number one military supplier to Hussein (those weren‘t burnt out M-60‘s in the sandbox).


----------



## tmbluesbflat (9 Feb 2004)

You have to go back a few years to see who the players are, The US is about oil not about humanitarian etc. Sadam bad as he was, was not as bad as who put him in power and who gave him the weapons and who helped him in the use thereof. The US put him there so that the IRAQI people could be controlled in the interests of the US not in their own interests, and of course they are not Arabs, so they were a convenient force to be used against any Muslims who were against the US stealing their assets such as Iran etc. It helps if you read something in the way of honest reporting, a difficult thing to do in these days of the politically correct censorship.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2004)

Please, provide us with an example of some honest reporting than.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2004)

> The US is about oil not about humanitarian etc


On another note, please tell me where I may find oil in Kosovo.



> Sadam bad as he was, was not as bad as who put him in power and who gave him the weapons and who helped him in the use thereof.


On a third note, please tell me where I can find mass graves containing the victims of state sponsered terrorism in the continental United States.

Tmbulbisburntout, unless you are willing to provide a reasonable argument in a coherent sentence (hopefully utilizing punctuation and periods), refrain from bombarding us with your crappy, juvenile conspiracy theories.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Feb 2004)

I can‘t remember - was there oil in Somalia?


----------



## Paul F (9 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Another Recce Guy:
> [qb]   The bad guys in Afghanistan became their best interest after 9/11.  I'm sure that if 9/11 hadn't happened, then they wouldn't give a rat's buttocks what happened in Afghanistan, either.
> [/qb]


Actually, I would argue that. The US government reportedly was negotiating with the Taliban for them to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan. Repordedly they asked the Taliban to expel him 30 times before 9/11 - 27 under the Clinton administration and 3 under the Bush administration.


----------



## Slim (9 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by muskrat89:
> [qb] I can‘t remember - was there oil in Somalia? [/qb]


No... Somalia was about humanitarian aid, period.

No oil or other commodities that could be exported to pluck the country out of the crappy place it is now.

Just civil war, and it‘s all "whose got the guns".

Slim


----------



## Paul F (9 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by tmbluesbflat:
> [qb] The US is about oil not about humanitarian etc.  [/qb]


If the US is all about oil, why did they go half way around the world to get it in Iraq, spending billions on removing Saddam and even more money on rebuilding Iraq when millions of Americans didn‘t want the war in the first place? The USA could easily have gotten this oil they are "about" in Alaska for a cheaper price in terms of money, and human life.


----------



## koalorka (9 Feb 2004)

Infanteer, Iraq‘s WMD‘s were supplied by the US, France and Germany, there is no doubt in that. The US used Saddam as a tool to fight the fundamentalist revolution from spreading on to other middle-eastern countries without compromising the lives of americans. After the war Saddam was short on cash and suprisingly - crude oil (Iraq‘s key oil deposits around Basrah were bombed and destroyed by Iranians) so he invaded the helpless and wealthy Kuwait.


Somalia and Kosovo go to prove that with a responsible leader the US still can enforce peace and provide aid around the world.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2004)

> Infanteer, Iraq‘s WMD‘s were supplied by the US, France and Germany, there is no doubt in that.


 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm 

I see that Iraq produced its own stocks.  Originally it imported the chemicals, but big deal, I could go to Costco and get most of those things.  Unless your going to offer positive proof that a Western country trucked in mustard gas, I still say your out to lunch.



> Somalia and Kosovo go to prove that with a responsible leader the US still can enforce peace and provide aid around the world.


Hmmm...are you getting at Clinton?  Remember, Bush Sr. sent the troops into Somalia...it was Clinton who pulled them out as a knee jerk reaction to losses sustained by Task Force Ranger.  It is the same Clinton who responded to terrorist attacks on the US by firing a couple Tomahawk‘s into the middle of the Sudan.

Where‘s your hero now?


----------



## tmbluesbflat (15 Feb 2004)

what is not generally known it appears is that the largest proven oil reserves in the world is in an area just north of Iraq, the are is Known As the Caspian Basin. What the US knows is that their reserves in Alaska are running out, gone completely in perhaps 40 years but of diminishing volumes every year until nada! This is or should be general knowledge by every man or woman in our society. The war is and will always be the oil! Also what is general knowledge in most places in our society, is that the Bin Laden family have been financial supporters of the Bush family since or maybe even before the 70‘s, yes including
Osama!


----------



## tmbluesbflat (15 Feb 2004)

It is a shame to see people acting like a lynch mob, a very American trait by the way. I always thought Canadians were more inclined to follow the rule of law, it however appears that "Rambo" mentality rears it‘s stupid head all to often


----------



## tmbluesbflat (15 Feb 2004)

I must apologize to one contributer here, I realise that the concept of a compound, complex sentence, is perhaps beyond the ken of more simple folk, I will try to restrain myself in the future.


----------



## nULL (15 Feb 2004)

the war is over, politically. it‘s been done, no backing out now. why debate this? personal opinions on whether Joe XXX supported it are useless and irrelevant.

just my 2 pence


----------



## Enzo (15 Feb 2004)

TM - " what is not generally known it appears is that the largest proven oil reserves in the world is in an area just north of Iraq, the are is Known As the Caspian Basin. "

"I realise that the concept of a compound, complex sentence, is perhaps beyond the ken of more simple folk, I will try to restrain myself in the future."


TM, I‘m sorry dude, but you are becoming your own worst enemy. Before you critique others you should preview your posts to correct your many grammatical errors. I raise this point to counter your condescending tone. Your demeanor affects the points upon which you are trying to base your arguments. As a certain politician recently highlighted, expressing one‘s views in anything other than an educated manner can reflect poorly upon that person.

Cheers...


----------



## SFontaine (15 Feb 2004)

(Apology in advance if some of this crap has already been shot down, I just skimmed through the post)



> Iraq‘s WMD‘s were supplied by the US, France and Germany, there is no doubt in that.


Really?
  http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf  

  http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17/123424.shtml  


Try to learn the facts before spouting off left wing crap.



> Somalia and Kosovo go to prove that with a responsible leader the US still can enforce peace and provide aid around the world.


Yup President George HW Bush  went into Somalia to help the Somalis and then all the efforts and sucesses of the missions were effed over by the Clinton Adminstration and their cowardice.



> The US is about oil not about humanitarian etc.


Right. WW1 and 2 was for oil, Korea was for oil, Vietnam was for oil, Desert Storm was for oil, Somalia and Kosovo were for oil and Afghanistan.. Yup you guessed it. Oil.
 



> All this and most a large percent of americans say "Oh leave him alone he hasn‘t done anything to us."


The reason the US cared about the plight of the Iraqi people and the threat Saddam Hussein posed AFTER 9/11 was because the US now genuinely fears that there are people out there who can do damage and people out there who kill civilians without due cause. 
The way everything was percevied changed after 9/11



> It is a shame to see people acting like a lynch mob, a very American trait by the way. I always thought Canadians were more inclined to follow the rule of law, it however appears that "Rambo" mentality rears it‘s stupid head all to often


That doesn‘t even make any sense
1) How are the defenders of the Iraq war being a lynch mob? We‘re just shutting down some of the uninformed BS that some of your little friends are spouting.

2) How are lynch mobs an American trait? I can tell you right now that during the Canadian-American Olympic Games a friend of mine said "I don‘t really like team Canada to be honest" and had to run from a group of roughly 10-15 people intent on hurting him.

Yeah very American trait.


----------



## pissedpat (17 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by SFontaine:
> [qb] (Apology in advance if some of this crap has already been shot down, I just skimmed through the post)
> 
> 
> ...


Not quite sure what you were getting at with this first comments and the listing of web sites so I clicked them. Now how does a report titled "conventional arms sales" relate to weapons of mass destruction? The second article is even less useful, it fails entirely to mention WMDs. Near the end it justifies the giving of tacticle information to Iraq because the author claims that Ayatollah Khomeini was "the greatest fear in the gulf" the report then goes on to boast about how America gave Iran conventional weapons to beat Saddam. How kind. Never mentioned the chemicals that america gave to Saddam to support his WMD plans though. The best part of your post has to be that the first report disproves the second report. The basis of the second article is that no american items are in use in the Iraqi military but the sales report in the first documents helecopter sales. I laughed when I got to the bottom of the page and saw the link for boycotting France.


----------



## SFontaine (17 Feb 2004)

The second article explains all the weapons givin to Iraq by other countries, and America is not there. They‘d mentioned weapon supplies if the US had. 

And do you have any concrete evidence the United States gave Saddam any such weapons anyway?


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Feb 2004)

Do you have evidence that the US didnt?

We the public dont know all the little details to situations such as these, and for good reason. its the countries duty to vote in someone they feel would handle such information with discretion and to the benefit of the country. The American people have voted in Bush and now they must deal with the fact that they arent going to be given every little snippit of info to satisfy them.

This is why Im baffled that these Anti-War activists actually feel they have a valid stand. The amount of information they base their position on is quite small.

Theres always more to a situation such as Iraq, and just because Bush doesnt come out with Documents from the Pentagon and read em over CNN, doesnt mean they dont have a reason to go to war. 

People need to start trusting their leaders to do the right thing, after all..they did vote him in.

just my 2 cents.


