Whats up with the States- Does Bush Want War?

[muskrat89]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

OK - all that, I can agree with