S
silentseaforthsoldier
Guest
Sounds like to me that the yanks want to make yet another "Rental" on CF Coyotes... :tank:
Canadians going to Iraq
- Thread starter Fusaki
- Start date
P
Pugil
Guest
I believe that we should a strong military that would strike fear in our enemys heart when needed. But we have to use it carefully because it is a double edge sword and can damage our reputation worldwide. It is easy to say lets go in that country and bomb it back to the stone age. Going back to the topic, If US attacks Iraq it would the fist time US invades a country without a provocation, as we know through history invaders ALWAYS lose the war..just a matter of time. I dont understand why Iraq and N.Korea arent allowed to have weapons of mass destruction and if they do they are considered a threats to freedom while Israe has over 100 nuclear warhead and country that bash all UN resolution against it more than all the Axis of evil combined and stil not considered a rogue state. Thats the reason why I want Canada to stay away from an invasion of Iraq.
**It is a good thing that war is ugly, otherwise people would like it too much** General Lee
**It is a good thing that war is ugly, otherwise people would like it too much** General Lee
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
The latest poll asked Canadian‘s would you support an increase in the defense budget?
The over all answer was yes,BUT if it took money away from health and child support NO!!
So I guess we are not getting any defense increase.
If we go,you can bet we will be out on the road with our thumb out again looking for lift.
Also for Log. support if and when we get there as in Afgahnistan.
I‘m proud to were my Uniform but ashamed when it come‘s to were we can‘t support our selve‘s to deploy or sustain a battle group when in theater!
I think the Yank‘s will take our specialist‘s and that‘s all.
As whe need‘s a bum who you have to supply all the time and look after.
A very sad state of affair‘s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The over all answer was yes,BUT if it took money away from health and child support NO!!
So I guess we are not getting any defense increase.
If we go,you can bet we will be out on the road with our thumb out again looking for lift.
Also for Log. support if and when we get there as in Afgahnistan.
I‘m proud to were my Uniform but ashamed when it come‘s to were we can‘t support our selve‘s to deploy or sustain a battle group when in theater!
I think the Yank‘s will take our specialist‘s and that‘s all.
As whe need‘s a bum who you have to supply all the time and look after.
A very sad state of affair‘s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 430
Nothing... The ref to Oka is about Canadians getting fed up with a situation and agreeing with military action, and in response to Pugil talking about fighting a war for oil.
Pugil, when was the last time you‘ve been to a war ? I have witnessed war in a few places on this planet, and I am not a war monger. But Saddam Hussein has ridiculed UN resolutions for 10 years now, he had 4 years to prepare for the weapons inspector‘s return, and that‘s enough. If he does not fully cooperate, then military action is called for. Same thing with North Korea: we need to take action (not necesarily military at first) before they can detonate a nuclear bomb over South Korea or Japan. Yes Israel owns nuclear bombs, but they are for self-defense only as they are surrounded and outnumbered by potential aggressors. We must prevent expansionist states, like Irak and N-Korea, to develop or acquire WMD.
Finally, to comment on the use of atomic bombs by the US in WW2, don‘t forget the US was attacked by Japan without a declaration of war in 1941. And if you‘re so shocked by that, how come you are not disgusted about the way our POW‘s were treated by the Japanese after Hong Kong ? They spent over 4 years in inhuman conditions, many dying of disease or bad treatment.
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
Thank you, jungle and recce...the voices of reason. I think it is chic around the world (and on this board, at times) to be anti-American, and that clouds the objectivity in discussing the topic. The US is not perfect, and as some of you have adeptly pointed out, some of us seem to have selective memory. To base one‘s opinion on Canada as a whole, on foreign policy decisions/mistakes made generations ago would be ludicrous. Rational people know that no nation is perfect, no set of foreign policies is perfect; to base one‘s opinion on a country‘s leader using left wing news snippets is foolish, and that one can be pro-Canadian without being anti-American. When the shoe fits, the US should wear it, but put away the brush with the broad strokes. sheesh
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Pugil ... here‘s another look at history: Invaders don‘t ALWAYS lose.