----------



## pissedpat (17 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by SFontaine:
> [qb] The second article explains all the weapons givin to Iraq by other countries, and America is not there. They‘d mentioned weapon supplies if the US had.
> 
> And do you have any concrete evidence the United States gave Saddam any such weapons anyway? [/qb]


Ummmm, would you count the first article as concrete evidence? It clearly states that a number of american choppers were sent and used by the Iraqi military. Perhapse they didn‘t mention that because they were biased? As for chemical weapons, even the right wing flag flying Bush loving media groups have aknowledged that it gave the essential chemicals to Iraq.



> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]   http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm
> 
> I see that Iraq produced its own stocks.  Originally it imported the chemicals, but big deal, I could go to Costco and get most of those things.  Unless your going to offer positive proof that a Western country trucked in mustard gas, I still say your out to lunch.
> [/qb]


Hmmmm, try as I might but I couldn‘t find: methyl phosphonyl chloride, phosphorous pentasulphide, ethylene oxide and di-isopropylamine listed anywhere on the costco web site, are these items that you have to go to the costo and pick up your self?  :dontpanic:


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Feb 2004)

could anybody here provide a source listing the chemicals sold to Iraq and what date? i believe it was 1984, but im not sure. i‘ve searched everywhere and am unsuccessful.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2004)

Check www.fas.org

Good site to start with for all matters military.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Feb 2004)

thanx.


----------



## Sgt.Fitzpatrick (29 Jun 2004)

I think so Hussien was  I the need of a good ass kicking and he killed to many women and children.Hussien is the devil and the Hittler of are time.

 :gunner:  DIE!                 :evil:


----------



## Nox (26 Nov 2004)

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by US forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. At Saddams most ruthless time in power he was alleged to have gased over 10,000 kurds in the kurd attempt of a rebellion. Saddam is going on trial for his crimes but his crime is 1/10 of bush's in term of death toll. Should Bush be brought to account for his crimes against humanity?

When will the killing end?


----------



## tabernac (26 Nov 2004)

HEY HEY, look who decided to show up...


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (26 Nov 2004)

The killing will end when the insurgents decide so..


----------



## Bograt (26 Nov 2004)

Nox said:
			
		

> About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by US forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. At Saddams most ruthless time in power he was alleged to have gased over 10,000 kurds in the kurd attempt of a rebellion. Saddam is going on trial for his crimes but his crime is 1/10 of bush's in term of death toll. Should Bush be brought to account for his crimes against humanity?
> 
> When will the killing end?


sniff sniff. Do you smell that? Did someone just fart?


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (26 Nov 2004)

Politics shouldn't get involved in war, thats a dangerous thing to do. You dont see senators with children on the ground in Iraq.
Let soldiers fight soldiers, they're just doing their job, what they were told to do. It is war, and civilians will die, they're trying to bring peace to the country.


----------



## Dogboy (26 Nov 2004)

or when the invaders leave 

its a two sided coin remember.

would you just sit at home if a foreign power came in changed our government ruin our economy and put someone they like in power. 
ya I'm sher you'd just lay down and say nothing. 
not that all the insergens are good guys but you've got to admirer they guts tho


----------



## Big Foot (26 Nov 2004)

No matter how you look at it, innocent civilians are being killed and theres almost nothing that can be done to prevent it. What a shame...


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> or when the invaders leave
> 
> its a two sided coin remember.
> 
> ...



If the Americans had invaded, captured Jean Chretien, disbanded parliament, implemented a proper democracy, and helped properly re-arm our military....I don't think you'd see too many of us complaining  ;D


----------



## Northern Touch (26 Nov 2004)

Nox said:
			
		

> About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by US forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. At Saddams most ruthless time in power he was alleged to have gased over 10,000 kurds in the kurd attempt of a rebellion. Saddam is going on trial for his crimes but his crime is 1/10 of bush's in term of death toll. Should Bush be brought to account for his crimes against humanity?
> 
> When will the killing end?



Where do you get this "reliable" study from?


----------



## tabernac (26 Nov 2004)

"If the Americans had invaded, captured Jean Chretien, disbanded parliament, implemented a proper democracy, and helped properly re-arm our military....I don't think you'd see too many of us complaining."

Well said ;D


----------



## scm77 (26 Nov 2004)

100,000 is an estimate by scientists who admit that the data they used was of "limited precision".  NGO's estimate it to be between 10-30,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-28-casualties_x.htm


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> 100,000 is an estimate by scientists who admit that the data they used was of "limited precision".  NGO's estimate it to be between 10-30,000.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-28-casualties_x.htm



Yeah it's amazing how the "estimated" number is always 100,000.  During the first gulf war, it was "estimated" that the US forces "slaughtered" 100,000 Iraqis on the Highway of Death.  Turned out to be less than 50,000.  In Kosovo, it was "estimated" that the Serbs "slaughtered" 100,000 Kosovars.  Turned out to be roughly 3,000.  Most of the time when you hear someone quoting an "estimate" of 100,000, it turns out that their method of estimation was something along the line of "well, 100,000 seems like a good number, let's use that".


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Nov 2004)

> not that all the insergens are good guys but you've got to admirer they guts tho



So dogboy you admire people that cut the heads off of people and shoot women in cold blood. You must be a lot of fun at parties.  :


----------



## tabernac (26 Nov 2004)

> You must be a lot of fun at parties.



My Mr Wolf, What a sense of humor you have...


----------



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> If the Americans had invaded, captured Jean Chretien, disbanded parliament, implemented a proper democracy, and helped properly re-arm our military....I don't think you'd see too many of us complaining   ;D



I would be. It's not like this parliament was forced on us. We, the Canadian people, elected it of our own free will. With democracy people get what they ask for, even if it isn't what's best for them, but at least they get the choice. 

It's also important to note that in the event of any successful invasion of Canada, a large number of the people who post here (the people that would benefit from better equipment) would not be around to see any of the results. There's that little issue of taking an oath... 

Equating the invasion of Iraq to a hypothetical invasion of Canada is just stupid. One nation was forced to suffer under a tyrant that it didn't choose, so invading to give them a choice eventually gives them something better in the end. The other voted for it's tyrant and gets to pick a new one every few years anyway, so invading gets them... the exact same thing, but with lots of people dead and a few years of no choice at all.

Oh yes, and regarding "propper" democracy, I much prefer our system, warts and all, over that of the US. Ours may need a bit of overhauling, but switching to their system would definitely be a step in the wrong direction.

edit: spell check aparently causes more typos than it fixes


----------



## JBP (26 Nov 2004)

> "If the Americans had invaded, captured Jean Chretien, disbanded parliament, implemented a proper democracy, and helped properly re-arm our military....I don't think you'd see too many of us complaining."
> 
> Well said



BOTH of you who were involved in this post should grow up. You should be ashamed for saying such a thing if your a member of the CF and it's sad that your one of the soldiers that swore an oath to protect our people.

Go move to the USA and buy a shotgun and chew on some grass and hang out with Bush's pals if you want it so bad! No one is stopping you are they?

I find a statement like that absolutely ridiculous from someone in the military and on this website. It disgusts me and that's my opinion. You shouldn't even bother being in the CF if you honestly believe+think like that!

It truly makes me sad.


PS> Why? Why would you say such a horrible thing? PM me a response since I don't want to clutter this thread with a verbal backlash if that's what you feel must justify your words for an excuse.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Nov 2004)

> Go move to the USA and buy a shotgun and chew on some grass and hang out with Bush's pals if you want it so bad! No one is stopping you are they?



There are Americans on this site. My wife and child are American. I served my country for over 13 years, cupcake. I was the founder of New Brunswick's ANAVETS Unit...I was and am a proud Canadian citizen that happens to live in the US.

Quite frankly, I am growing weary of the anti-American rhetoric, and as a Moderator, will start treating comments like this the same as I would treat a comment that was offensive to a religion, colour, gender, orientation, etc. We have rules of conduct here, and have rules regarding the substantiation of posts/opinions. Stick to facts. 

There are many, experienced posters here that demonstrate and back-up their positions against US actions and policies without sounding like a 23 year old Michael Moore wannabee.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Nov 2004)

The oath is one of allegiance to the Queen; there's surprisingly little in it about defending the institutions, government, or people of Canada.  Call me a heretic, but it would not surprise me if there was very little enthusiasm among the combat-capable members of the CF to risk death facing down the US on behalf of a government and people that has treated its armed forces and responsibilities of security so lightly.  That is probably a test of loyalty we really don't want to test; there is an old axiom of leadership about never giving an order that can't or won't be obeyed.  However, come the day, I suppose lawful authority might give a lawful command to fight to the death.  And, come the day, one might see lawful and honourable surrenders arranged in the field under flags of truce.  Under traditional rules of jus ad bellum, a hopeless cause is an unjust cause for which to make war.  Of course, were the government of the day and the people who adore Canadian Values to flock to the budget estimates and the recruiting centres to fervently equip, man, and sustain armed forces capable of defending the nation against any reasonably foreseeable US incursion, the cause of defending Canadian Values would certainly not be hopeless.

I fear I do not place much hope in the strength of oaths; life and limb are rarely at risk in marriage yet those oaths are cast aside for much lesser conveniences than the imperative of survival.  Such are the wages of social progress and the dogged pursuit of the primacy of license and privilege.

However, since I suspect most Canadians would be inclined to vote Democrat, we need not fear invasion until Democrats control the US institutions with the lawful authority to make war.

I speak for no-one; it's just something for you (collectively) to mull over in your own minds.


