# Whats up with the States- Does Bush Want War?



## toms3 (2 Oct 2002)

I totally understand the threat that Saddam and Iraq pose.   I agree that something needs to be done including the use of force.   I am just wondering what is up with Bush.   He is pushing so hard for war; it almost appears to be an obsession with him and his administration.   Today I hear that the U.S. may oppose return of arms inspectors to Iraq without a new U.N. Security Council mandate.   It almost appears that they are going to go in no matter what.    Anyone have any theories on this?


----------



## onecat (2 Oct 2002)

Digger, I think the reason is that Mr Bush has no plan other Iraq to get him back in power for a second term.  Domesticity he‘s done nothing, ( just like his dad), and he has no goal for where his administration should go. So in his mind he has no choice but to take on saddam.  And believe I want saddam out as well, he just pure evil in many ways.  But for years the United State just sat by and watched, and don‘t worry we support just fight the evil Iran and you‘ll get lots of stuff.  Bush points to his use of gas.... well when did that happen?   It happened in the early 80‘s when he was on the good side. And the US never said a word.

 Should this war happen?  I hope Bush sees sence and stops it.  As I doubt they can afford it.  the Guf war was 60 billion and they only paid for a third of it; this time around they won‘t be a lucky.  And if it happens I‘m not sure where canada will stand. Although for our benefit, we should be on their side. No telling what will happen to economy if don‘t.


----------



## rolandstrong (2 Oct 2002)

I think it is only inevitable that the United States would become embrolled in some kind of Middle East conflict, ever since the decision to back Isreal became a part of US foreign policy. No matter what we hear about oil, weapons of mass destruction, etc., the Bush administration wants to exert considerable control over the "gulf" region, which it sees as a threat to its sovereignty (which is predominantly economic). these threats were percieved before Sept. 11th (i.e. Gulf War, USS Cole, Iranian hostages, the Shah of Iran, etc.), but the attack certainly heightened the resolve. I think this sabre rattling has been going on long before the last year. The stakes have just step up a few notches.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Oct 2002)

Or quite possibly, Mr. Bush has learned from the lessons of Chamberlain and isn‘t going to stand idly by while a petty dictator continues to carry out policies aimed at the subjugation and destruction of ethnic minorities within his own borders as well as the creation of weapons of war with the intent to unleash them on his neighbours.

Bush is going to do to Iraq (I hope) what the western world should have done to Germany in 1938.

Kudos to them; I hope Canada does the right thing and stands by their best friends and closest allies in this hour of need.  We‘ve been meekly letting the US pick up the huge slack in defending Canadian territory - and even our soveriegnty - and it is now time for us to repay them.

If Canada doesn‘t do anything to help the US, we deserve to be invaded and annexed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Oct 2002)

Out of curiosity, then, what makes Iraq so much more worthy of our blood and treasure than any of the other oppressive regimes which have  / may have / want to have weapons of mass destruction?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Oct 2002)

Who said that Iraq was more worthy?  I certainly don‘t feel that way.  Let‘s go after them all.  Pax Americana?

I suspect it is Iraq‘s proximity to completion of WMD (if not there already) that is the deciding factor.  Somali warlords were just as petty and thuglike, but they didn‘t have Scud missiles...


----------



## Harry (3 Oct 2002)

Saddam has proven time and again that he is dangerous, will attack and has no problem using the NBC card.

Unlike most other modern day tyrants, Saddam actually backs his maniacal words with actions.

This why he has to be dealt with.  UN sanctions-smanctions, he has never respected them and in all reality considers diplomacy and negotiation as weakness (circa pre-Gulf War rhetoric).

Thanks for the Chamberlain remarks.  If ever there was an example of ostrich syndrome.

And for the so-called Goe-Political scholars-pundits amongst us, the little cave by the UN to omit his palaces from scrutiny.  How many of you learned people know that a majority of his prized military, industrial and suspected WMD facilities are located in so called Presidential Palace Compounds?

  :skull:


----------



## onecat (3 Oct 2002)

Saddam, saddam saddam.

Sure he‘s a nasty little tyrant, but who put him there..........  I‘ll give ya one quess.

It was the United States, and all though the 80‘s they could careless that he gased his people in 87.  They even wanted to give him more money for it 1988 knowing full well what he was and what he did.  There lots other warlords out there that need to taken of, but none of them have oil.

I‘m all for going if the United States has a plan on the books for reconstruction.  But they don‘t plan on staying, they‘ll just put a new leader in most likely someone who doesn‘t support woman‘s rights, and it will end up very much like the rest of region. Look at the Gulf war did anything change?  Can women vote, or even drive car in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?  I think the only thing that changed was that bought more military equiptment from the west.

"And for the so-called Goe-Political scholars-pundits amongst us, the little cave by the UN to omit his palaces from scrutiny. How many of you learned people know that a majority of his prized military, industrial and suspected WMD facilities are located in so called Presidential Palace Compounds?"

Yes they need to take of care of.  The UN does need reform.  But the reform just can‘t be at the call of westfor the west.  It must speak for the whole world.


----------



## Harry (4 Oct 2002)

Radiohead, I am very aware of the lay of the land over there and who put who where.

Yes the west turned their back while he did their bidding in Iran.  France, UK and US helped him to get his programs going and then he fell out of favor and in walked the Soviets and gave him more toys and technology.

But like all good tyrants for whom the West supports, once and awhile one goes completely rogue.  Saddam is a rogue.  Even Qaddafi who the US loved to hate was to a measure more predictable.  Since he managed to stay alive this long and with the way he has softened his stand on many issues, including terrorism.  The US needed a new poster child.