1066 - William the Conqueror successfully invades England.
1688- William of Orange lands his protestant armada in England, leading to the removal the Catholic James II from the throne, and to the conquest of Ulster by England.
13th C - The Mongols, originally displaced Turks, made a nomadic conquest of most of China - they remain in what was China‘s extreme north to this day.
And, of course, the Spanish conquest of the Americas. We don‘t hear much from Technochitlan these days.
1066 - William the Conqueror successfully invades England.
1688- William of Orange lands his protestant armada in England, leading to the removal the Catholic James II from the throne, and to the conquest of Ulster by England.
13th C - The Mongols, originally displaced Turks, made a nomadic conquest of most of China - they remain in what was China‘s extreme north to this day.
And, of course, the Spanish conquest of the Americas. We don‘t hear much from Technochitlan these days.
P
Pugil
Guest
__________________________________________
Yes Israel owns nuclear bombs, but they are for self-defense only as they are surrounded and outnumbered by potential aggressors. We must prevent expansionist states, like Irak and N-Korea, to develop or acquire WMD.
__________________________________________
Israel has been bashing UN resolutions for more than 50 YEARS, and everytime thye are condemn by all countries except US. Do you think thats double standard? Remember US supported Saddam Hussein before, in the recent past US supported alot of despotic dictator and now they change it saying that they are a threat to the world. what threat? They dont even have an economy and their army is ill equipped and trained. N. Korea cant even feed their own people and an almost nil economy. We should tell those countries that and attack to any of their neighbors would mean the end of their regime and the world would be reunited to fight them instead of provocating and seeking for confrontation policy like Bush and his warmongers been doing when came to office. His policy toward those countries are seen as provocation by many countries, and when one of those country stands up Bush turns to the world and say that they are a threat to the freedom and that we must strike them fist. I agree with military action only if theres a backing of UN. Im not a anti-american, but I disagree alot with american policies but that still doesntmake me an anti-american.
To Portscullysguy, I can name you wars that has been lost by invaders in this century and I dont need to go back thousands of year in our History
Yes Israel owns nuclear bombs, but they are for self-defense only as they are surrounded and outnumbered by potential aggressors. We must prevent expansionist states, like Irak and N-Korea, to develop or acquire WMD.
__________________________________________
Israel has been bashing UN resolutions for more than 50 YEARS, and everytime thye are condemn by all countries except US. Do you think thats double standard? Remember US supported Saddam Hussein before, in the recent past US supported alot of despotic dictator and now they change it saying that they are a threat to the world. what threat? They dont even have an economy and their army is ill equipped and trained. N. Korea cant even feed their own people and an almost nil economy. We should tell those countries that and attack to any of their neighbors would mean the end of their regime and the world would be reunited to fight them instead of provocating and seeking for confrontation policy like Bush and his warmongers been doing when came to office. His policy toward those countries are seen as provocation by many countries, and when one of those country stands up Bush turns to the world and say that they are a threat to the freedom and that we must strike them fist. I agree with military action only if theres a backing of UN. Im not a anti-american, but I disagree alot with american policies but that still doesntmake me an anti-american.
To Portscullysguy, I can name you wars that has been lost by invaders in this century and I dont need to go back thousands of year in our History
S
Suffield
Guest
Pugil,
This is starting to vaguley sound like the anti Israeli/US rhetoric coming from the pro Palestinian Student Union at Concordia. Not a student there are you?
This is starting to vaguley sound like the anti Israeli/US rhetoric coming from the pro Palestinian Student Union at Concordia. Not a student there are you?
P
Pugil
Guest
The answer is no
A
Anti Matter
Guest
FYI
Agent Orange was intended as a herbicide and NOT as a chemical weapon. The often fatal illnesses that were the result of exposure to Agent Orange were cause by TCDD, a Dioxin. TCDD is man-made and, unlike some other Dioxins, is not found in nature. It is an unwanted byproduct of the chemical manufacturing process and it was only discovered later that the Agent Orange used in Vietnam was heavily contaminated with TCDD :skull: . There was also a 2nd version of Agent Orange called Agent Orange II (or Super Orange) as well as several other defoliants which went by color code names such as Agent Green, Agent White, Agent Blue, Agent Pink etc...