----------



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> Go move to the USA and buy a shotgun and chew on some grass and hang out with Bush's pals if you want it so bad!



I'd have to agree with Muskrat here. Try "Go move to the USA and buy a shotgun and chew on some grass and hang out with Bush's pals if you want it so bad" instead.

Crewing grass with a shotgun in hand can be done just fine in Alberta   :dontpanic:




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The oath is one of allegiance to the Queen; there's surprisingly little in it about defending the institutions, government, or people of Canada...



The Queen is a figurehead representing the Canadian people. As such, I view my oath to the Queen as an oath to the Canadian people, implying an oath to serve the government chosen by the people to represent them.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I fear I do not place much hope in the strength of oaths; life and limb are rarely at risk in marriage yet those oaths are cast aside for much lesser conveniences than the imperative of survival. Such are the wages of social progress and the dogged pursuit of the primacy of license and privilege.



"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature..." John Stuart Mill

People choose how they live.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Nov 2004)

>The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety

That's my point.  What would there be about exchanging masters in Ottawa for masters in Washington that would motivate you to die fighting?


----------



## tabernac (27 Nov 2004)

> I am growing weary of the anti-American rhetoric, and as a Moderator, will start treating comments like this the same as I would treat a comment that was offensive to a religion, colour, gender, orientation, etc. We have rules of conduct here, and have rules regarding the substantiation of posts/opinions.



I would just like to call attention to the fact that Nox, or Jihad Warrior, has been banned for several of his posts, most recently today at noon, when he posted something derogatory about Americans.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Nov 2004)

Actually thats NOT the reason, Pea Brain Warrior was banned, one of his by-lines was horribly distasteful, and I echo Muskrat's sentiment,...I will not stand for anti-Americanism[or anti-anyone]  UNLESS you have facts to back it up.   

NOW HEAR THIS........I am starting to lose patience with some of the racist/sexist/etc...attitudes that are starting to surface, we have cleaned house before and will do it again, if you are in doubt about your post, then refer to the "Conduct Quidelines"
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Bruce


----------



## JBP (28 Nov 2004)

Fair enough warning indeed, I suppose my post was too broad, the fixed suggestion of:



> I'd have to agree with Muskrat here. Try "Go move to the USA and buy a shotgun and chew on some grass and hang out with Bush's pals if you want it so bad" instead.



With added that I meant only that it was the "bible belt" and southern states that backed Bush up for the most part. I could have left out the insulting part and I will go so far as to understand if the moderators give me a "verbal" on my account if they feel the necessity.

In response to this:


> The Queen is a figurehead representing the Canadian people. As such, I view my oath to the Queen as an oath to the Canadian people, implying an oath to serve the government chosen by the people to represent them.



That is exactly how I view the situation as well.   

Joe
PS> Apologies to those offended for my earlier post. The post 





> If the Americans had invaded, captured Jean Chretien, disbanded parliament, implemented a proper democracy, and helped properly re-arm our military....I don't think you'd see too many of us complaining.


 really hit a "soft" spot for me. Again, please accept my apologies!
 :-X


----------



## karpovage (28 Nov 2004)

Private Joe, you shot yourself in the foot again. I happen to live in the north and don't bible thump and I backed my President. And my liberal next door neighbor who voted for John Kerry owns 4 shotguns, is an avid hunter, lives in a rural area and happens to be an IT Director of a public school system. So, here's your opportunity to bash Americans and bash my President. yet again. Let's get it right this time. But you may want to move your other foot or at least check your ammo.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2004)

Quote,
_I happen to live in the north and don't bible thump and I backed my President. And my liberal next door neighbor who voted for John Kerry owns 4 shotguns, is an avid hunter, lives in a rural area and happens to be an IT Director of a public school system._

Karpovage, ...come on whats up with that? How can we ever pin you guys down if you won't stay in sterotype. Sheesh
 ;D


----------



## karpovage (28 Nov 2004)

Moving targets are harder to blast ;D

Bruce, I do appreciate you clamping down on some of the negativity and baseless allegations. These Forums are both informative and very entertaining and you guys do a great job of flushing the toilet when it overflows.


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Nov 2004)

Well, looks like the topic moved from the war in Iraq to canadian sovereignty. Well, as a canadian, who feels that the queen is most important to canadian sovereignty and our history. This country is very left. I dont see much for nationalism in canada, and its a shame. Not trying to sound like a facist, but citizens take pride in their country through their military. Now, when you let ingore your military, national pride ussually drops. Today, as a young person, its hard to be proud of canada in the past 50 years. I find reading canadian history from 1900 to 1960 is when canada truly shined. 

  I also believe anti americanism fuels canadian nationalism. Many people in my hometown resent americans, but they arent necessarily proud to be canadian either. What i mean by canadian nationalism is people actually singing "O canada" and "god save the queen" and knowing all the words, and saying it loudly, not under their breath. I do believe the liberal goverment is making attempts to establish a canadian culture and a canadian way of life. 

 I also couldnt believe the Liberal goverment banned fox 24 hour news from canadian television.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Nov 2004)

Sorry Joe, I've been gone for a few days, but since I'm the one who made the horrible horrible comment that so upset your delicate sensibilities, I figgured I'd clarify a few things for you now.

1)  It was a joke.  Go to www.ebay.ca and look up "sense of humour".

2)  I said that not too many of us would be complaining if the US had invaded, replaced Johnny, etc.  I didn't say that I wouldn't follow orders.  My personal beliefs are irrelevant.  If my chain of command orders me to pick up a rifle and defend our borders, that's what I'll do.

3)  If the US for some unfanthomable reason did decide to invade Canada, both American and Canadian soldiers would be equaly reluctant to take up arms against eachother.  I've worked with US soldiers, I know they're good people, and I consider quite a few of them to be my friends.  If they invaded, I'd do my best to follow orders, but I know I'd have one hell of a hard time killing people who have been our friends and neighbours for more than a century.  I'm sure that YOU on the other hand would have no problem blowing away those shotgun-toting wife-beater wearing trailer trash american rednecks, so I guess we'll stick you on the front lines.  Put OCAP and "homes not bombs" on your flanks.  If we throw enough of these anti-American types in the front, the US forces might turn around before ever reaching Ottawa.  Mission accomplished, grab some Canadian beer for the trip, let's go home.


And just to be on the safe side and avoid death-by-Muskrat, I'm going to emphasise here that the line abour rednecks was pure sarcasm and not intended to insult any group.  If any of the mods still have a problem with it, feel free to change it or let me know and I'll do it.



			
				Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> I also believe anti americanism fuels canadian nationalism. Many people in my hometown resent americans, but they arent necessarily proud to be canadian either. What i mean by canadian nationalism is people actually singing "O canada" and "god save the queen" and knowing all the words, and saying it loudly, not under their breath. I do believe the liberal goverment is making attempts to establish a canadian culture and a canadian way of life.



One thing I noticed quite recently is that those who ARE proud to be Canadian are also a lot more likely to be tolerant of or even friendly to our friends south of the border.  Those whom I think of as militant anti-americans tend to be quite proud of belonging to some group or another, but don't seem to have much pride in being Canadian.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Nov 2004)

okay, to clear something up, all the guys saying "the us is about oil not humanitarian aid" and the ones saying "what about somalia and kosovo etc"

those were totally different administrations.I know ltos of americans, theyre alright. The clinton government did some good things.You would far more accurate in saying
the Bush administration is all about oil and money and not about humanitarian aid.Look whats happening in darfur.Any money there? nope. what about korea? nope, none there.
ukraine? no wait, no money.Just different cabinets man.Dont judge their entire country on the decesions and greed of a handful of monsters.Canada has its own monsters.Everybody does.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Nov 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> okay, to clear something up, all the guys saying "the us is about oil not humanitarian aid" and the ones saying "what about somalia and kosovo etc"
> those were totally different administrations.I know ltos of americans, theyre alright. The clinton government did some good things.You would far more accurate in saying
> the Bush administration is all about oil and money and not about humanitarian aid.Look whats happening in darfur.Any money there? nope. what about korea? nope, none there.
> ukraine? no wait, no money.Just different cabinets man.Dont judge their entire country on the decesions and greed of a handful of monsters.Canada has its own monsters.Everybody does.



So let me get this straight....

    Yugoslavia (a soverign nation) moves it's army into Kosovo (a "state" within the country of Yugoslavia) in order to stop the KLA (Albanian terrorists living in Kosovo) from killing Serbian civilians who reside in Kosovo.  The UN and various "officials" estimate that 100,000 Albanians are being "ethinicaly cleansed" by the Serbian army, so Clinton bombs the capital of Yugoslavia and arms the KLA.  After the war, only 3,272 civilian are found to have "dissapeared" in Kosovo, both Kosovar Albainans and Kosovar Serbs amongst them.

And Clintons war is a good thing?

    Meanwhile, Sadam kills off 300,000 of his own people, develops chemical and biological weapons, defies years of UN resolutions, and sponsors terrorism....and when Bush decides to take a swing at him, that's a bad thing.

Give me a break.

It's also rather interesting that the war on Iraq generated so much more opposition than the bombing of Serbia.  The only explanations I can see, given the figures I just quoted, are that either people are really REALLY confused, or the lefties only like protesting when a Republican is in power.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2004)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> the Bush administration is all about oil and money and not about humanitarian aid.Look whats happening in darfur.Any money there? nope. what about Korea? nope, none there.
> Ukraine? no wait, no money.



Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, upbraided the UN for not taking action to stop the Genocide in Dafar. The Multilateralists are currently debating what is the definition of Genocide so they can then hold another meeting...

The Bush Administration is attempting to hold multi-lateral talks between North Korea and the surrounding nations to resolve the various difficulties (including the threat of Nuclear blackmail), but the "Dear Leader" has so far rebuffed attempts to resolve these situations to the satisfaction of the neighboring nations. The Clinton approach of offering aid in return for cessation of nuclear weapons development foundered because only the Americans were "straight up", the DKRP took the food, money and oil and happily went on building Nukes

The United States is currently monitoring the situation in the Ukraine, and so far refuse to recognize the elections there as valid.

Since we don't live in a universe of "friction free" economies, the US is applying their blood and treasure against the areas which have demonstrated direct threats against them. Afghanistan and Iraq were perhaps the biggest reservoirs of Jihadis and biggest cash sponsors respectively, but Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and several lesser lights are probably in the gunsights right now. Should the situation change , the main effort of the United States will change as well.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Nov 2004)

> And just to be on the safe side and avoid death-by-Muskrat



 ;D

48 - First of all, Mods aren't circling, just waiting to pounce...  Next, when someone is tip-toeing along the gray areas of decorum, the mods consider past posts, attitudes, contributions, etc., of the poster, before deciding what to do or say (if anything)

Calling someone (including me) a redneck, coming from you, isn't going to spur me into action.  

Even when I don't agree, generally, I enjoy your posts....  carry on!


----------



## 48Highlander (29 Nov 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> 48 - First of all, Mods aren't circling, just waiting to pounce...  Next, when someone is tip-toeing along the gray areas of decorum, the mods consider past posts, attitudes, contributions, etc., of the poster, before deciding what to do or say (if anything)



    Yeah, I know the majority of the members here are reasonable human beings, and that the mods are amongst the best of any forum I've ever taken part in.  Just thought I'd play it safe.  I've taken to occasionaly posting on leftie forums like www.indymedia.org just to see what the other side has to say, and their mods tend to go into temper tantrums at the mere hint of a racial term, regaurdless of context.  Ofcourse, they wouldn't consider anything derigatory of Americans to be a racial term, but use a phrase like "camel jockey" and you're labeled a war-mongering baby-bayonetting imperialist nazi.  And summarily banned from the site.  It never ceases to amuse me how a website/organization dedicated to free thinking and freedom of speech is ten times quicker to censor someone than a website run by us warmongers and faschists   Anyway, like I said I was pretty sure nobody would take offense to what I said, so thank you for proving me right


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Nov 2004)

>If the US for some unfanthomable reason did decide to invade Canada, both American and Canadian soldiers would be equaly reluctant to take up arms against eachother.

I was waiting for someone to state the obvious.  The "test that should never be taken" applies equally to both nations after so many years of shared culture and history.  It would take almost unimaginable incompetence and stubbornness on the part of politicians in both countries to cast us into something which with hindsight would probably look more foolish than the opening moves of WWI.  It would be ironic were the soldiers to make a peace which the politicians could not maintain.


----------



## Dogboy (10 Dec 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> > not that all the insergens are good guys but you've got to admirer they guts tho
> 
> 
> 
> So dogboy you admire people that cut the heads off of people and shoot women in cold blood. You must be a lot of fun at parties.   :



sorry bin away for a bit 

with the logic in your statement I can assume that you support illegal detention touchier and human rights abuse along with the unnecessary killing of civilians?


did i say i supported the people doing the beheading?
NO don't lump me in like that 

all i say is don't call something black and wight when its clearly not 

their are people fighting the US believing their defending their home land (a valid point and brave SOBs)
and their are other who do the beheading thing (ssimpleterror)
their not all the same group 


their was a interview on the CBC last week from a Australia feed that was with a few "insurgents" and i fond it rather enlightening


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2004)

Busy boy, spreading your disjointed prose all over the forum. Stay in one spot, answer your problems, then move on. Either that, or go to bed and start fresh tomorrow. Maybe we'll make some sense of you then.


----------



## Slim (17 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Though I'm not to sure this board continues to represent "What's wrong with University campuses today"



We're not into self-flagelation and self-victimization if thats what you mean...

Here's something else to consider.

Imagine, if you will, what it would be like living in a militant Muslim State and under the conditions you have described...

Do you really think that the average person is all that excited about their living conditions under that regime? don't you think that they would want a CHANGE of government, instead of propping up the extremist leaders there now?!

Unless, of course they're (the general population that is) are being LIED TO about who's fault it really is! If thats the case then another country would see the plight of those people and help them out, don't you think?

Oh wait, the States has done that with Iraq already and all the peace-loving Hoohaw's didn't carte for that

Hmmm, what to do, what to do? 

Maybe all the peaceniks and University professors want an extremist state here in N.A...And you think that they're whining now...

Cheers

Slim


----------



## CivU (18 Dec 2004)

Bograt,

Apology accepted.  When alcohol is involved I feel accountability is difficult to hold someone to...people say things. It happens.

48,

"Is Israel also responsible for Canadian ghettos?"  I don't know where this came from. At the expense of bandwith and people's time you should probably keep comments relevant to what people actually stated in their posts.


"Oh, I don't know, how about American forces fighting to implement a fair democratic regime instead of letting Iraq be run by extrimists"

We will see how fair and democratic the next regime in place is.  Not unlike many other military interventions the United States has been involved in, the next leader will be essentially hand picked to rule the country in accordance with their interests.

"What suggests life has improved?  Nothing.  What's the point of your question?  Did you expect life for them to improve the day the first American tank rolled over the border?  Or do you suppose it's a proccess which, like most things in life, will take a lot of hard work and time before it has a positive effect?"

We're approaching two years...let me know when you find something...


----------



## Slim (18 Dec 2004)

> We're approaching two years...let me know when you find something...



I think that you'll find that the average Iraqi citizen is VERY happy that the US has taken Sadam away from power. These people were living ina country ruled by fear. People dissapearing in the night, women raped, fathers and husbands tortured...No rights for anyone. Now the Country is trying to change. Women are allowed to go to school for the first time ever and I can't see, for the life of me, how and why you and all the other students out there think that this is a bad thing.

By the way I have friends in the country working for PMC's who are constantly approached and thanked for having the courage to what they're doing to try and keep the country away from extremism...That you won't see on the news because it doesn't make for a good story "the West doing good" and all. 

Do you really want Iraq to return to the dark ages?

That makes no sense at all...CIVU there comes a time when you must turn and fight. If you're going for a soldier you need to learn that or you will not do very well at all!

Slim


----------



## CivU (18 Dec 2004)

"I think that you'll find that the average Iraqi citizen is VERY happy that the US has taken Sadam away from power"

I don't understand what this is based on.  Iraq remains a country filled with incredible violence and destruction, and from what I have read, while many Iraqi people are pleased with the removal of Saddam (an act in of itself I don't disagree with in principle) they are not pleased with the continued American occupation of the country.

"That you won't see on the news because it doesn't make for a good story "the West doing good" and all." 

I'm pretty certain Fox News or CNN would gladly put this sort of story on air.  It would certainly project a better image than the present death toll statistics and colour coded terror monitor that fills the gaps between Crossfire and Wolf Blitzer on CNN and the latest marry a transexual midget reality show on Fox...

"Do you really want Iraq to return to the dark ages?"

I'm not sure how this would happen?

"there comes a time when you must turn and fight. If you're going for a soldier you need to learn that or you will not do very well at all!"

I agree with you completely; except that the decision made in March 2003 was not the right time or for the right reasons...


----------



## Slim (18 Dec 2004)

agree with you completely; except that the decision made in March 2003 was not the right time or for the right reasons...

What makes you think, as an officer cadet in a civilian university abd being taught by leftist professors, that you know ANYTHING about the right time to turn and fight?!


----------



## CivU (18 Dec 2004)

"What makes you think, as an officer cadet in a civilian university abd being taught by leftist professors, that you know ANYTHING about the right time to turn and fight?!"

What makes you think as a retired Armoured Cpl of 35 years of age and the opposite political viewpoint of mine that you know ANYTHING about the basis for American foreign policy decisions?!

This line of reasoning is irrelevant as anyone could question anyone's knowledge on the nature of one situation or another.  With the exception of an area where someone is a particular expert, of which neither of us are on the items being debated here, nobody on this forum has anything other than their own background and knowledge gleemed from that to ascertain an opinion...

Also, what makes you think I'm being taught by leftist professors? What makes you capable of making a judgment on my knowledge of anything, including "the right time to turn and fight", based on information from a bio on an internet forum?  I could easily have more life experience than you in any number of areas, just as you could over me.  But that doesn't make either of our opinions meaningless...  

I think you need to take this discussion, as that's what it is, and recognize that every post is not a personal attack on your credibility as a human being...


