Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
YAY, I have a supporter.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I guess the sarcasm intended for my previous comment didn‘t quite come out as I had hoped.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
Now go hug a tree.
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
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
S
sgt.shmedly102
Guest
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!
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
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Targets down...well said.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
-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.
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
S
sgt.shmedly102
Guest
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?
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?
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 530
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
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
S
sgt.shmedly102
Guest
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?
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
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,162
- Points
- 1,040
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?
Similar threads