In todayâ€™s world and compared to whoâ€™s who in the world of tyrants and dictators, give me another example of someone who has the ability to lash out and wreak vengeance with the disregard he has for us.

Most western economies and the US need to have a war stance stimulation.  Like it or not.  And Saddam has done a masterful job to draw the ire of the West.  Capitalism needs oil to keep going.  Like it or not we need oil and he poses a very real threat to it.  Was the Gulf War really about Kuwait and giving freedom to the lesser and infidels in the eyes of Islam or oil?


----------



## combat_medic (4 Oct 2002)

I‘m very much in agreement that Bush is trying to use the Saddam card as a way to get re-elected. People in the US say that he found his voice as a leader during the 9-11 crisis. That‘s bull$hit. He, like his father is only capable of leading in a warring state, so he went to war at the very first conceivable oppportunity.

Other than the increased security, the guy has done NOTHING domestically. He‘s a southerner hick gun nut who, like Saddam, won‘t listen to anything not pointed down the end of a barrell. While he may not like Saddam, Bush understands that he‘ll onyl listen to force.

I‘m still not sure though where I stand on an all out ground war in the Persian Gulf. I think we stand to lose a lot for very little gain.


----------



## Bill Smy (5 Oct 2002)

The only war I ever approved of was the Trojan War; it was fought over a woman, and the men knew what they were fighting for.

William Lyon Phelps
In a sermon at Riverside Church, New York
25 June 1933

  :fifty:


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Oct 2002)

Interesting posts. I wonder what the reactions would be, if we had Yanks on the list, pontificating about the motivations of Canadian politicians, and the intricacies of our policies? "How dare they?" I imagine. Anyway, a nice debate nonetheless. War for oil? Doubtful. Everyone said that about Kuwait, and it didn‘t turn out to be true. War for re-election? Probably not - not a popular enough idea. Hasn‘t done anything domestically? Like what? I am curious as to what someone would base that opinion on I have mixed feelings about a war over there - it is naive at best to think the Canadian or American public & even media have access to the same intelligence info as the President of the United States. My main feeling is better to err on the side of caution, then to err and underestimate the psyche and ability of ol Mr Hussein. Oh - and Gun nut? I think I am one too


----------



## onecat (6 Oct 2002)

I haven‘t been watching alot of American news lately; but I think this the type of things they should be talking about.  Instead of rolling themselves in the flag.  The reason behind this new push to take out saddam needed to talked about in the US media.  What I‘m interested in seeing, what happens after the Nov elections.  Will UN peace deal be okay then if the republicans win or lose?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Oct 2002)

> Interesting posts. I wonder what the reactions would be, if we had Yanks on the list, pontificating about the motivations of Canadian politicians, and the intricacies of our policies? "How dare they?" I imagine. Anyway, a nice debate nonetheless. War for oil? Doubtful. Everyone said that about Kuwait, and it didn‘t turn out to be true. War for re-election? Probably not - not a popular enough idea. Hasn‘t done anything domestically? Like what? I am curious as to what someone would base that opinion on I have mixed feelings about a war over there - it is naive at best to think the Canadian or American public & even media have access to the same intelligence info as the President of the United States. My main feeling is better to err on the side of caution, then to err and underestimate the psyche and ability of ol Mr Hussein. Oh - and Gun nut? I think I am one too


Good responses, Muskrat, I have to agree.

If anyone has anything like a an actual source or quote to back up any of the preposterous claims made in this thread, feel free to provide them.  Conversely, if anyone can prove Saddam Hussein isn‘t preparing WMD (good luck) feel free to do that, too.


----------



## toms3 (7 Oct 2002)

Ok...Michael I will try.   I have this friend....he knows this guy and he said that his uncle was at band camp and he heard that....blah...blah.. Sorry...had too.

Quote..."Interesting posts. I wonder what the reactions would be, if we had Yanks on the list, pontificating about the motivations of Canadian politicians, and the intricacies of our policies? "How dare they?"" 

Personnally, I think we have every right to debate this point, because their actions will directy affect the world in some way.  Its not a domestic issue...its has international ramifications .


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Oct 2002)

I am not saying that we don‘t have the right to debate it. I‘m saying that you lose some credibility when you tie this "international situation" to US Domestic motivations - to which the average Canadian (or American, for that matter) cannot really call themselves an authority.  Hopefully that made sense. To call the President a "gun nut" for example, or that the US is waging war for oil can‘t hold a lot of water if it is only based on the trickle-down opinions of media, especially if you don‘t even live in the US. I actually enjoy the Iraq debate - both sides have valid points. I just think it detracts from a person‘s argument when they over-simplify the US‘, or any country‘s position.


----------



## toms3 (7 Oct 2002)

No worries, that made sense and I agree, I feel in these situation there is always more then meets the eye.   It could simply be that he believes in his soul that Saddam is a futurer threat that must be dealt with and the UN is blind for not addressing it right away.   Conversly there could be another reason...what it could be...we will never know.   Is it the fact that he is willing to send troops to their deaths, risk a wider conflict in the name of re-election...I highly doubt that and should leave that story for a Tom Clancy novel.

I believe its in his nature.  Much the way he ran Texas.  If there is a murderer.....excute him...and unfortunetly for Saddam...he is a murder.    

It will be interesting to hear what Bush has to say tonight.


----------



## combat_medic (7 Oct 2002)

> Conversly there could be another reason...what it could be..


OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL

that is all.


----------



## Marauder (7 Oct 2002)

I think we should listen to all those luminaries who signed that petition, and just wait for NY and LA to be turned into glassed-over parking lots before we issue another UN resolution that tells Saddam that we‘re not happy with his using WMDs against civvie populations . But this time we may think about using stonger wording, even though he is just a misunderstood Arab looking out for the best interests of his "People"(is there any other kind?)

