George Bush is going in-Iraq War

[Jarnhamar]

Personally im getting pretty sick over the stupid protesters. The americans are bending over backwards (probably out of nessesity though) to make sure as few civilians are hurt as possible. Saddam surrounds military targets with women and children. On top of that he just launches missles ‘where ever‘ and hopes they kill as many people as possible. Yet protesters are trying to paint the guy like a victim. The more i watch the news the more pro-war/bush im becomming. Too bad i couldnt see the world through rose coloured lenses like all the peacenuts. It‘s easy for them to sit in safty and comdem people. When the twin towers were bombed the whole country freaked out. Compard to whats going on in the rest of the world that was a drop int he ocean yet they act the world was comming to an end.

I wonder what the iraq soldiers who are tripping over themselves trying to surrender first so they can actually eat think about all the protesters who want to stop the americans from liberating them. I guess it‘s easy for protesters to scream morality on a full stomach. I‘m willing to bet most protesters don‘t care much for Iraq, their not anti war they are anti-american.

The UN is like russia threatening war. All talk no ball$

And while im ranting, morons who bring kids to protests should be kicked in the head.

 

[onecat]

"Where were the peace protestors when saddam gassed the kurds and attack kuwait?"

Actually if your in highschool right now then you won‘t remmber, but their a lot of a protectors after the gasing of kurds in 1988; and their was a lot of protest to teh after that US ( under regan at the) was going to give money. He was still a trusted ally at the time. With Iran/contra it sometimes gets missed.... there‘s a another a group support with us tax dollars.

I think your view of protestors is somewhat short sited; people protest what they beleive they can chnage and they had no way of changing soviet nuke policy. But they could change US policy which during the early 80‘s had many people believing war ( and that with nukes )was the only out come. Again if your high school now you would have no way of know that. I was and believe me it was a real feeling and reason why thousands took to street.

 

[onecat]

"The UN is like russia threatening war. All talk no ball$"

I can understand your feeling about protestors and this war. After its over and saddam is gone Iraq will be a better place for the Iraqi. Will it make the world safer, I doubt it will there be democrary in Iraq maybe. The US track record on that part isn‘t great after all weren‘t they being democrary to kuwait? And what happened woman still can‘t drive and still can‘t vote. But removing Saddam is enough for me.

But I just had to comment on your UN position. The UN does balls and could be more effective, but the members of UN SC decide what UN does. They say no that is not the fault of UN but the member nations who voted no, Take Rawanda, the US voted no to troops and only changed its mind after that fact. That‘s not teh only the nation which has done this all five have, so don‘t take this a anti american its not. I just pointing out the UN is only as good as member allow it too be.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think the UN has too many chiefs, period. It takes forever to get anything done. Over 300‘000 people in rawanda lost their lives because of that. Thats a heck of a lot more people killed then 911. And in a very much more gruesoem manner.
It‘s a good idea but it doesn‘t work.

I have to disagree that ‘most people know what they are protesting about and feel emotional over it‘. Maybe they feel emotional but i think they are just acting on herd behavior. Only an "evil" person would support war, were not evil, stop the war!
Watch late night with jay leno and watch "Jay walking". Jay Leno stops random americans and holds pictures of george w bush up and saddam hussain or bin laddin and 80% of the time the americans think that its a) colonel sanders, b) the faunz or 3)a hockey team coach.
Simply clueless. I see this then i see them protesting the war and i just have to think to myself they dont know both sides.

 

[Jungle]

Pugil wrote:

As far as im concerned a vast majority of the canadian population doesnt support the war, and the government is doing what their voters want by not supporting an unilateral attack on Iraq.

Last numbers I saw, (this week) was 51% against, 46% in favor... not quite so overwhelming.

 

[Bert]

Heres another article from www.stratfor.com. This one put a wee smile on my face.

20 March 2003

Oil-for-Food Plan Strikes at French, Russian Interests

Summary

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations soon will propose
changes to the oil-for-food program that disburses aid to Iraq.
The changes would not only streamline the aid disbursement
process but also cut French and Russian firms out of the loop.

Analysis

The first of many punishments appears to be under way for states
that lined up against the United States in the runup to the Iraq
war. On March 19, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John
Negroponte said Washington soon would propose changes to the U.N.
oil-for-food program that would streamline aid distribution.
Negroponte said the United States would formally unveil the plan
shortly after the beginning of the war.

