A SARS/War question for our canadian friends....

[Sxotty]

Zero it is true I believe the other rulers are scared of democracy working because it will upset their applecarts, that is my opinion, and many others think similarly.

 

[Alistar7]

its not an arguement or justification, its a fact, you said we needed to woory more about protecting the homeland, apparently we are doing all we can there, luckily, we have not been hit HERE by attacks, there have been plenty of terrorist attacks since the start of this war directly linked to it.
Did you miss the calls from Osama to attack US interests if we attacked Iraq, what about the other various groups that pledged the same?

You could be right though, they could see the action we are willing to take and decide its not worth the risk, but thats not why we are doing this.

I was speaking about the "leaders" in the middle east, what countrys PEOPLE are flourishing there under any government? What people are free to speak and live as they wish there? The control is what they covet, democracy puts that in the hands of those they used to control/oppress. What do you think the people of Iraq would do to Saddam if they could do anything without fear of recrimination/ Do you know what happened to Mussolini?

 

[zer0burn]

Its almost like when the united states was trying to stop the spread of communism

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: zer0burn
Its almost like when the united states was trying to stop the spread of communism

and how did we try to stop the spread of communism?

America has fought world wars for others freedom, the only land we ever asked for was enough to bury those that sacrificed their lives for your freedom.

Show me another sole superpower in world history that didnt use their superiority to conquer, invade, and control other countries.

 

[Looney]

The Canadian government have always said they were willing to join the coalition... if it was through the UN.

America has fought world wars for others freedom, the only land we ever asked for was enough to bury those that sacrificed their lives for your freedom.

If you mean WWII, you should take a look at why it took the US so long to join the war. They were happy to sit on their butt and let the world deal with it until Pearl Harbor occured.

Show me another sole superpower in world history that didnt use their superiority to conquer, invade, and control other countries.

And that makes it ok?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
The Canadian government have always said they were willing to join the coalition... if it was through the UN.

America has fought world wars for others freedom, the only land we ever asked for was enough to bury those that sacrificed their lives for your freedom.

If you mean WWII, you should take a look at why it took the US so long to join the war. They were happy to sit on their butt and let the world deal with it until Pearl Harbor occured.

Show me another sole superpower in world history that didnt use their superiority to conquer, invade, and control other countries.

And that makes it ok?

Show me another sole superpower in world history that didnt use their superiority to conquer, invade, and control other countries.

You missed that, show me a country that DIDNT do those things BESIDES the US, we have not occupied or controlled anyone indefinitely.

You want to knwo why we waited so long in ww2? Theres some of the reason

Funny in that case you think we should have acted quicker to eliminate a genocidial dictator who invaded his neighboors, but in this case you think we shouldnt, make up your mind please.
Thanks for bringing that up though, we still did not have to fight anyone other than the Japaneese, why did we help Europe?

 

[zer0burn]

dont forget WWI when they did not get involved.

Or how about not joining the league of nations after WWII

 

[Alistar7]

we didnt get invloved in ww1 either? LMAO

 

[Alistar7]

quick history lesson, here is a link of the adress President Wilson made ON THIS DAY ( great timing to bring up this) in 1917..


The world must be made safe for democracy

yes we founght for the rest of the worlds freedom in 2 ww, both started by......

The leauge of nations was created after ww1, not ww2

 

[zer0burn]

not at the start no america waited till the lsat few years until the allies were not being pushed back and were on the offensive...

America didnt get involved because they felt it was a european conflict.

Furthermore the United states only gets involved in conflicts when they have something to lose...

 

[Spicedaddy]

In light of the terrorist camp that was destroyed and the SARS epidemic, has your perspective changed about this war?

No.

And I don't see what a disease originating from China has to do with WMD or Iraq. Does Iraq have WMD? Of course they do, just like 50 other countries. Does that mean they pose a serious threat to the US? I doubt it, they haven't been a threat to anybody besides their own people since the last Gulf war. If I have a gun in my house, and I hate my neighbor, does that automatically make me an immediate threat to him and his family? No, because I'm not stupid enough to use it on him since I know there would be consequences.

The reason most countries didn't join the "coalition" is because the US can't provide a unique, precise reason to go to war with Iraq. Bush senior had success in gathering many countries because the goal was clear and precise: get them out of Kuwait. This time, the motive changes every day. Sometimes it's "they have WMD and pose a threat", the next day it's "they might be connected to 9/11", another time it's "we will bring freedom to the Iraqi people", etc. The problem is they're not the only country that responds to these criteria. Like somebody else said, most people are not against removing the current regime from power, they're just opposed to the way you're doing it.

 

[Alistar7]

Here is another link with CORRECT information on the creation of the LON, notice how much effort was made by Wilson to get it ratified.