Hey medic, I realize you may not be tuned into the whole DeathTech vibe from the Force here, but you do realize that most of the people in the combat arms are there because they like playing with those little C7 and C9 muskets, right? You seem to be parroting the Liberals with their whole "people owning guns = people worshipping Satan and eating children" outlook here. I know you‘re out in BC there, but c‘mon....

And yes Digger, it is very unfortunate that Saddam is a murderer... one who possesses chem/bio weps and is crotchhairs away from having baby nukes thanks to the French and S.Africans.


----------



## combat_medic (7 Oct 2002)

My grandfather, a decorated WWII vet FROM the combat arms, told me that no good soldier ever really wants war. The only people that desire war are sociopaths, and those that stand to profit without themselves risking their lives.

Yes, we‘ve all trained for combat, and we all want the chance to practice those skills, but does that mean the desire to do harm? Ask any vet, ANY vet who‘s had to kill personally, close enough to smell their breath and see their blood and they‘ll say that it still haunts them, decades later. Anyone eager for war, death, and destruction frightens me, as well it should do to anyone.

Just because I disaprove of Bush‘s international policies does not make me a leftist. Neither does living in BC make me a tree-hugging hippie. Just as being a soldier doesn‘t make you a baby killer, despite what many civillians may think.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Oct 2002)

I‘m wondering how many believe that Dubya is actually eager for a war? Based on what? Foxnews talk shows? CBC‘s portrayal? Globe & Mail editorials? C‘mon....I think the whole purpose of all this sabre rattling is exactly that - an effort to make Hussein, the UN, and whomever else see the light - BEFORE an actual war. Even the US, if they really wanted to go to war, wouldn‘t talk about it, months before hand. I guess you don‘t get the sound bites up there, from in the 90s when Gore and Clinton were telling everyone that Hussein must be stopped at all costs. Half the country is PO‘d, because they didn‘t think the politicians did enough to prevent 9/11 - the other half is pissed because he‘s trying to prevent a similar scenario, with the possibility of even worse consequences. Bush outlined evidence against Iraq tonight - including satellite recce, defector intelligence, etc. Do I believe everything? Of course not! Do I know more than all the US intelligence agencies combined? No.... Am I comfortable assuming/hoping that Saddam will play nice, from now until whenever? Hardly. Even if we wanted to believe that.. which "what if" has the worst outcome, if we‘re wrong. Anyway, great points from everyone on the board.


----------



## Marauder (7 Oct 2002)

I would be willing to bet that your Grandfather lives with those memories knowing what he did was for noble and just cause, namely stopping Hitler before he put an entire continent under his heel and finished his Final Solution. Like it was pointed out in this thread, now is the time to kick some *** , instead of being a limpwristed bitch like Chamberlin. And if you don‘t think the comparison is accurate, think about this: Where is the first place in the Middle East nuclear-tipped Scuds would be falling once Saddam had them assembled? How big of a jug**** would that turn the region into? In that instance, it wouldn‘t be America going into Iraq with a few straphangers, it would be the newest War To End All Wars.
It‘s just like oncology; if you catch the cancer before it metasticizes, you can cut it out. And that‘s a ****  of a lot better of a dice roll than systemic chemo later on.

And since you saw fit to question my willingness to step up and play my part, all I can say is "**** That". If this ****!ng joke of an Army actually were going to get the chance to throw a New Year‘s party in Baghdad, I‘d be the first piece of cannonfodder on the (American owned and flown)plane. But that, literally, can‘t happen. So here I am, stuck in the middle with you. Oh well, maybe we can settle on babysitting some Serbs and Croats or Somalis, telling them to play nice or we‘ll take our toys and go home.


----------



## onecat (8 Oct 2002)

Marauder, what‘s your beaf with combat_medic?  From what I‘ve seen of posts there thoughtful and create dissicion.  Which thead is all about.  

Here‘s a question for ya....  what happens after the war when the US takes him out.  All the Kurds in North allowed become a nation?  After all there not wanted by saddam‘s people, because they gases them in 87. Is the west going to stay there and make sure Iraq is re-built.  All that cost money and staying power.  Something west has shown to be lacking.  If war does happen, and that‘s a big IF even with Bush‘s spin talk, Canada should be there and do its part.


----------



## Pikache (8 Oct 2002)

I wonder how many other ****pumps need to get their ***  kicked.

North Korea, some nuke happy Pakis and Indians, fundamentalist arabs with their ‘Satan America‘ thing, Qaddafi... the list does get quite long, yes?


----------



## combat_medic (8 Oct 2002)

> I would be willing to bet that your Grandfather lives with those memories knowing what he did was for noble and just cause, namely stopping Hitler before he put an entire continent under his heel and finished his Final Solution.


Considering his brother and many of the best friends he ever had were killed, I doubt the greater political struggle involved really entered his mind. Neither does the illetrate farmer from nowhere Saskatchewan care about Chamberlain‘s aquiessence of the annexation of Chekoslovakia. They defend their family, home, and country, and when the $hit hits the fan, they‘re really just protecting each other.

And if your eagerness to fight, kill and be killed is so great, might I recommend the French Foreign Legion, who would eagerly welcome your "enthusiasm". And if you think this army is a joke, maybe you should reconsider your career path. Yes, we‘re poorly underfunded, staffed and equipped, but we remain one of the best trained armed forces in the world. Yes, our government needs to support us and learn that many of these solutions require force, because the ideologies of the Middle East won‘t listen to anything else. But the Yanks parading into Iraq without the support of the UN or NATO is lunacy... not to mention suicide. War may be the answer, but let‘s just make sure we‘ve fully asked the question shall we?