----------



## mdh (18 Dec 2004)

A lot of this discussion reminds me of the old Cold War debates during the 1980s when the moral equivalency crowd was busy making every excuse for the Soviet Empire they could muster. And blaming America first. Those of us "of a certain vintage" will remember how outraged leftists took to the streets when NATO responded to the stationing of SS20 missiles in the Eastern Bloc with the Pershing.   Interestingly, most of the so-called intellectual leaders who led that fight have reconstituted themselves as critics against the war on the terror - including that darling of the academy Noam Chomsky and his sidekick Edward S. Herman.   Chomsky disgraced himself by denying for years that Pol Pot had precipitated a class-based genocide in Cambodia, but I digress. CivU has decided to line up with the propagandists who are doing their best to undermine the US war in Iraq and dismiss the war on terror as a creation of US imperialism. He has highlighted the work of an individual (William Blum) who believes that Reagan, Clinton and Swartzkopf are war criminals who should be treated the same way as Japanese war criminals who conducted biological warfare experiments on alllied prisoners in WW2; CivU has said he disagrees with Mr. Blum's analysis in this instance, but has signally failed to denounce Mr. Blum himself as a irresponsible buffoon and psedo-intellectual. In the end it doesn't matter that much.   The war of terror is the great moral question of our time - some will choose sides that are reprehensible, most will do the right thing and understand that Islamo-fascism is one of the scourges of our time.   As Castro said, "history will absolve me" - or not.


----------



## Tach9 (18 Dec 2004)

most will do the right thing and understand that Islamo-fascism is one of the scourges of our time.   

Thank you!


----------



## CivU (18 Dec 2004)

What is Islamo-fascism?  You seem to have connected one word that has become negative for a lot of people, Islam, and attached to it a word with justified negative connotations, fascism.  I have yet to hear this term used outside of your post.

"Chomsky disgraced himself by denying for years that Pol Pot had precipitated a class-based genocide in Cambodia"

Did Bush disgrace himself by failing to recognize that there were in fact no weapons of mass destruction? 

"has signally failed to denounce Mr. Blum himself as a irresponsible buffoon and psedo-intellectual"

Mr Blum has a degree in economics and worked for the US State Department before resigning over his contention with American involvement in Vietnam.  He has been a freelance journalist since this time and continues to publish books, papers and scholarly articles.  I'm not sure your level of education, so I am not going to assume anything, but I think it is fitting to say Mr. Blum is undoubtedly an intellectual and most certainly not a buffon, whether you disagree with what he has to say or not.  Because someone's views are not consistent with yours does not mean their intellectual capacity is inferior...


----------



## Slim (18 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> What is Islamo-fascism?   You seem to have connected one word that has become negative for a lot of people, Islam, and attached to it a word with justified negative connotations, fascism.   I have yet to hear this term used outside of your post.
> 
> "Chomsky disgraced himself by denying for years that Pol Pot had precipitated a class-based genocide in Cambodia"
> 
> Did Bush disgrace himself by failing to recognize that there were in fact no weapons of mass destruction?



They were all gone buy the time that the US invaded...Siria, I believe, was the recipient of those weapons. 

Look, is there any point to this at all...You're just arguing for the sake of argument. You've never been over there and haven't been around long enough to know what the score really is. Lots of people who've taken the timne to answer you know what they're on about.

Face facts sometimes you don't know what the real situation is, do you!

Stop talking for awhile and learn something...


----------



## Infanteer (18 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Did Bush disgrace himself by failing to recognize that there were in fact no weapons of mass destruction?



I guess all of these guys are a disgrace as well?



_"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." 

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." 

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." 

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 



"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." 

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov.10, 1999 



"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." 

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001 



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." 

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." 

AI Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 



"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." 

AI Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 

   

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and 

developing weapons of mass destruction." 

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, VW), Oct. 3, 2002 



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." 

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10,2002



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." 

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." 

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 



"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." 

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003_

As for the fact of "no weapons of mass destruction", these Kurds are happy to hear that....


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Did Bush disgrace himself by failing to recognize that there were in fact no weapons of mass destruction?



    Sure, why not.  So did the head of every nation that's supported UN sations against Iraq for the last 12 years, as well as the UN itself.  Lots of disgrace to go around!



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> Mr Blum has a degree in economics and worked for the US State Department before resigning over his contention with American involvement in Vietnam.  He has been a freelance journalist since this time and continues to publish books, papers and scholarly articles.  I'm not sure your level of education, so I am not going to assume anything, but I think it is fitting to say Mr. Blum is undoubtedly an intellectual and most certainly not a buffon, whether you disagree with what he has to say or not.  Because someone's views are not consistent with yours does not mean their intellectual capacity is inferior...



    So he's an intelectual buffon.  Frankly, I'd prefer someone who's undeucated but open minded over some closed-minded fool who thinks he knows everything.  His education is irrelevant; if he insist on comparing any of the US leadership to the Nazi regime, "buffoon" is too kind a word to describe him.  This individual proves that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think  ;D


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Dec 2004)

hey, thanks infanteer!  People like this are always claiming that "nobody else" beleived there were WMD in Iraq.  I've never gotten around to collecting up a list that proves otherwise.  I'm deffinitely saving your post.


----------



## CivU (18 Dec 2004)

Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Last time I checked I'm not the only one asking this question...

As far as,

"Face facts sometimes you don't know what the real situation is, do you!

Stop talking for awhile and learn something..."

I'm not sure any of us know the "real situation" as all our information is secondary sources; however, I don't suggest you know any more or any less than I do.   As far as learning anything, I don't think an internet forum is the place for that.   I will continue to read books, articles, newspapers, etc. at my local library to broaden my scope of learning.   In fact, if you'd like to suggest any that you think will help enlighten me to "the real situation" that you are aware of, then by all means, I'm always willing to listen.

Your use of  "People like this" lacks respect for anyone of differing opinion.  Short of calling myself, or anyone who wishes to address the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq idiots, you are being insulting to anyone who wishes to post on this board with an opinion different than your own.  It's difficult for a person to acknowledge someone else's opinion when they don't project an image that allows someone to respect them first.  

I digress, I'm on a plane in a few hours and won't be online for some time.   Everyone enjoy the holiday period wherever you are...


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2004)

> Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Last time I checked I'm not the only one asking this question...





> I digress, I'm on a plane in a few hours and won't be online for some time.   Everyone enjoy the holiday period wherever you are...



Have a safe flight and consider that your flight is safe(r) because our presence (and blood) in Afghanastan and Iraq is keeping their attention over there and not over North American skies.


----------



## MissHardie (18 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The reason for this is that the rhetoric being perpetuated amongst students has nothing to do with education and everything to do with indoctrination.



I completely disagree. As a university student myself, taking courses now primarily from the faculties of political science and history, my experience has been that rarely if at all do professors foist rhetoric down our throats for the purposes of turning us all into good little lefties - or fanatical right-wingers for that matter.  My professors have only been too happy to debate with me my admittedly realist-biased arguments for purposes of making me think and defend my claims in a logical fashion.  

</end hijack>


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> I'm not sure any of us know the "real situation" as all our information is secondary sources; however, I don't suggest you know any more or any less than I do.  As far as learning anything, I don't think an internet forum is the place for that.  I will continue to read books, articles, newspapers, etc. at my local library to broaden my scope of learning.  In fact, if you'd like to suggest any that you think will help enlighten me to "the real situation" that you are aware of, then by all means, I'm always willing to listen.
> 
> Your use of  "People like this" lacks respect for anyone of differing opinion.  Short of calling myself, or anyone who wishes to address the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq idiots, you are being insulting to anyone who wishes to post on this board with an opinion different than your own.  It's difficult for a person to acknowledge someone else's opinion when they don't project an image that allows someone to respect them first.



Wrong.  My use of "people like this" lacks respect for anyone who continues to spew the same uneducated rhetoric when presented with clear facts and statistics.

What books have you read that provide figures which show that civilian deaths in war have steadily increased?
What books have you read which show a clear scientific backing for the idea that depleted uranium has enough radioactivity to cause harm?
What books have you read that suggest a war has to provide peace and a stable government within 2 years of it's begining?

The fact is you haven't.  From your lack of knowledge I can tell you've never opened a book on any of these subjects.  You've been pumped so full of dogma and rhetoric that you're willing to beleive any statement critical of the US or "the west" as a whole.  You're been so indoctrinated into that form of thinking that you don't bother doing any research of your own, other than repeating the same tired lies and half trouths amongst your university buddies.  If you had bothered to do some research, if you DID try to keep an open mind, you'd realize just how ridiculous the vast majority of your statements are.  Instead of trying to open your mind a little, you jump topics whenever you can't back one up, and accuse me of being closed minded and insulting for refering to your type of fool as "these people".  You're not fooling anyone.  I've had discussion with heads of activist and pacifist groups, and I've had some success getting them to see things from a different perspective.  Recently I had Jan Slakov, a well known pacifist and anti-military activist within the Canadian movement, admit that some of the points I've discussed with her have made her reconsider her opinion on the Canadian army and western militaries in general.  If I can convince a pacifist to consider the posibility that force is sometimes required then why in the hell can't any single one of us convince YOU of ANYTHING??


----------



## Infanteer (18 Dec 2004)

MissHardie said:
			
		

> I completely disagree. As a university student myself, taking courses now primarily from the faculties of political science and history, my experience has been that rarely if at all do professors foist rhetoric down our throats for the purposes of turning us all into good little lefties - or fanatical right-wingers for that matter.   My professors have only been too happy to debate with me my admittedly realist-biased arguments for purposes of making me think and defend my claims in a logical fashion.
> </end hijack>



It's hit and miss with the university crowd.   I had some real good ones in my day (I never knew their positions on anything) and I also had some real goof-offs who take every extra moment on their course to lob ad hominem attacks at George W Bush and denigrate US Policy from their lofty position of tenure.