The plan reportedly would shift control over the escrow account
of the oil-for-food program -- control that currently is shared
between Baghdad, which requests purchases, and a committee
controlled by the U.N. Security Council, which approves them.
Iraqi officials select venders to import the goods or complete
the approved work -- such as humanitarian projects,
infrastructure repairs and the like.

Under the new system, any entity operating in Iraq could make
submissions directly to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who
would approve and oversee aid disbursements. Such entities could
do the work if they were equipped to do so, or subcontract it out
to others as they saw fit. The process would greatly speed up the
aid disbursement process and cut out the middlemen who profit
from the contractual go-betweens.

Under the existing system, those middlemen have been almost
exclusively French and Russian companies, and French and Russian
banks usually have channeled the funds to the appropriate places.
The reason for this is simple: The contracts were bribes to Paris
and Moscow to secure French and Russian support for Iraq within
the United Nations.

Under the new system, it would fall first to allied forces in
Iraq to submit most of the requests for aid disbursements, and
later to a coalition-backed government. This would almost
completely eradicate the French and Russian business presence in
both Iraq and the oil-for-food program writ large.

Aside from accelerating the disbursement process -- and helping
to satisfy any desires for political vengeance against France and
Russia that may be brewing in Washington -- the new plan serves
another, very practical purpose. Since any Security Council
member could block an aid disbursement, oil monies have built up
in the escrow account -- to the tune of some $40 billion,
according to March 19 statements from the United Nations. That‘s
more than Iraq normally makes from oil sales in two years. If
confirmed, it would be a significant coup for Washington to be
able to pull such a large sum directly away from French and
Russian contractors. But it also would be enough to fund the
short-term reconstruction of Iraq under all but the most onerous
postwar damage scenarios.

Paris and Moscow doubtless will attempt to impede the American
proposal initially, but they will have to capitulate shortly. The
proposed changes are logical ways to speed the distribution of
aid to the Iraqi people. Recent French and Russian foreign policy
has been based upon Paris and Moscow claims to the moral high
ground -- and arguing to keep a cumbersome aid disbursement
process for the sole purpose of protecting income to their own
companies would sweep that shiny moral aura away.

 

[Paul Gagnon]

Honestly I don‘t agree with the reasons that the US says they are in Iraq. Frankly I think they are being purposely deceptive.

However, I do believe that the reason they are really there is because they hope to change the dynamic of US-Arab relations. By going into Iraq and creating a prosperous democratic nation they hope to change the current Islamic view of the USA from one of an imperialist infidel to one of a benevolent ally. I believe that they hope one success will breed political change within other countries in the region without(major) conflict. This type of change in the region would diffuse the current hatred of the USA by Arab nations and should, if successful, prevent or reduce the threat of terrorist attacks on US soil. Taken this way(and given that the same plan has been innefective in Afghanistan) I can see how they can justify the attack on Iraq even though I don‘t necessarily come to the same conclusions.

Regardless of all that lets hope that this war is short and there are as few casualties as possible.

 

[RoyalHighlander]

As much as it pains me to poke holes in your rhetoric , there have been 160+ wars, since the UN was formed. Only 2 have had UN backing. The Korean conflict, and the first Gulf War. Most would agree that neither of those was resolved appropriately, in spite of the UN‘s guidance, which you two seem to hold in such high esteem. Regardless of your position on the war, this is not anything new.

I you were refering to me about loving the UN I dont. Look what happened with Dallaire in Rwanda
Speaking of which who here has seen "The last just man"?

 

[humint]

Yes, I think that, immediately following the attacks, there was a spontaneous reaction on behalf of the civ population to support the war effort.

And, I‘m perplexed as to why the about-face.

Is it because we never heard from this section of the population prior to the war? Is it because we hate being left out of something? Or is it because people started to fear that Canada would be economically punished by the US. Certainly, all the corporate busibodies on Bay Street started to scream that the US will financially lock Canada out and some conservative politicians, like Ralph Klein, scrammbled to protect his province‘s economic relationship with the US.

Where were these pro-war people before the big day? If they are only supporting the war effort out of fear for economic reprisal, than they are sad-sad people with no moral fortitude.

And, by the way, I think the NDP leader Jack Layton is out to lunch! "Bring everyone back blah blah blah." Is this guy on crack?

 

[Jungle]

Humint, I think the reason we did not hear from these people is that if someone shows support for war, they are seen as "right wing war-mongers", or "Bush-loving ignorants". So they would rather keep a low profile, not like the anti-war protesters who seem to think they make a difference when they have never done ANYTHING to help peace. Many people on this board have put their lives on the line, sometimes in high danger areas, to help restore peace and freedom. You cannot evaluate the value of Freedom when you have always enjoyed it... The Iraqis wish to be liberated, and the coalition will do exactly that. I wonder if Canada was under a totalitarian dictatorship, the peaceniks would not agree to military action... I‘m sure they would be the first to demand it, and accuse any country opposing it of encouraging the regime.