As for your medical analogy; the aggresive surgical removal of a tumor is often devastating to the body, leaving the patient often without an arm, a leg, a breast, from which they will never recover, physically or phsychologically.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Oct 2002)

So combat_medic, regarding your first para about soldiers not caring about the political underpinnings of their service or reasons for volunteering - well and good, but why then your insistence that the US President is simply out to get himself and some Republican congressmen re-elected, or to have access to oil?  You seem awfully convinced that you know the US President better than the Canadian media.  I wonder why that is.

Incidentally, even if one of Bush‘s reasons for invading Iraq did involve oil, why would that invalidate his entire strategy, or suggest that there aren‘t other, better, reasons behind his thoughts and actions?   I bet you don‘t hug trees, but I‘m betting you get to Wednesday night parades by car or bus?  Using oil is part of our way of life - since you‘re not a leftist, I have to presume that includes you?  ;-)


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Oct 2002)

The UN has imposed numerous resolutions starting 9 years ago that were neither obeyed, nor enforced. Weapons inspectors in the past, were not granted "unfettered inspections". Economic embargos had little effect. Monies from the sale of oil went to arms programs, instead of the Iraqi people. Again, I am not sure whether we should or shouldn‘t go to war - but no one has answered the questions "what if we don‘t and we‘re wrong?" "what about the diplomatic means that have been tried and failed?" Hussein has offered the families of Palestinians money, if their children become martyrs - he‘s not capable of working out some kind of deal to bring a jug of anthrax into the US? A "dirty nuke?" Another question - would the objectivity of "no-war" Canadians be shifted if the planes had flown into the CN tower, or Parliament buildings on 9/11?


----------



## combat_medic (8 Oct 2002)

Michael: while soldiers may not necessarily be politicians, we, like the rest of the population are voters. I‘m not trying to say that I know or understand Bush or his politics better than anybody, I‘m just saying that his intentions to invade Iraq don‘t seem as magnanimous as he may want the American population to believe. While he may want to protect the world from Saddam Hussein, the US is notorious for waging war only to protect self-interest (WWI-Lusitania, WWII-Pearl Harbour, Vietnam). 

Yes, oil is important, quite a vital part of the modernised world. Is it worth war? Don‘t get me wrong, I think force WILL be justified and indeed necessary against Iraq, but imposed by the world entirely, backed by the UN and NATO, rather than the Americans wanting to run in and blow up the country single-handedly.

By the way, it‘s Thursday nights in BC


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2002)

I think in a way the US going to war with IRAQ is a good thing.

In the middle east with palastine and iseral things are on the verge of blowing up. That would set off in my opinion a great many other conflicts. The united states can‘t pick one side or the other in that situation without the other side flipping out.
The US can‘t even act as peacekeepers there because they would be instantly targeted.
Iraq has offerend any palastine family that has a family member who kills themselves by blowing themselves up or whatever, 10 thosand dollars. That is working directly against the peace effort.
So in my way of thinking, by taking out saddam the us is removing an incluence of war, albit maybe a small one.  of course theres much more to the story then that. 
Saddam is a bad bad man, they should have took him out of power when they could have. Then again, hes holding his country together with fear. If he gets ousted then i figure there will be warlords or generals who start a kind of civil war trying to gain power.


----------



## Recce41 (8 Oct 2002)

There is only one reason the US is up in Arms. Someone has the Balls to say F*&^ You to the US. Every time the US has a lil country that is not in theier lil US world they want to kick *** . Damn if we had the Balls we‘ed say the same thing.  
 The US cannot go on any peacekeeping mission, our even are trusted in 80% of the countries. Why! They are the bully of the world. And Yng Georgie has toys to play with like Dad. The inspectors left, they were not kicked out. I‘ed be pissed to if some other ****, came and told me how to run my house. 
 Yes his weapons should be put to rest, but yng George is there to be like Dad. They could have got Sadam long ago. He would just be replaced by some US ****head. Then the US would have control of all the oil and everyone else would be out. 
 If they were worried about every Dictator they be in Africa, South America, etc. But it has no economic wealth for them. 
 If they wanted to help they would have somed up the Palistines/Israli affair. No that would not be American to help for free.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Oct 2002)

And there you have it, from Recce41 - gosh, and all this time I thought it was more complicated than that.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Oct 2002)

> Michael: while soldiers may not necessarily be politicians, we, like the rest of the population are voters. I‘m not trying to say that I know or understand Bush or his politics better than anybody, I‘m just saying that his intentions to invade Iraq don‘t seem as magnanimous as he may want the American population to believe.


Okay, so what are his intentions, if not what he is saying, and how do you know?  You keep putting forth this idea for discussion - that‘s great, but you keep refusing to back it up with anything - even a scrap of a hint why you feel this way would be good.  There are all kinds of scenarios possible, some that reflect on him well and others poorly - why so eager to believe the one or two in your mind that paint him negatively?  



> While he may want to protect the world from Saddam Hussein, the US is notorious for waging war only to protect self-interest (WWI-Lusitania, WWII-Pearl Harbour, Vietnam).


Don‘t all nations go to war for self-interest, in the end?  Even Canada?  Especially Canada - you could say we were mercenaries in World War One and benefitted by the Statute of Westminster.  



> Yes, oil is important, quite a vital part of the modernised world. Is it worth war?


Is anything?  In the end, no, unless you count going to war to prevent or end one, which Canadians usually do.



> Don‘t get me wrong, I think force WILL be justified and indeed necessary against Iraq, but imposed by the world entirely, backed by the UN and NATO, rather than the Americans wanting to run in and blow up the country single-handedly.


