No CDN ground troops in Iraq
- Thread starter Pikache
- Start date
Gate_Guard
10% of the US‘ imported oil is significant. If you consider the price implications that come from having vs missing that 10% and its effect on US industry and the car (and SUV) -loving public, the their culmulative effect on the US economy is significant.
Keep in mind that Iraq is exporting whatever amount they are exporting now because of UN restrictions. Given the choice, the Iraqis would want to export more oil if it got them cash. Iraq is sitting on some hefty oil reserves -- terminating an unfriendly (to the US and a good amount of the world) government would allow cheap(er) oil to flow again without the strategic problem of pondering giving Iraq a source of cash to buy evil-doer items vs strangling domestic economy with uncertain sources of oil.
Saddam is pragmatic, he‘s not quite as psychotic as Kim (and whatever Politburo-equiv they might have). Kim test fires missiles that fly OVER Japan. He probably HAS WoMD and much better delivery systems. Saddam probably would think twice about firing on most of his neighbours, but N.Korea has no qualms about firing at S.Korea or Japan. US hawkish politicians accuse opposition critics to the action in Iraq as "appeasers", but they don‘t use the same kind of language to talk about their own hesitancy about N.Korea.
I argue that N.Korea isn‘t as big an issue (when I think it should be) BECAUSE a) it doesn‘t have oil and b) it‘s not near a volatile ally -- Isreal. Try writing up a quantatative threat list side-by-side of Iraq vs. N.Korea and ask yourself why the US is focusing on Iraq. Is Saddam really all that more "evil" than Kim? Is he more irrational than Kim? Is he more out of touch with the world than Kim? Why on earth can‘t the US just roll into N.Korea like you said? You have the same ingredients -- reluctant allies in the area that theoretically could host the forces; an existent residual force stationed there; nice support infrastruture in place.
One man‘s dictator is another man‘s protector. Just like one man‘s terrorist is another man‘s freedom fighter. Revolutions don‘t occur simply because the people can‘t or don‘t want to -- it makes more sense to most people to stick to the devil you know than to bring in a new devil, because the devil you know represents stability, even if it‘s a crappy stability. And do you think (for the sake of argument) the US would tolerate say a Communist revolution in Iraq? Or an Islamic fundamentalist revolution?
Police action is great and good -- but shouldn‘t police action represent the will of the community as a whole to a certain degree?
10% of the US‘ imported oil is significant. If you consider the price implications that come from having vs missing that 10% and its effect on US industry and the car (and SUV) -loving public, the their culmulative effect on the US economy is significant.
Keep in mind that Iraq is exporting whatever amount they are exporting now because of UN restrictions. Given the choice, the Iraqis would want to export more oil if it got them cash. Iraq is sitting on some hefty oil reserves -- terminating an unfriendly (to the US and a good amount of the world) government would allow cheap(er) oil to flow again without the strategic problem of pondering giving Iraq a source of cash to buy evil-doer items vs strangling domestic economy with uncertain sources of oil.
Saddam is pragmatic, he‘s not quite as psychotic as Kim (and whatever Politburo-equiv they might have). Kim test fires missiles that fly OVER Japan. He probably HAS WoMD and much better delivery systems. Saddam probably would think twice about firing on most of his neighbours, but N.Korea has no qualms about firing at S.Korea or Japan. US hawkish politicians accuse opposition critics to the action in Iraq as "appeasers", but they don‘t use the same kind of language to talk about their own hesitancy about N.Korea.
I argue that N.Korea isn‘t as big an issue (when I think it should be) BECAUSE a) it doesn‘t have oil and b) it‘s not near a volatile ally -- Isreal. Try writing up a quantatative threat list side-by-side of Iraq vs. N.Korea and ask yourself why the US is focusing on Iraq. Is Saddam really all that more "evil" than Kim? Is he more irrational than Kim? Is he more out of touch with the world than Kim? Why on earth can‘t the US just roll into N.Korea like you said? You have the same ingredients -- reluctant allies in the area that theoretically could host the forces; an existent residual force stationed there; nice support infrastruture in place.
One man‘s dictator is another man‘s protector. Just like one man‘s terrorist is another man‘s freedom fighter. Revolutions don‘t occur simply because the people can‘t or don‘t want to -- it makes more sense to most people to stick to the devil you know than to bring in a new devil, because the devil you know represents stability, even if it‘s a crappy stability. And do you think (for the sake of argument) the US would tolerate say a Communist revolution in Iraq? Or an Islamic fundamentalist revolution?