 

[Pugil]

________________________________________
So they would rather keep a low profile, not like the anti-war protesters who seem to think they make a difference when they have never done ANYTHING to help peace
_________________________________________

What about Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi and many others great leaders of this century who won what they believed in without a single blood spilled. Im not a pacifist nor an anti-american but I believed that the war on Iraq could be avoided through diplomacy. The inspectors asked for only for 3 months to disarm Iraq and in the same time avoid war. WHAT hurt it is to wait 3 months?? Since the end of the gulf war, Iraq has never threaten any of his neighbours, and therefore does not constitute an imminent threat. His military had been reduce to half of his strenght after the gulf war. Ill support war if someone can give me proof that Iraq is an imminent threat, so far im unconvinced like the majority of the World population.

 

[Jungle]

What about Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi and many others great leaders of this century who won what they believed in without a single blood spilled.

Bad comparison: these outstanding people were working for human rights issues in their own countries. No comparison possible with the PROTESTERS. They seem to base their opinion on emotions rather than logic. How many of them understand how the UN and it‘s SC function ? How many of them remember the ineffective way the int‘l community was, through the UN, in preventing the slaughter of 1/2 million Rwandans, or the massacre of thousands in Srebrenica, of preventing the violence in East Timor ? How many of them know UNPROFOR was so ineffective it had to be replaced by a NATO force to implement the Dayton accord ? The UN need some renovations, this war will hopefully serve to provoke this process.
A lot of the protesters would change their minds if they were properly informed.

 

[Jarnhamar]

"but I believed that the war on Iraq could be avoided through diplomacy"
A tiger does not change his stripes. Saddam is a killer and mass murderer. The only time someone like that uses diplomacy is when it suits their needs. Give him an extra 3 months and thats 3 months longer he has to hide wmd or do any of the other manovelent things he does.
Saddam has practically no army yet hes talking about killing all invaders infidels etc.. Can you imagine what he WOULD do if he actually did have a professional army. Loyal troops, new tanks and fighter aircraft? I don‘t think he would use diplomacy i think he would just start a war, like he did last time.

 

[typhoon85]

"Watch late night with jay leno and watch "Jay walking". Jay Leno stops random americans and holds pictures of george w bush up and saddam hussain or bin laddin and 80% of the time the americans think that its a) colonel sanders, b) the faunz or 3)a hockey team coach.
Simply clueless. I see this then i see them protesting the war and i just have to think to myself they dont know both sides."-ghost778

I know that if i had a camera and went up to Canadian citizens and asked them questions about the country, I could make Canadians look just as stupid as Americans look on Jay Leno and that 1 time show "Talking To Americans" (CBC) . What Im trying to say is it doesn‘t prove that the majority of them are clueless....there just taking the idiots that got it wrong and showing them instead of the vast majority of the people that got it right. Its Still funny to see people not even know who there president is though

Just On a side note i just want to say that im embarressed that the people at a Montreal Canadians hockey game just recently boo‘d the Star Spangled Banner while it was being sung. I know this has happened in the U.S. (Americans booing are National Anthem)but i think we should show more class then them and show respect for it(just keeping silent while it plays instead of booing would be the best way i think).

 

[Gryphon]

i gotta agree with you saying that it is ebarrassing, especially for me, as a montrealer,

But however, i think that happened like a few months back, didn‘t it? or did it happen again recently?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Sean‘s comments two posts above are all particularly good.

There has been some serious discussion elsewhere about the motivation of some protesters and in particular human shields. An observation has been made that it is easier for them to protest in other countries, when the other country consists of an ethnic group different than the protestor themself, and who have a conflict with the ethnic group from which the protestor comes.

For example, we see caucasian North Americans going to, say, Iraq to protest against American imperialism. They find it easy to picture the dark skinned arabic people of Iraq as oppressed, and apparently feel some degree of shame or guilt at being caucasian.

The point being that you rarely see caucasian college students from Canada or the US going to other countries to protest the actions of arabs, negros or asians.

Don‘t know if it means anything, and I am sure you can find isolated examples proving that there are exceptions to this, but it did get me thinking when I read about it.

The American national anthem is on Hockey Night in Canada right now....no booing for it, or the Canadian.....whew.....