I would hope you are right.



> By the way, it‘s Thursday nights in BC


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Oct 2002)

Exactly - what about Canadian wars? Russia in 1917 (I think that was the year). The Boer War? I would even argue that, after the attack on Pearl Harbour, the US had a far more valid reason to enter the war, than Canada did...we live in no glass house, and I might even argue that no western Government is more self-serving than ours......


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Oct 2002)

The Canadian Government really does come off as existing only to better its own interests or the interests of the constituents of the ruling party.  But it‘s easy to become jaded and make up wild stories - like I am accusing combat_medic of doing with G.W. Bush.  

As for self interest - I am certainly proud of our involvement in the second chapter of the European Civil War that took place between 1939 and 1945, but really, and pragmatically, what business did we have there?  Were our interests directly threatened?  Not at all.  It is in fact a point of pride that we contributed so much despite not being directly threatened.

So why should Iraq be different all of a sudden?


----------



## combat_medic (9 Oct 2002)

Michael: The accusations aren‘t wild, and it isn‘t anything that hasn‘t been said by MANY others before me. The proof you want is in his actions since election. The guy has no domestic plans. Other than increasing security at airports, arming pilots, etc., the President has done little to nothing for his country. Actually, he‘s done less than any other president before him, even wartime presidents. 

His extreme right wing policies are known to most people, and his (and his father‘s) desire for war seem to be more than obvious. it‘s one of the reasons he came so close to losing the election. His hardline, overtly aggresive, extreme right wing views were apparent during his campaign, and have been put into practice since his election.

It has been suggested by the media that he‘s so eager for a war because he‘s trying to live up to his father‘s presidential term. While I don‘t think that‘s the case, his actions since 9-11 have shown that he wants a fight, even if he has to go against both UN and NATO mandates to do so. He, and the US population in general have earned a great deal of sympathy and support since 9-11, and many of his former supporters are backing away from him now that he‘s trying to start a world war.

That being said, no, Canada is neither innocent nor magnanimous whne it comes to war. We, like Australia, entered WWII because we were members of the Commonwealth protecting British interests. Maybe we shouldn‘t have been there, but we were defending our allies rather than waiting for the fight to come to us (as the US did). Maybe we could have comfortably sat out the war and never have been attacked, but our government felt the need to contribute to our friends and allies, which, in my opinion, make us a little less self-serving than the US.

Based on the statement you‘re making, you suggest that no nation should participate in a war unless they‘re directly threatened by it. This kind of negates the whole idea of NATO, whose membership requires protection of all member nations.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Oct 2002)

You are dead wrong, on a few points. Bush‘s government was against arming pilots - this was something that other groups, including some pilots‘ associations wanted. I wonder what qualifies you to judge his domestic policies? Do you live here, or is it based on media reports? He hasn‘t had a whole lot of time to do much - he‘s been a little busy with protecting the country. He is in the process of ordering dockworkers back to work, which hasn‘t been done in 25 years, and most believe is a good step. He has tried to work on domestic oil (Alaska) and timber policies. He has been blocked at every attempt, by partisan politics. Medic, you have made some good points, but you have also made some comments which frankly, you‘re not qualified to make, unless you live in the US. Most media doesn‘t report facts anymore, they provide opinions. They are also generally left wing, and you have fallen prey to this.


----------



## combat_medic (9 Oct 2002)

To say simply that because I don‘t like in the US I‘m not entitled to an opinion is a little biased as well, wouldn‘t you say? Unless you‘re a member of Bush‘s cabinet, you‘re getting the exact same media reports than I am, left wing or not. 

I also never said that I‘m qualified to judge him, or anyone else for that matter. I, like every other citizen of this country, am entitled to an opinion. A lot of people in this forum are taking posts as living gospel. It‘s an opinion, from everyone! I doubt that the President, Minister of National Defence, or any other major political figures are posting messages in this thread, so take it for what it‘s worth.

If you disagree, make a counter-argument, but you don‘t have the right to say that someone is right or wrong. If I have no right to judge Bush (which I never presumed to do) then what right do you have to judge me? This is what free speech is about:

"I may disagree with what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

-Voltaire-

Isn‘t that part of what being a soldier is about too?


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Oct 2002)

Sorry, but we don‘t get the same news reports. I also supplement my news with experience living under the trickle down effects of a given administration. You don‘t say "its my opinion that Bush tried to arm pilots", for example - you state this as fact, the same as your opinions of his domestic policies, which are presented as facts. I have not been home (NB) for over 5 years - I cannot say with any authority, my opinion of the Government‘s performance, provincial or federal - because I am not living it. I can speak with a little authority to military matters, because I have lived it, and it is the one area of Canadian policy that I do follow. If I said "hey medic - how are the Liberals performing fedarally?" would your response be accurate enough to post on a means similar to this, and pass it off as fact? What if I visited the CBC web site? Am I now an authority of Canadian politics? My differences with you do not relate to your OPINIONS regarding a war with Iraq - my angst is because of your inaccurate (sometimes) substantiations.


----------



## combat_medic (9 Oct 2002)

Living in Canada does not make me an expert on Canadian politics, neither does being in the reserves make me a military analyst. I know I‘m seeing it from the outside looking in, but what other option do I have? If someone from outside of the country states an opinion on the Canadian government, they may not get the same news, but they‘re stating from their experience. They can often give interesting insights, not being directly involved or afftected by the decisions made.

Also, being from Canada yourself, I‘m sure you know how much the Canadian media is innundated by American news, especially here being less than 100km from the border, and especially since 9-11, the US news has taken a far greater prominence in Canadian media. And if everyone who doesn‘t have direct experience with US politics refrained from voicing their opinions, it would be a very lonely forum indeed.