The problem is that the latter crowd tends to get the press and tends to be the vocal representatives of academia.   The attempts to enact divestiture of Israel on university campuses is a good example.


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Dec 2004)

MissHardie said:
			
		

> I completely disagree. As a university student myself, taking courses now primarily from the faculties of political science and history, my experience has been that rarely if at all do professors foist rhetoric down our throats for the purposes of turning us all into good little lefties - or fanatical right-wingers for that matter.  My professors have only been too happy to debate with me my admittedly realist-biased arguments for purposes of making me think and defend my claims in a logical fashion.
> 
> </end hijack>



    I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that ALL proffessors and ALL students behave that way.  Just that it is extremely common amongst the students.  When the Iraq war first started I used to get groups of them trying to convert me on a regular basis, and I wasn't a student.  I can just imagine how much more focused their activities would have been "at the hub" so to speak.  If you're right and teachers don't generaly rant about politics in class, then that's good, but it's also unfortiunate that no balanced discussions about these things occur either in a classroom environment or amongst the student organizations.  The biggest problem is that lefties tend to stick with lefties, and the same goes for the right.  Both sides indoctrinate themselves by constantly repeating the same lies to eachother.  That it doesn't occur all that often in class is a blessing, but it doesn't change the end result.
    Anyway after watching the video at www.academicbias.com (and thanks again infanteer for that link) I find it pretty dificult to beleive that teachers aren't responsible for large portions of that indoctrination.  I am willing to admit though that the situation may be different in Canadian Universities, but I think that's unlikely.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Last time I checked I'm not the only one asking this question...



I fail to understand how the lookie-loos can point their fingers and say "LOOK, NO WMD!!!" without pondering the question what happened to them.   Are you assuming that:

A) A tin-pot dictator who used them repeatedly to bolster his position and his powerbase would suddenly decide to adhere to the demands of the international community and throw them away.

B) They just vanished into thin air (Which the Law of Conservation of Mass doesn't seem to support).

I've yet to see a plausible explanation that exonerates the Ba'athist regime of the charges that were leveled against it frequently between 1991 and 2003.   Iraq is a big country and there are some neighbours (states and otherwise) unfriendly to the US around it. 

PS: You never answered the claim against your ad hominem attack on President George W Bush.   Moral tap-dancing gets tricky, doesn't it.


----------



## MissHardie (18 Dec 2004)

Infanteer,



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's hit and miss with the university crowd. [...]



True enough.  I think my experience is due in most part to my attendance at the U of C, located in the bastion of conservatism that is Calgary.    


48Highlander,

I actually had one history prof sit down with some of his students after class to have a discussion on the war in Iraq - not because it was related to his course (WW2), but because we students were interested in having a discussion and wanted him as a facilitator and moderator.  Balanced discussions do occur, just very, very rarely.  Unfortunate, as you say.  Too bad the socratic method has gone mainly by the wayside - I find it the best way to gain an education.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2004)

Whats a WMD?
A device that kills without emotion, ethics or morals?   Capable of killing large numbers of people and inciting terror?

Isn't that hussain?

So we went to war, didn't actually find any huge bombs but we caught a guy more than willing to commit genocide, as indicated by past actions.
In my opinion we got a rather large and deadly WMD.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Dec 2004)

<a href=http://www.antiwar.com/ips/suri.php?articleid=2931>Opposing viewpoint on the gassing of the kurds</a>


----------



## Slim (18 Dec 2004)

If he was the leader of the country at the time then i would say that he was responsible at the time for whatever went on in it...and besides, he didn't jump to punish the perpetrators of the massacre, did he

Guilty as charged!

Slim


----------



## Infanteer (18 Dec 2004)

Interesting perspective on the Halabja incident.   However, I was merely using the gassed Kurds to shore up a point.   The article doesn't refute the fact that Saddam possessed and used chemical weapons.

_The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja, he said. "The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent â â€œ that is, a cyanide-based gas â â€œ which Iran was known to use. "The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time."_

Regardless of the one scenario, the controversy doesn't alter the intent of my question.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I fail to understand how the lookie-loos can point their fingers and say "LOOK, NO WMD!!!" without pondering the question what happened to them.   Are you assuming that:
> 
> A) A tin-pot dictator who used them repeatedly to bolster his position and his powerbase would suddenly decide to adhere to the demands of the international community and throw them away.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2004)

Perhaps someone can find this, but wasn't there a news report a few months ago that Polish coallition troops had found an IED built around a nerve-gas artillery shell?

As to making things dissapear, during my tour in Bosnia, British forces found 120 metric tonnes of ammunition around Banja Luka during a large coordinated sweep. This stuff was stashed back in 95 near the end of the hot war, but based on physical evidence collected at the scene, it was still under "someone's" care and control, and the bulk was still usable. On a smaller scale, we would find grenades, rockets, rifle grenades and other military goods in our UXO pit on most mornings, as people decided that they didn't want this stuff in their basements and tool sheds after all. A mass grave with 60 bodies was also discovered near Banja Luka. This was after eight years of "peace" and concerted efforts by military and other agencies to either track down arms and ammunition caches, or entice people to turn it in.

The $21 billion dollars Hussein lifted from the "Oil for Food" program could buy a lot of people to look the other way, dig really deep holes or otherwise stash the WMD right up to the moment Gen Tommy Franks troops crossed over from Kuwait. When the truth about the "missing" 300 tons of high explosives came out at the end of the last US election, (*Not* the story, which was an intentionally misleading propaganda piece for the Democrats) it was revealed several convoys were tracked leaving the ammunition compound and heading towards Syria. As a state of hostilities had not yet commenced, there was no action that could be taken.

Whatever Saddam Hussein was doing since the end of the first Persian Gulf War, he certainly made every effort to make everyone inside and outside Iraq believe he was in possession of WMD, and made no effort to dispel these fears, _even when it was obvious that was the only way he could forstall an American attack_. So the question about WMDs should actually be in the other court. Why was Hussein behaving that way, and what did he do with his WMD stockpiles?


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Dec 2004)

<a href=http://www.informationwar.org/state%20terrorism/Britain_using_chemical_weapons.htm>Par for the course</a>

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes to spread a lively terror" 

 -Winston Churchill, on the Iraqi/Kurdish Uprising. 1920.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Dec 2004)

People say the darndest things....

_"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."_

Mahatma Gandhi, May 1940 

Different times I guess - I'm sure you can tell me how many times Churchill actually used poison gas?  As well, I'm sure every President from Truman on has mused about immolating whole societies with thermonuclear weapons at one point.   

Actions speak louder then words:

Gandhi's actions guaranteed the independence of his nation.

Churchill's actions stemmed the tide of totalitarianism during Britain's darkest hour.

Saddam....?


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Dec 2004)

> I'm sure you can tell me how many times Churchill actually used poison gas?



Well, at least once, it seems.


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Dec 2004)

Not that I'm a big fan of Gandhi, but in his defence:

Background for the above quote: It was made in May of 1940, when the battles of World War II were just beginning, where the Germany's blitzkrieg was indeed swift and relatively bloodless compared to the battle trenches of the World War One. Also at the time the persecution of the Jews in the eyes of the world was limited to lowered civil rights, concentration camps and gettos. Just a few years before even so notable an adversary to Hitler as Winston Churchill, in his book Great Contemporaries (1937) had declared: "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."


----------



## Infanteer (19 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well, at least once, it seems.



I'm reading the article, and I can't seem to find any concrete examples of gas attacks, just attacks by a gamut of other weapons systems .  I honestly do not know much about the British efforts to pacify the Mandate, so I can't argue with you.  

However, again, I will state different times.  Churchill just come out of a war where poison gas was the norm.  Saddam ruled Iraq in an international setting in which the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction is an extremely grave breach of "the norm".

You can reach through the pages of history and find examples of great figures using means which we would now abhor to achieve their goals.  My question is where are you going with this?  Does this somehow exonerate Saddam Hussein - he's not a cruel dictator but a victim of historical circumstances?


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Dec 2004)

> I'm reading the article, and I can't seem to find any concrete examples of gas attacks, just attacks by a gamut of other weapons systems .



Yeah, the article was a little vaguely worded, but try <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html>this one</a>



> My question is where are you going with this?



To illustrate that public opinion is rarely succeptable to reason, and the power of the "Rudder&Finn" method. Certainly in light of the preceding articles the gas/genocide argument doesn't have as much kick as it would on the uninformed.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Dec 2004)

Yeah.  I find that, generaly, when people start trying to justify the actions of tyrants by pointing out that the US did the same thing to the Indians hundreds of years ago, or in this case the UK to Iraqi's 80 years ago, it's time to stop talking.  Anyone arguing such a ridiculous line of logic can not be reasoned with.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (20 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Yeah, the article was a little vaguely worded, but try this one



That article provides no concrete evidence that gas was used and in fact contradicts itself on that specific point:

Its states that the army used gas attacks but does not specify what type.  Was its a lethal or riot agent, quite a lack of details that, to me, shows the author is presenting facts with little backup or the army used some riot control agents.  Considering the CF is trained to use those agents in similar circumstances to what the British were facing is that so unsual?  It then goes on to say that there were no aerial chemical raids.

Do you have anything that definitively says the British used war agents against the Kurds?  I've been to places (Ethiopia/Eritrea) where lethal chemicals were used against the population.  Seventy years later the memory of that is still very strong and the munitions are still being found.  Odd that this hasn't happened with the Kurds.  They remember conventional bombing but no chemicial attacks.  Which would leave more of an impression?