Agent Orange was intended as a herbicide and NOT as a chemical weapon. The often fatal illnesses that were the result of exposure to Agent Orange were cause by TCDD, a Dioxin. TCDD is man-made and, unlike some other Dioxins, is not found in nature. It is an unwanted byproduct of the chemical manufacturing process and it was only discovered later that the Agent Orange used in Vietnam was heavily contaminated with TCDD :skull: . There was also a 2nd version of Agent Orange called Agent Orange II (or Super Orange) as well as several other defoliants which went by color code names such as Agent Green, Agent White, Agent Blue, Agent Pink etc...
- Reaction score
- 11,244
- Points
- 1,160
I think Pugil had a good point about iseral and the UN.
"Yes Israel owns nuclear bombs, but they are for self-defense only as they are surrounded and outnumbered by potential aggressors. We must prevent expansionist states, like Irak and N-Korea, to develop or acquire WMD."
Iraq may want WMD for self-defense also.
How can we decide whats right when we‘ve had our hand in as many conflicts and dirty wars as we have.
"Yes Israel owns nuclear bombs, but they are for self-defense only as they are surrounded and outnumbered by potential aggressors. We must prevent expansionist states, like Irak and N-Korea, to develop or acquire WMD."
Iraq may want WMD for self-defense also.
How can we decide whats right when we‘ve had our hand in as many conflicts and dirty wars as we have.
- Reaction score
- 11,244
- Points
- 1,160
He is sitting beside a country whom he was at war with for 8 or whatever years AND who hasn‘t had their army obliterated. Of course i know he wouldnt have those weapons just for defense (That was just an example) but it could be a major reason for it. i mean his army surrenders to unmanned airplanes, he knows he needs something more loyal then that.
Heres a question
If Iran decided to invade iraq i wonder what we would do. Would we sit back and watch, would we send in the UN? Isn‘t iran chalk full of terrorists? Would we hjoin iraq and attack iran "in the war against terrorisim"?
Heres a question
If Iran decided to invade iraq i wonder what we would do. Would we sit back and watch, would we send in the UN? Isn‘t iran chalk full of terrorists? Would we hjoin iraq and attack iran "in the war against terrorisim"?
B
BestOfTheBest
Guest
I really hate to say this and i just dont get people sometimes but his people actully love him as a leader! Like for real, you see them parading outside on the streets cherring for him. Even kids which they have brian washed.
Here is my little problem that i have with Iraq. thats only my problem(my opinion)
Most countries have Nukes(for self defence hopefully) but when you have Nukes, Bio, and Ch weapons you start to think that this is not self defence. Look at the States when i say that.
I have one question only Why are only the U.N inspecting Iraq for weapons! why dont they check everyone who has weapons!!!!!
I dont get that most counties have Bio,Ch, and Bio and U.n does not get to chech them
I am not saying that that Iraq is a good country.
I just think everyone should get inspected.
just to make it fair
Thankgoodness we got no nukes or any of the other sh1t1
Here is my little problem that i have with Iraq. thats only my problem(my opinion)
Most countries have Nukes(for self defence hopefully) but when you have Nukes, Bio, and Ch weapons you start to think that this is not self defence. Look at the States when i say that.
I have one question only Why are only the U.N inspecting Iraq for weapons! why dont they check everyone who has weapons!!!!!
I dont get that most counties have Bio,Ch, and Bio and U.n does not get to chech them
I am not saying that that Iraq is a good country.
I just think everyone should get inspected.
just to make it fair
Thankgoodness we got no nukes or any of the other sh1t1
H
herbie
Guest
"I dont understand why Iraq and N.Korea arent allowed to have weapons of mass destruction" ???
Those countries signed treaties (after they invaded they‘re neighbors) stating that they would not pursue the WMD capability. They are in blatant violation.