People draw their own conclusions based on the information they‘re given. If that information is incorrect, by all means correct it.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Oct 2002)

OK - all that, I can agree with


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Oct 2002)

For some great, reasonably informed, debate on war with Iraq, go to  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/mideast/gulf/iraq/commentary/ 

this site provides a myriad of commentary, both pro and con


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Oct 2002)

> Based on the statement you‘re making, you suggest that no nation should participate in a war unless they‘re directly threatened by it. This kind of negates the whole idea of NATO, whose membership requires protection of all member nations.


If you reread my statements, I am saying exactly the opposite - Canada needs to be involved in a war against Iraq even though we are not directly threatened, just as we did in WW II.  We have the greatest country in the world; its up to us to help the rest of the world get that way, too.


----------



## onecat (10 Oct 2002)

I just have to point out a few things.  First of all we in Canada get most if all of the media reports from the USA.  Be that though TV, print, radio and website.  Which how the common person the states gets their news.  Do you actually think wacthing CNN is different here.  So we in canada can actually base our opnions from it.

One don‘t have to have to live in the united States to know that there election next month and the that harder Bush pushes Iraq the better it is for party.  On domestic front before 9/11 there nothing, even his father did better; and since 9/11 there have been nothing.  And he‘s been there for TWO years.  Bush had to act on the dock workers, a few more weeks of the lockout and we would all be out of work, and with X-mas only 10 weeks away.

And as For Canada, we are allies and we will gain respect from our alley.  And be that respect will get us a better deal In NAFTA.  I‘m sure the forest worker would like that.


----------



## onecat (10 Oct 2002)

Before anyone points it out yes, my last post had typo-s and a few forgot keys words.  It was late, I‘ll do a re-read on my next ones.


----------



## combat_medic (10 Oct 2002)

YAY, I have a supporter.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Oct 2002)

> YAY, I have a supporter.


Oh, give us a break!  You‘ve been posting here quite a while and always with well thought out and well worded posts - I should imagine you have a lot of supporters here, and that includes me.


----------



## combat_medic (10 Oct 2002)

I guess the sarcasm intended for my previous comment didn‘t quite come out as I had hoped.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Oct 2002)

No, I caught it, just wanted to reaffirm my thinking on the matter in case you‘re feeling villified by the conversation here.... 

Now go hug a tree.


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Oct 2002)

Radiohead - I have lived in both countries, and there are some common presentations of media, but there are also differences - some subtle, some not. As far as Bush wanting to go to war, to better the election - that‘s just plain goofy. His resolution to use force (if necessary) on Iraq requires the support of both parties to pass in the House and Senate. I am still curious as to where you aquired your insight into the US political system, and especially this administration‘s domestic policies


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (11 Oct 2002)

OK, time for the Yank to enter the debate. First, as for the whole thing about everyone watching the same news and whether of not that makes all equally qualified to their opinions. Allow me to ask you all here a few questions.
1)How many Senators does each state have?
2)How often are Representitives elected?
3)How often are Senators elected?
4)Who has the power to declare war?
5)Who has the power to make treaties?
6)How is the President elected?

Now, I don‘t actually expect answers; my point is that just because you see the same news as another nation, doesn‘t mean you understand how that nation works. For instance, I had a Poli Sci prof in college who was Canadian. Here was a man who not only lived in this country, but  _taught_  a class in comparative politics. And he thought the US method of electing a president was the stupidest thing in the world and saw the entire American system as downright undemocratic. He clearly did not understand the reasoning behind it or the fact that has worked longer than any other representitive system out there. Nonetheless, I digress. My point is sometimes, despite all the information, you just don‘t understand someone else‘s world.

Before you accuse Pres. Bush of ‘wagging the dog‘, or dismiss Americans as redneck, Bud-swilling, flag-waving gun nuts, does it occure to you that perhaps Bush is doing what the American people want. How bout the fact that Bush is (and has been) taking his case to the American people and in fact laying it all out for the world to see. Could it be that he is actually expecting the American people, through their representitives in Congress, make the discision to go to war? For a world bully, we really do a lousy job of it. I mean, if we wanted to, we could  already own all of Iraq and there wouldn‘t be a damned thing anyone could do about it. And if anyone out there seriously thinks the United States could not take over Iraq (or just about any other country we wanted) singlehanded, I suggest they look at the numbers and what the US has done in the past. But the point is, we don‘t. Just cause we have the capability to be a bully doesn‘t meant we are. Likewise, occasionally taking unilateral action when necessary doesn‘t mean we are a bully either. It‘s called leadership, and sometimes a leader has to do something unpopular, even harsh, because it is necessary.

As for the WWII thing, how was the US only acting out of self-interest? If we were only acting in retailiantion for Pearl Harbor, then why were we fighting in the ETO? If we were only in the ETO because Hitler declared war on us, then why was it the priority? Roosevelt was trying for over a year before PH to get the US into the war in Europe, and had agreed with Churchill that Europe would be the priority. Hitler was a threat to the world, pure and simple. The US wasn‘t fighting that war to gain land, help our friends the Brits (crouch it how you will, you and the Aussies were fighting because you were part of the British Empire, that‘s it), or gain world influence. **** , most Americans wanted to stay out of the war untill 7 Dec.  So before you go accusing the US of being a band of barbaric, war-mongering cowboys, at least get your facts straight.

TARGETS UP!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Oct 2002)

Targets down...well said.