Why should we have gone in anyway, using the logic of those that oppose our intervention now, we shouldnt have helped in either WW, other than taking the Japs out for attacking us.

 

[Spicedaddy]

Funny in that case you think we should have acted quicker to eliminate a genocidial dictator who invaded his neighboors, but in this case you think we shouldnt,

You acted when they invaded Kuwait, but who did they invade this time? You think there was a chance Iraq would invade a country in the future?

 

[zer0burn]

you cant look at this war from one perspective.

To the Iraqi's this is terrorism to them...

The same with other countries whom the americans launch pre-emptive attacks on... To them its terrorism plan and simple...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

In light of the terrorist camp that was destroyed and the SARS epidemic, has your perspective changed about this war?

No.

And I don't see what a disease originating from China has to do with WMD or Iraq. Does Iraq have WMD? Of course they do, just like 50 other countries. Does that mean they pose a serious threat to the US? I doubt it, they haven't been a threat to anybody besides their own people since the last Gulf war. If I have a gun in my house, and I hate my neighbor, does that automatically make me an immediate threat to him and his family? No, because I'm not stupid enough to use it on him since I know there would be consequences.

The reason most countries didn't join the "coalition" is because the US can't provide a unique, precise reason to go to war with Iraq. Bush senior had success in gathering many countries because the goal was clear and precise: get them out of Kuwait. This time, the motive changes every day. Sometimes it's "they have WMD and pose a threat", the next day it's "they might be connected to 9/11", another time it's "we will bring freedom to the Iraqi people", etc. The problem is they're not the only country that responds to these criteria. Like somebody else said, most people are not against removing the current regime from power, they're just opposed to the way you're doing it.

If you had shot people before you wouldnt be allowed to keep your gun either. You say he isnt a threat to his neighboors? What abput the 50+ BANNED weapons he launcvhed at Kuwait? Those must not be "dangerous" huh?

I'm sorry that you don't understand how a bio weapon can be spread through the air, that it could be used by terrorists, and that he associates, trains, finances, and ARMS them and has these weapons.

Quite frankly the ones that opposed, (45 with us, how many against?) like France and Russia is they have Billion dowllar deals with SADDAM, not Iraq, they lose that money as soon as he is gone. Whydo you think they tried to have sanctions lifted early? why do you think they resisted ANY action that woyuld have removed him from power/ Don't try to change history, the French were not going to vote for ANYTHING that ultimiately invloved Saddam not being able to pay them off for their support. Now they want to profit from the rebuilding, sorry, I doubt the people of Iraq want you to profit considering you used every bit of your power to keep their "leader" IN POWER.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

Funny in that case you think we should have acted quicker to eliminate a genocidial dictator who invaded his neighboors, but in this case you think we shouldnt,

You acted when they invaded Kuwait, but who did they invade this time? You think there was a chance Iraq would invade a country in the future?

sure he has done it twice before, in the immediate future no.

Thank god Saddam is an idiot, he could have fully complied and gotten rid of everything in 2 years, that would mean no inspections, no sanctions, no internatioanl oversight, plus the full use of the Iraqi oil reservses for $$$ while he stayed in power. He would be stronger now than he was in 91.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: zer0burn
you cant look at this war from one perspective.

To the Iraqi's this is terrorism to them...

The same with other countries whom the americans launch pre-emptive attacks on... To them its terrorism plan and simple...

To the majority of Iraqi's this is liberation, to the ruling powers, who cares what they call it....

Do terrorsits rebuild what they destroy? DO they show compassion and mercy? Do they fight bravely, in uniform, face to face? what a joke, your anti-us bias is going beyond any facts out there.

 

[zer0burn]

dont be blind.... If you truly feel that that is what the majority of the iraqi's feel thats just dumb...

I havent posted anything anti US...

I just said look at it from both sides.

It seems you are unable to form unbias opinions, and only see it from the side of an ignorant american...

 

[Looney]

Show me another sole superpower in world history that didnt use their superiority to conquer, invade, and control other countries.

You missed that, show me a country that DIDNT do those things BESIDES the US, we have not occupied or controlled anyone indefinitely.

And still, that makes all the aggression justified? All the wars that have been waged on behalf of the name of democracy?

You want to knwo why we waited so long in ww2? Theres some of the reason

Did you even read that essay yourself?

Funny in that case you think we should have acted quicker to eliminate a genocidial dictator who invaded his neighboors, but in this case you think we shouldnt, make up your mind please.

Wow, you're quick to assume things. Who said i was against this war? And like i said, Canada and most of the world would have joined the coalition if this was a UN effort like Afghanistan and the first gulf war, and not a US war. And don't compare Saddam to Hitler... even at the height of his power in the late 80s he wasn't comparable to him, and now that his military is greatly retarded, he's nowhere close to invading another country. Yes, i believe Iraq needs to be freed, but why the rush? What was the harm in another half year or year of inspections and gaining UN support.