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Dec 2004)

*48thHighlander*, iI don't think our viewpoints are quite as irreconcillable as you think, In an effort to keep the focus narrow, I've not bothered to outline my views on the big picture. Saddam Hussein was a big meanie, and deserves to be deposed. Most Iraqis probably would agree. I do not dispute this point.  However, if you claim, as Bush and company do, that the invasion of iraq was fueled by ana ltruistic concern for the lot of the Iraqi people, I must disagree. I must also disagree if you are claiming, with a straight face,  that the Iraqi insurgency continues not because of ar desire for national self determination, but because "They're jealous of our freedom." or "They hate our way of life."  or any other such nonsense, which betrays an underlying idea that the Iraqis are sub-human to the point that they are incapable of rational discourse.

If you are convinced of such ideas, then I'm afraid the gap is wider than I thought, and we shal just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Dec 2004)

And you don't find it dificult to reconcile your idea that they're fighting for "national self determination" with the fact that large numbers of them aren't from Iraq?

I never said it had anything to do with them hating our freedom or our way of life, although opposition to our way of life certainly is one of the rallying points which many of these people use.  What it comes down to is that extremists, wether muslim, christian, jewish, or whatevever, all want control.  For example, the fanatic leader of the group at Wako  wasn't fighting for "self determination", he was fighting for the right to continue controling and abusing his followers.  Similarily, I very much doubt that Osama was fighting for "national self determination".  What the followers fight for varies from person to person, but regaurdless of the group it's almost always a combination of religion, ideological beliefs, or the same sort of desire for power and control.  In the end it's impossible to identify the beleifs or desires of every single person within a movement, and it doesn't help to generalize by saying they're fighting for "national self determination", or "against our way of life".


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Dec 2004)

> And you don't find it dificult to reconcile your idea that they're fighting for "national self determination" with the fact that large numbers of them aren't from Iraq?



Not until you provide some evidence that the majority of the insurgents are, in fact foreigners. Until then, <a href=http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111704C.shtml>Judging from fighters captured in Fallouja, all but about 5% are Iraqi, U.S. officials say.</a>


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> However, if you claim, as Bush and company do, that the invasion of iraq was fueled by ana ltruistic concern for the lot of the Iraqi people, I must disagree. I must also disagree if you are claiming, with a straight face,   that the Iraqi insurgency continues not because of ar desire for national self determination, but because "They're jealous of our freedom." or "They hate our way of life."   or any other such nonsense, which betrays an underlying idea that the Iraqis are sub-human to the point that they are incapable of rational discourse.



"Britney":

Re: Altruism - I agree with you.   If some Wilsonian conviction of spreading democracy to the Iraqi people was indeed included in the strategy, I believe it was on the bottom of the list.   Bush is not Wilsonian.

Re: Motivation of Iraqi insurgents - I agree with you as well.   I'm generally supportive of the viewpoint put forth by William Lind that the Iraq was has entered its Third Phase:
1) Phase 1: US and Coalition vs. Ba'ath regime
2) Phase 2: US and Coalition vs. Remnents of Fedayeen
3) Phase 3: General civil war as everybody realizes that Saddam is actually gone and races for the pie.

America is in the middle of a civil war.   As I've said before, it appears that everyone killing Americans (and eachother) comes to the fray for numerous reasons:
- Shi'ite radicals bankrolled by Iran.
- Sunni radicals bankrolled from Saudi Arabia.
- Left over Ba'athists who have nothing better to do (Those Republican Guard guys had to go somewhere)
- Kurds who finally can give what they've been taking for so long.
- Terrorists who see Iraq as an opportunity to bloody the nose of America.
- People who are just pissed off because anyone of these parties (including Americans) has blown their mosque, their house, and their market down.

This is why I believe Iraq is a crapshoot right now.   It's almost like Bosnia in 94 or something - everybody is in it for their own reasons.

As such, I gave my own interpretation of events going on this viewpoint of the current status of the Iraq conflict.

_"However, I am skeptical of mixing the strategy of behaviour modification with some sort of attempt at the short-term spread of democracy - I call it democracy on the end of a bayonet.   I do not believe that a strategy of evangelism (for lack of any better term) is suited to Western interests.   Trying to force some facade of a liberal democratic order is about as useless an expression of Wilsonian idealism as there is.   This is why I am not sure I support active intervention in the civil society of Iraq.   It was fractured from the artifice of the Ba'athist regime, conflict was a foregone conclusion - Iraq would need some time to sort out its new state identity.   With America putting its units in Saddam's palaces and having bureaucrats and tanks moving about during this is the equivalent of sticking your hand in a hornets nest right after you pounded it with a stick.   End result, you get drawn in and two-bit chumps like Moqtada al-Sadr all of the sudden gain real currency as players in the game (which undermines the efforts of guys like Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, who are generally friendly to your cause).   

As well, getting tangled up in the populations of Iraq leads to another issue that I believe affects attitudes - the fact that American soldiers in Iraq do draw Jihadis out like a magnet.   However valid soem may feel the theory of engaging Jihadi forces in Iraq rather then in America is, I am sure that the citizens of Iraq do not appreciate the fact that their houses, markets, and mosques are being used as a battleground by US and Jihadi fighters.   Sticking combat soldiers in cities seems to be burning more bridges then their building.

I often wonder if a strategy of "sitting back" in the ensuing scrum would have been a more effective way to go about things.   Leave the Tigris and Euphrates floodplain and move to the uninhabited desert of the West.   Let Iraq iron out itself - they can come to their own conclusions on how to rule themselves.   Someone was keen to point out that the people of Iraq were an ancient and complex civilization while we Westerners were living in huts and worshipping trees.   Offer help if asked and don't pick sides and don't put your military forces in someone else's fight.   Use Special Operations Forces to make forays into any Jihadi elements that can be identified and wipe them out quietly and effectively.

Make it clear to the people of Iraq that the West is not their on an "evangelist" mission (YOU WILL BE A DEMOCRACY - VOTE!), but are in the Middle East to intervene against a faction that is unfriendly our interests.   As well, make it clear to whoever comes out on top of the scrum that they have to play ball with the international community.   Use diplomacy - the "carrot and the stick" - to show Iraq that the West will not tolerate replacing Saddam with another despot who thrives off of nepotism and acts as a destabilizing force in the region.   The fate of Saddam Hussein should be proof enough that the West means what it says.   There was a good article in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs that pointed out how Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were built and sustained by assetive and yet subtle diplomacy along with the force to back it up.   As Teddy Roosevelt said - "Walk Softly but Carry a Big Stick...."

The occupants of the Middle East are a tough and proud people; they will recognize and respect the strength of Western and American might and resolve to undermine the threat of terrorism at it's center of gravity - the unstable geopolitical region of the Middle East.   However, I do not believe they will respect us if we use the might and resolve to attempt to rebuild Iraq in our image."_

PS: I'm getting slightly excited pretending I'm arguing politics with Britney Spears, could you use this as your Avatar please!


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Dec 2004)

There's a bit of a parallel to Vietnam here. The hawks try the best to convince everyone that this is part of some global struggle against communism/radical islam, and 20 years later, we finally figure out that the Vietnamese/Iraqis really just don't want to live under the American heel, whcih, of course, they've been trying to tell us since Day 1. 

Don't bother trying to poke holes in my comparison, I realize Vietnam and Iraq are different, spare me.

I'll agree its a crapshoot now, and I'm not sure how the invasion and occupation could have been handled differently, but one thing I am damn sure of. We, the west, are much, much, worse off than before, especially in respect to TWAT. All the unity, rapport and goodwill that we (not just the US, all of us in the west, even Russia and China) gained in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 has been squandered, the coalition against the extremist terrorists, the true threat , has been destroyed, its members are now back at loggerheads with each other, and more moderate Arabs flock to the banner of OBL evey day.  Whatver the original intentions of the invasion were, I doubt it was worth all this. 



> PS: I'm getting slightly excited pretending I'm arguing politics with Britney Spears,



We could go back to complaning about the Tac Vest for a while, that was more fun and not as depressing.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2004)

It seems people are finally getting it: Global Terrorism and the fighting in Iraq are about grabbing for power, not about "humiliation from the crusades" or any other nonsense. WW IV is the Western counter response, and as Victor Davis Hanson has expressed in many essays, we are reliving some of the early days of WW II, when our ability to respond to the threats of Fascist Europe and Imperial Japan were limited by lack of men and equipment, limited experience in training, organizing and planning, and lack of understanding of our enemies. To people who lived then, the first three years of the war must have seemed like everything was unravelling, and the British Empire was on the verge of being defeated.

Armchair Generals can always find something to criticise about particular battles, operations and even strategies, since the Military Arts are something like Economics: a descriptive science. You might be able to make general predictions if you have the correct model to work from, but even "hard core" classical economists cannot make accurate predictions at the micro level, and only broad predictions at the macro level.

Since we are talking about school rather than the war (there are multiple threads for that), I will use economics to illustrate what I find wrong with Universities. My economics courses were "Keynesian" with a dash of Marxist economics thrown in, and I laboured under the Phillips Curve and the IS/LM model. However, since I was (a) a mature student at the time, and (b) had lived through the late 1970s "stagflation" and the miraculous revival of the Western economy under the"Reagan revolution", I had clear historical evidence that these economic models DID NOT describe the real world, and in fact, *could not* explain what had happened even at the Macro level. My professors had lived through the same time period (and I am sure the senior faculty might even have been around when the Kennedy administration tax cuts kicked off the "swinging sixties"), yet whenever I tried to question them about this, they would evade the question, and more pointedly, give me grief if I argued the point in economic class papers.