----------



## combat_medic (11 Oct 2002)

1)How many Senators does each state have?
-2 per state
2)How often are Representitives elected?
-every 2 years
3)How often are Senators elected?
-every 2 years there‘s an election, but each Senator holds a 6 year term (so about 1/3 come up for re-election every 2 years)
4)Who has the power to declare war?
-Congress, with I think a 2/3 majority
5)Who has the power to make treaties?
-this one I don‘t know
6)How is the President elected
-Through the Electoral College rather than popular vote

See, I learned most of this stuff in High School in Canada. Almost a year is spent contrasting Canadian and American political systems in high school, wheras most Americans would be incredibly hard pressed to answer the same questions. The Canadian education system focuses on many nations (I could answer those questions about Great Britain and Japan as well), which can be both a benefit and a failing.


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Oct 2002)

Well said, Sgt Shmedley - I used to practice the same ol Anti-American sentiment many Canadians practice. To paint with a very broad brush - coarse and over bearing, perhaps, but also good hearted, and charitable as well. On the site I listed above there is an interesting article about a joint French/US operation on the Ivory Coast - run flawlessly by 2 US and French Colonels. American troops helped evacuate not only American citizens, but mostly French and citizens fromother countries. I do not have hard data to back it up, but I think some research will show that the US is one of, if not THE world leaders in providing assistance (of many kinds) to other countries. Not many people bring that up. I just enjoy debates based on reason , not emotion.


----------



## Recce41 (11 Oct 2002)

Sorry Sgt102
 But you have the basic US train of thought, "WE COULD KICK ANY ONES *** ". I‘ve been to places where people would and have stood and fought to the end. The US could never really take Iraq and control it. I‘ve trained with US troops that quit when it got too cold or they started to look not superior. IE The LDSH, 1/67 gunnery competion, the US didnot want to fire at night because our old LEO had a better TI site. We Cdns have Competed at Cat with our old LEO C1s against M1s,Leo2s and never just left. I‘m not putting you down, but I found US soldiers have that we can do that because we‘re the US. In Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo most didnot trust the US soldiers. 
 On one SUE, Rangers went home because it was too cold in Petawawa during winter warfare training. Damn in war you going to quit. Sweat and pain means saving Blood in war. 
 At one mess dinner a guess US General stated the US could invade Canada, but by winter he‘ed have his troops going home. To me that feels good. Canada is like Russia as you know, open plains, heavy forest, cold weather. the US may take the cities in time but after the power is out, and winter sets in it would be like Stalingrad.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (11 Oct 2002)

Recce, I‘m not saying (John Wayne voice): "We can kick anyone‘s azz cuz we‘re the USofA!" thing based on arrogance as you seem to think. I‘m talking about capability. Do you really think that, if the US bent all it effort (well, all that was needed) toward taking Iraq, that we couldn‘t? Look at what the US has done in the past. In WWII, we went from having a puny army and ineffectual navy, both so small the great powers never paid them any attention, to having the largest, most powerful military machine on the planet. (and the only one with atomic weapons.) What I think you fail to realize is the sheer might of the United States. **** , I don‘t think we realize just how strong we are. Just look at the resources, the number of people, etc. Yeah, Canada may be big, but the US ain‘t exactally small, and we do have the third largest population. 280 million is A LOT of people! 

But anyway, im not going to get into a pissing contest here. Suffice it to say, if the United States wasn‘t as strong as it thinks it it, most of the world would not be afraid of it. Again, I‘m only talking capability, not manifest destiny or phallic comparisons.

Oh, and I always here Canadians saying Americans are weak because we can‘t take the cold. Give me a f-ing break! First of all, all those active duty US units you trained with and Rangers and what not, their mostly a bunch of Southerners. Southerners are worthless in any weather below 50 F. If they even see snow, they curl up into the fetal position and enter a catatonic state. Those of us from New England can deal with a real winter without even noticing, and the boys from the Great Lakes will laugh at anything you throw at them. Besides, if it gets too cold, we‘ll just turn up our electric underwear and crank up the heaters in out shelters and vehilcles. It‘s not like we fight on the ground anymore; we just have to look good for CNN while the Air Force bombs the bad guys. But the real point is, although we could take Canada, why would we want to?


----------



## muskrat89 (12 Oct 2002)

Recce - that‘s slightly amusing coming from you because you exhibit more bravado and chest thumping than anyone else on the list, that I‘ve read so far. Not that you haven‘t had some good points, but its always laced with t his "I just said it, and it is gospel - I am all knowing" fluff that detracts from your arguments. You sound more like an American than Shmedley does


----------



## Travis (12 Oct 2002)

Theres no doubt America could cause Canada some serious damage.  But the loses would definatley be on the American side.  We have so much love for this country most people wouldn‘t stop till there last drop of blood was spilt, or breath breathed.  I know i wouldn‘t.  And i totaly agree with President Bush‘s attack on Iraq.  I think it should be done as soon as possible.  Its clear he has chemical weapons, which he has used on his own people.  So whats going to stop this loco from using it on a well populated European or north, mid, south American major city.  When he used it the first time on his own people it should of been reason enough to enter Iraq for the peoples sake.  Who cares what country there part of or what nationality they are.  Hes murdering the people an where watching from our homes while they suffer.  The biggest problem with the Arab world is that there mis- lead.  They think we come to steal there land and create war and famine, when we really come to free the from the shackles that the educated bad guys put on them.


----------



## onecat (12 Oct 2002)

Travis, 

On your second point, you do realize that saddam used though weapons in 1987 and the US had full knowledge on the events, and the next year wantted to give him more money for his fight with Iran.  It didn‘t matter then that he used them on Kurds, and he hasn‘t used them since.  The fact he used them is just Bush‘s spin to get the public behind him.  He needs to be removed, and if the US follows all the rules them I say go for it.  But as the World superpower you can‘t make the rules for evenyone else and have different one‘s for you.