Thanks for bringing that up though, we still did not have to fight anyone other than the Japaneese, why did we help Europe?

Because if a small island like Japan could reach US soil and deliver a blow, imagine what could a Germany the size of Africa, Asia minor, and Europe could do.

 

[Alistar7]

Im the dumb one? Youre the one who claims the US wasnt even invloved in WW1.


I will tell why I belive that, you tell me why it is so "dumb"

I watch TV, I see TONS of Iraqi civilians laughing and joking with our soldiers, in the areas that are secure they are working side by side to fix critical services, water, elect. etc. Interviews one after another, we want our freedom, saddam must go, etc..

Where are the HUGE crowds of anti-us Iraqi citizens???????? Hell you cant even find that on Al-Jazeera...

 

[zer0burn]

look at my post I never said they werent in WWI I said they entered late.

First mistake is trusting the Media.

Look at during the 2000 elections. No one knew who was the winner. The owner of one of the major communications network was pro gore so he forced them to say gore was the winner...

Now bush has changed legislation allowing communication networks to own radio tv and newspapers which wasnt allow before making the information that we recieve not brough by many like it may seem but by few...

You cant trust what you read or see 100% of the time

There in regions whom never liked saddam to begin with. Wait till they enter cities closer to Baghdad

 

[Looney]

Where are the HUGE crowds of anti-us Iraqi citizens???????? Hell you cant even find that on Al-Jazeera...

Wow, what news have you been watching? Even in the south where you're claiming all these Iraqis are free and happy now, there is huge resentment towards the US. The Iraqis are literally mobbing for food and water, and they're closed off with a fence like they're animals. I've seen my fair share of news, even on the American channels, where the Iraqi civilians, although aren't acting violently against the US, they're hating them for invading their country. Why do you think the charitable organizations like world food program and red cross haven't joined the coalition to help ease the suffering yet? Instead it's all been entirely US, British, and Kuwaitis... because they know there is resentment against the US at the moment, and they don't want to be labeled with the US.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Show me another sole superpower in world history that didnt use their superiority to conquer, invade, and control other countries.

You missed that, show me a country that DIDNT do those things BESIDES the US, we have not occupied or controlled anyone indefinitely.

And still, that makes all the aggression justified? All the wars that have been waged on behalf of the name of democracy?

You want to knwo why we waited so long in ww2? Theres some of the reason

Did you even read that essay yourself?

Funny in that case you think we should have acted quicker to eliminate a genocidial dictator who invaded his neighboors, but in this case you think we shouldnt, make up your mind please.

Wow, you're quick to assume things. Who said i was against this war? And like i said, Canada and most of the world would have joined the coalition if this was a UN effort like Afghanistan and the first gulf war, and not a US war. And don't compare Saddam to Hitler... even at the height of his power in the late 80s he wasn't comparable to him, and now that his military is greatly retarded, he's nowhere close to invading another country. Yes, i believe Iraq needs to be freed, but why the rush? What was the harm in another half year or year of inspections and gaining UN support.

Thanks for bringing that up though, we still did not have to fight anyone other than the Japaneese, why did we help Europe?

Because if a small island like Japan could reach US soil and deliver a blow, imagine what could a Germany the size of Africa, Asia minor, and Europe could do.

no the 17 Un resoltuions made this justified, along with our right to protect ourselves without having to ask anyone first. you missed the point again, in history everytime one power was supreme, they invaded and conquered foreign lands, when has the US taken control of a country and not given it back?

What about the two dozen other wars that were started since the creation of the UN? who is the ONLY country to ever even ask?

You want to comapre hitler to Saddam, ok, Hitler built one of the most ferocious militaries without oil reserves saddam has. Hitler took a slumping economy and turned it around, saddam never could even with those vast oil reserves. Hitlers people lived a good lifestyle, with good food, clothes, jobs, school, hospitals, Saddam can't even feed his own people. Was one "worse" in their acts of genocide and warmongering, sure, but hitler was by far a superios leader for his own people. he actually accomplished things that benefitted them.

 

[zer0burn]

Ive also seen where there grabbing food and water and then saying down with bush... praising Saddam...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: zer0burn
look at my post I never said they werent in WWI I said they entered late.

First mistake is trusting the Media.

Look at during the 2000 elections. No one knew who was the winner. The owner of one of the major communications network was pro gore so he forced them to say gore was the winner...

Now bush has changed legislation allowing communication networks to own radio tv and newspapers which wasnt allow before making the information that we recieve not brough by many like it may seem but by few...

You cant trust what you read or see 100% of the time

There in regions whom never liked saddam to begin with. Wait till they enter cities closer to Baghdad

"dont forget WWI when they did not get involved."

that is YOUR quote, a little diferent than they entered LATE.