Police action is great and good -- but shouldn‘t police action represent the will of the community as a whole to a certain degree?
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,088
- Points
- 1,160
"I could give a f*** about the Iraqi people"
I guess thats a character difference between us. I don‘t like to see people hurt and part of the reason i got involved in the military was to help people out who couldnt help themselves. Not that i get to do that much.
I think when it comes to iraq i do have a case of why bother. (mostly just about canadian inlvolvement) I see the whole thing like a gang of people going to beat up some kid whos too stupid to ‘go down‘ and keeps getting up dispite all the kicks hes getting. Sure no one likes the kid and sure every time he talks he is mouthing people off or calling people on trying to pick a fight becauses hes just stupid. He knows your not going to kill him, this is his way to get some attention. He can‘t make friends so he makes enemies. We have all seent his in our childhood.
Whats one more person in the gang? Chances are your just going to watch the whole time, you might get a kick in here or there.
In the end saddam is a bad guy. He supports terrorisim so the "war on terrorisim" includes him. The fact that he places civilians inside and around military targets makes him even more of a coward but it doesn‘t take away the fact that the civilians are still there.
I simply think canada wasting our resources, especially considering the state of our military, is a dumb thing. Theres no requirement to fight over there. Whats 500 soldiers in a sea of 500‘000 with no transportation of our own, no tanks, iffy airsupport. If Canada sent ground forces and i was offered a chance to go to iraq i would (yes i know somewhat hippocritical) but overall i still think its a bad idea. How embarassed would you be when a sea king helicopter carrying soldiers in borrowed camoflage uniform drops out of the sky and kills everyone on board. Not shot down out of combat but because its older then most of the soldiers inside.(Or even blasted out of the air by a gun happy air defense unit) Or a company/battalion of our soldiers is placed infront of enemy soldiers so we can ‘see combat‘ and show the world how canada supports the us, like a rich city slicker is decked out in blaze orange, given a gun then brought to a game reserve and placed infront of a deer. Thats as much being a soldier as that is hunting.
These converstions are very interesting. It‘s hard to really ‘win‘ one of these arguments on why its god or bad but atleast personally im learning a lot more about situation.
I guess thats a character difference between us. I don‘t like to see people hurt and part of the reason i got involved in the military was to help people out who couldnt help themselves. Not that i get to do that much.
I think when it comes to iraq i do have a case of why bother. (mostly just about canadian inlvolvement) I see the whole thing like a gang of people going to beat up some kid whos too stupid to ‘go down‘ and keeps getting up dispite all the kicks hes getting. Sure no one likes the kid and sure every time he talks he is mouthing people off or calling people on trying to pick a fight becauses hes just stupid. He knows your not going to kill him, this is his way to get some attention. He can‘t make friends so he makes enemies. We have all seent his in our childhood.
Whats one more person in the gang? Chances are your just going to watch the whole time, you might get a kick in here or there.
In the end saddam is a bad guy. He supports terrorisim so the "war on terrorisim" includes him. The fact that he places civilians inside and around military targets makes him even more of a coward but it doesn‘t take away the fact that the civilians are still there.
I simply think canada wasting our resources, especially considering the state of our military, is a dumb thing. Theres no requirement to fight over there. Whats 500 soldiers in a sea of 500‘000 with no transportation of our own, no tanks, iffy airsupport. If Canada sent ground forces and i was offered a chance to go to iraq i would (yes i know somewhat hippocritical) but overall i still think its a bad idea. How embarassed would you be when a sea king helicopter carrying soldiers in borrowed camoflage uniform drops out of the sky and kills everyone on board. Not shot down out of combat but because its older then most of the soldiers inside.(Or even blasted out of the air by a gun happy air defense unit) Or a company/battalion of our soldiers is placed infront of enemy soldiers so we can ‘see combat‘ and show the world how canada supports the us, like a rich city slicker is decked out in blaze orange, given a gun then brought to a game reserve and placed infront of a deer. Thats as much being a soldier as that is hunting.
These converstions are very interesting. It‘s hard to really ‘win‘ one of these arguments on why its god or bad but atleast personally im learning a lot more about situation.
Similar threads