Your first point.  Canada would be totally taken over in the invaded.  Sure we love our country and would fight, but like most nations I‘m sure once those papers are signed it‘ll be a few who will keep on fighting.  Look at France, Holland, Poland, the Baltic countries.   Its not like our cultures all that different and the canadian way of life would totally change.  

Hey maybe we would actually get a better system of electing our govn‘ts; because the system we have right now sucks.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (23 Oct 2002)

Unfortunately, in International politics (especially when one is a superpower) one rarely has the luxury of dealing only with nations with morally clean slates. Sometimes one has to pick the lesser of two evils as an ally. That is exactly what Saddam was in the 1980‘s. Yes, he was (and still is) a paranoid, totalitarian dictator who cares for no one but himself, but at the time, the US saw the expansion of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism as a much greater threat to regional stability than the dictator of secular (albeit totalitarian) state. Just because we supported him in his war against Iran (a nation then exporting not only radical Islam, but also terrorism) does not mean we thought he was a great guy. The US supported the Soviet Union in WWII against Germany, but did not become a supporter of Communism. Eventually Saddam fulfilled his purpose, and then went on to become a threat himself. So now he is the enemy. As for the US response to his use of chemical weapons against his own people in 1987, we didn‘t exactly look the other way. I can remember the outrage our government reacted with, and I was 9 at the time! Don‘t ask me to tell you what our government did, because again, I was 9, but I still picked up on the fact that it was not happy about it. But what should Reagan have done? Invade a (then) ally? Bomb him? Remember also, this was still the day of the Cold War, when before any action, the US had to ask its self, ‘how will the Soviets react?‘.  And really, in those days of global tension and the threat of nuclear war, we really didn‘t care what some p!ss-ant, second-world country did, as long as it didn‘t affect us or the Russians.

As for now, anyone who truly thinks this is all just a ploy by the President to ‘distract‘ the public, or some kind of family grudge ("I‘m gonna whup that guy where ma dadda didnt.") is a fool. Saddam poses a clear threat to stability in the region and to the United Stated in particular. No nation can justifiably do nothing in the face of such a direct threat.

So, are you guys going to be going in with us?


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2002)

The US has its own interests, which apparently compel it to make war against Iraq.  Does anyone care to define interests which should compel any other nation to make war against Iraq?


----------



## onecat (25 Oct 2002)

I remmebr it too. Although I was older and even though there was outrage, it didn‘t stop saddam from getting money and equipment from the United States.  But that was Reagan‘s term and was anything honest when it came to giving out money for so called allies. 

It is true that a superpower has limited choices in picking enemies, but they do have choices in who they pick as allies and the United state has a poor on that front. Its getting better now, and hopely will con‘t to get better.

But tell me this, if Saddam is so evil he has too go now, how about North Korea?  Now there is a man crazier than saddam and he has a real army with weapons of mass killing.  My guess is that they we get more food aid and be allowed to keep them, because a war with North Korea would have way too many US body bags.


----------



## Travis (29 Oct 2002)

I read that that KimjungF00sing or whatever his name is (to long) has around 1 mil troops... against 32 000 US troops currently deployed in the area.  I dun think the south koreans could do much... i dun think at least.  Man we‘ve been born into some up coming very very tough times.


----------



## Travis (29 Oct 2002)

I hear North Korea has around 1 million troops plus a supposed nuke.. which apparently they could just be using to get more support from South Korea and japan...  If South Korea and japan pay North Korea, North Korea was supposed to drop its nuclear weapon project... which it didnt.  According to the Times, around 3/4 of that countries gross is contributed to there army    .    :warstory:


----------



## corporal (2 Nov 2002)

so what does that tell us, most certainly that the US is not willing to go to war with  N KOREA because of the nuke thing and the casualtes would be huge for any percieved gain.

but they did say that they would go anywhere there was a percieved threat. And is not  N KOREA one of the 3 axis of evil? We may soon be facing that threat wether the  US deals with it now or later.


----------



## Travis (3 Nov 2002)

I personaly think that if diplomacy doesnt work with the Kim, then war or at least some kind of special ops. stuff should happen.  I mean it would be very very bad if he held Russia, China, South Korea, or Japan hostage (Thats if he actually does have a nuke).  I hear that they think Pakistan might have given them the bomb.  Cause pakistan had the means to make the bomb and had the bomb, but didnt have the missles to carry it.  And then theres N Korea which is one of the worlds biggest missle producers... who are also trying to aquire a bomb.


----------



## unknown_caller (3 Nov 2002)

Actually diplomacy is the reason why North Korea is a problem. I believe it was 1994 when North Korea promised to stop it‘s nuclear weapons program in exchange for some oil, food and 2 light nuclear reactors. Well they lied and continued the program anyways. They probably have 2 nukes as well as other wmd. And so we are left with an unstable country possessing nukes (even though they signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty). They were also being inspected by the Internation Atomic  Energy Agency. They also have some missiles that can reach Japan and might even hit the west coast of US/Canada. I shudder to think of what would happen if Saddam got the bomb.


----------



## Travis (6 Nov 2002)

Eeep, I swear if they tried to fire nukes at Canada i would follow them to the ends o the earth to stop em, detain them, and give them life in prison if i could with stand killing them.  And then after that i would follow them into ****  or whatever there is and find them....  Heck id do it if they fired it at any inicents

UK has called up 10, 000 reservists which is preety serious.  Suposibly this normally wouldn‘t happen unless a world power such as Russia attacked Europe and it was for the survival ofthe country 
(Got that from another Post)


----------