As to the US‘s foriegn policy, remember that untill very recently the USSR posed a very real danger to the entire world. NATO was formed to defend the free world against communist aggretion. NATO is the only multinational organization who‘s members are all democratic. (some junior members have work to do...). For stratigic purposes NATO had to make some difficult choices. Iraq was one of them. Now that the cold war is over, those uneasy allies have begun to abuse the power and aid they recieved. One good example is the Taliban. Iraq is another. The UN is incapable of dealing with the situation. NATO, spearheaded by the US should deal with that rogue nation. As to wether or not iraq threatens world peace. They pay the families of suicide bombers. They give safe haven to al qaida, they are murdering Kurds. They fired scuds at Isreal ( a non partisipant ). The evidence is there.
I don‘t blindly believe in all the US does. Softwood lumber for instance. But they are right about having to deal with these nations. Clinton tried diplomacy and aid. Billions were sent to N Korea. Yet the people starve as they make illigel nukes.
Softpower has failed with these two, now its time for an *** whooping!!!
Those countries signed treaties (after they invaded they‘re neighbors) stating that they would not pursue the WMD capability. They are in blatant violation.
As to the US‘s foriegn policy, remember that untill very recently the USSR posed a very real danger to the entire world. NATO was formed to defend the free world against communist aggretion. NATO is the only multinational organization who‘s members are all democratic. (some junior members have work to do...). For stratigic purposes NATO had to make some difficult choices. Iraq was one of them. Now that the cold war is over, those uneasy allies have begun to abuse the power and aid they recieved. One good example is the Taliban. Iraq is another. The UN is incapable of dealing with the situation. NATO, spearheaded by the US should deal with that rogue nation. As to wether or not iraq threatens world peace. They pay the families of suicide bombers. They give safe haven to al qaida, they are murdering Kurds. They fired scuds at Isreal ( a non partisipant ). The evidence is there.
I don‘t blindly believe in all the US does. Softwood lumber for instance. But they are right about having to deal with these nations. Clinton tried diplomacy and aid. Billions were sent to N Korea. Yet the people starve as they make illigel nukes.
Softpower has failed with these two, now its time for an *** whooping!!!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The reason the UN inspects Iraq is that after Gulf War I, The security council made a resolution that Iraq should be disarmed of all weapons of mass destruction. They have been inspecting to see if Iraw has complied to that resolution.
Iraq was the aggressor in Gulf War I, and the UN (US) pushed them out of Kuwait. Then the aggressor was punished.
Iraq was the aggressor in Gulf War I, and the UN (US) pushed them out of Kuwait. Then the aggressor was punished.
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 430
BestoftheBest : other countries are also being inspected by the same agency that was in N-Korea (Int‘l Atomic Energy Agency). You will find info about their mission statement here: web page
Look at the last para.
Most countries that have nukes had their program before the Non-Proliferation Treaty (including Israel, India, Pakistan and many more) and under the treaty they are permitted to keep what they had.
Look at the last para.
Most countries that have nukes had their program before the Non-Proliferation Treaty (including Israel, India, Pakistan and many more) and under the treaty they are permitted to keep what they had.
P
Pugil
Guest
I somewhat agree that US is the lesser evil of both sides but that doesnt make all their actions legitimate. If Iraq fully complies with the arm inspectors, will the US still want to attack Iraq? If the US knows that Iraq has WMD why dont they give proofs now? While they know for sure that N.Korea has some nuclear weapons, but still say that N.Korea is NOT a threat. Do you see the logic in all this? For all the warmongers, I say dont worry war is coming very soon, war is inevitable now. Military build-up has been under way since last summer, Bush is not going to let its military sit in the Gulf war just in case of war, imagine how much money he will waste to ferry all the equipment and personnel if war is avoided. He is going to find a way to get war started whatever the UN will say. I think the best option is to let their neighbor deal with that issue and US should be the mediator in that instead of beating the drum of war.
Here a link written by a BBC news correspondent, very interesting
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2595435.stm
Here a link written by a BBC news correspondent, very interesting
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2595435.stm
Similar threads