I doubt this "mind set" has changed, and judging from some of the posts on this forum, many students have also been infected as well. In terms of Economics, I had the pleasure of being taught by the one classical economist on the faculty, so I have a firm grasp of Classical economics, which does describe the real world much more closely than the Keynesian or the Marxist models. Without this professor, I would have had a head full of concepts which did not correspond to what I had and could observe around me. The resulting "cognitave dissonance" would have at a minimum paralyzed my thinking, or caused me to undertake making my own theories to attempt to describe what is happening around me. A young person caught in that trap might either find it easier to parrot what everyone else on Campus is saying, or come up with strange and wonderful conspiracy theories to explain the world.

The damage done to the minds of young people is incalculable, and Universities have a lot to answer for.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> There's a bit of a parallel to Vietnam here. The hawks try the best to convince everyone that this is part of some global struggle against communism/radical islam, and 20 years later, we finally figure out that the Vietnamese/Iraqis really just don't want to live under the American heel, whcih, of course, they've been trying to tell us since Day 1.
> 
> Don't bother trying to poke holes in my comparison, I realize Vietnam and Iraq are different, spare me.



I'm going to poke a hole anyways.   It's hard to draw a comparison between the mentality of the Vietnamese and the Iraqis.   The Vietnamese were fighting a nationalist war to liberate their land from foreign rulers - whether it be Japanese, French, or the American-backed regime in Saigon.   I believe the Iraqi situation is far more complex; as I stated above, nationalism, radicalism, Shi'ite, Sunni, Kurd, foreign presence, Saddam, and the GWOT all combine to make Iraq so much more complex.



> I'll agree its a crapshoot now, and I'm not sure how the invasion and occupation could have been handled differently, but one thing I am damn sure of. We, the west, are much, much, worse off than before, especially in respect to TWAT. All the unity, rapport and goodwill that we (not just the US, all of us in the west, even Russia and China) gained in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 has been squandered, the coalition against the extremist terrorists, the true threat , has been destroyed, its members are now back at loggerheads with each other, and more moderate Arabs flock to the banner of OBL evey day.   Whatver the original intentions of the invasion were, I doubt it was worth all this.



I am not sure if I believe that America and the West are any worse off.   Like I said earlier, we could play "what-ifs" forever.
Perhaps a good analogy would be the Pacific Campaign.   Just as in Midway, the Coalition has turned aside the immediate threat - replacing IJN carrier fleet with AQ center in Afghanistan.   Now, we're involved in a Guadalcanal like situation - a counteroffensive aimed to knock the enemy off stride.   The aptly named Operation Shoestring was in doubt for quite some time, just as Iraq is today - but success may break the back of the enemy and ensure a march to victory.  As well, Allied opinion on the American offensive in the South Pacific was split, with many feeling that the Americans were ignoring the real threat of the Germans in Europe.

Of course, this is a loose analogy, and analogies are alway suspect - feel free to poke holes through it .   However, no matter what opinion we all may hold on the present situation in Iraq, there is no denying that American is now, more then ever, decisively engaged in the Middle East.   As I've argued, its a good thing if played right - I think it's far more effective then diddling around on the periphery of the enemies moral center-of-gravity.   Others may see it differently.   Only time will tell who is right.



> We could go back to complaning about the Tac Vest for a while, that was more fun and not as depressing.



Lets just return to the topic of bashing universities - A Majoor has done a good job of leading us back...


			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> The damage done to the minds of young people is incalculable, and Universities have a lot to answer for.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Dec 2004)

What I believe is more troops must be sent in before they all can come home. Stop pusssyfoot'n around and get the job done. Turn up the heat on the enemy.

Pisss off the media (short term) and establish media exclusion zones. Too many leftist shyte disturbers out there which cause too many problems, twisting the truth to suit sensational anti-US mobs mentality, and thus creating more anti-US feelings.

My view anyways.

Wes


----------



## Slim (27 Dec 2004)

Hey all.



> What I believe is more troops must be sent in before they all can come home. Stop pusssyfoot'n around and get the job done. Turn up the heat on the enemy.



Hey Wes

I don't know about that...I had actually entertained the thought of less troops, more specialists and better applications.( of course since I'm such a great armchair colonel-general is far too lofty a title for me-everything I say is not the gospel by any means!) Is there not some way to evolve the military response to something that the insurgents would not be able to strike at as easily? More SF involvement (again just ideas) targeting the insurgents, perhaps trying to draw them out and deal with them on their own terms?

Why not set up an ambush in a police station since the bad guys seem to like to attack them so much...?

just my thoughts guys...

Slim


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Dec 2004)

Well, as i just finsihed a nice bottle of Hunter Valley Aussie wine with a Gillies Italian Pizza (bacon, double cheese) of Cronulla Beach, I thought I'd get on here before Crossing Jordan comes on the telly, and while Nancy is doing the dishes   ;D. We have gale force winds here right now. The temp dropped from 32C to 20C in a few hrs, so now its cold. The swell on the beach is dangerous as we were down there earlier. Not one surfer, not one swimmer in the 8ft swell.

I fully respect your point Slim, but I feel the enemy must be hoplessly beaten into oblivion, and the media kept out so the job gets done without hinderance and being PC. I am not saying wholesale slaughter, but just to get the job right, quick and precise. Handovers and invlove the Iraqi NG, giving them more responsibility as required.

This can be done with sheer strength and power, along with winning hearts, minds and trust of teh people. I am truly a media hater, as we all know the damage then can cause. Only one agenda, and thats ratings, not schools and power being returned, not fresh water. Its all about a BC, helll and mayhem. This I fell is wrong. 

Then we can do it the way you suggest, with without destroying the EN we will only prolong the fight, dragging it on. We all know it is an unpopular war. lets just get it over with, and get everyone home.

I have friends there right now ( in two armies), and I hear from some often.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Slim (27 Dec 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> I fully respect your point Slim, but I feel the enemy must be hopelessly beaten into oblivion, and the media kept out so the job gets done without hindrance and being PC.



Wes 

Believe me when I say that I agree with you 100% on both of the above points, especially the media, which cannot be trusted to give unbiased reports on something that they know nothing about (despite being on the ground since the whole thing started!) and, from the sounds of it, refuse to learn. My above point just being that there must be a way to "bring the war to the insurgents" so to speak and make the US forces less available to them in terms of being a target... 



> This can be done with sheer strength and power, along with winning hearts, minds and trust of the people.



My thoughts are to try and and somehow lure the insurgents out into the open by providing them with something so juicy that they can't ignore it and are ambushed, or some other simile idea that would take the war to the AQ instead of letting them set the pace...

Sealing the border with Syria, I realize is easier said than done yet there must be a way to step into these types of ops more aggressively...? 



> Then we can do it the way you suggest, with without destroying the EN we will only prolong the fight, dragging it on.



I believe that the fight should be taken directly to the enemy and they not given a chance to blow up police stations and schools and the like...



> I have friends there right now ( in two armies), and I hear from some often.



Tell them to stay safe and to keep their heads down and come home in one piece!!!


Cheers,

Slim


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2004)

The more I think about it, the more I believe we need to go back to the British approach in Malaysia or Kenya, or the US Marine "Civic Action Program" (CAP) from the Viet Nam war. In those wars, small units of Western soldiers (often a section or platoon) would bunk down in a villiage to work and train with a local unit (platoon or company sized). The level of trust and cooperation usually lead to the locals transferring their allegiance to the security forces and turning against the "insurgent" forces.

Given modern communications and mobility, there should be little fear these units would be snapped up and defeated in detail by the terrorists, since there will still be mechanized or airmobile battalions lurking nearby. This will also help develop information about the terrorist cells, allowing focused action by the SF to target them directly, without huge Fallujia type battles. ("Say, Ahmed had a car accident last night." "Funny, his friend fell down the stairs last night too...")

A ring of towns and villiages surrounding the Tikrit Triangle would contain the insurgents, and as each villiage became pacified, the force would step in to the next villiage, closing the loop.

The major military force would be reorganized towards expeditionary actions against Syria and Iran, since it seems clearer every day they are heavily involved in formenting the unrest and keeping the war going at such a high level.


----------



## Slim (28 Dec 2004)

> Given modern communications and mobility, there should be little fear these units would be snapped up and defeated in detail by the terrorists, since there will still be mechanized or airmobile battalions lurking nearby. This will also help develop information about the terrorist cells, allowing focused action by the SF to target them directly, without huge Fallujia type battles. ("Say, Ahmed had a car accident last night." "Funny, his friend fell down the stairs last night too...")



This is exactly the idea that I was getting at...Finding the BEST way to employ the force on the ground, rather than this trying to swat flies with revolvers...and generally doing a bad job because the flies hold the initiative! The US army needs to take the that away from the AQ, while at the same time, bring the fight to their doorstep.

And, simultaneously seal the borders to Syria...and Iran , both of whom appear to be hell-bent on returning Iraq to a medieval state.

Which makes me wonder what those two countries have to loose if Iraq ever does manage to "grow up?"

Slim


----------

