Canuckistan - new name for Canada?

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Preventing Saddam from getting WMD's is a great motive, but its no justification for war. Neither is "Saddam is a evil man who gasses his own people." Shouldn't the act of one country going to war with another need fit the highest of moral standards?? The highest of moral standards are not met in this case, so Canada and Europe have every right to oppose such a war.

War is the only way for one nation to force another nation change its behavior. Diplomacy only works if both sides are interested. Saddam has shown he isn't interested.

There is only one way to make sure Saddam doesn't get nukes, and that is to remove him from power by force. This requires a war.

Yes, the act of war should be started for only the highest moral reasons. This is further proof of how most of Europe is falling off the moral wayside with their "unlimited shades of gray". Oh, poor Saddam, he is just a poor misguided soul, have some compassion!

Gimmie a break...

Do you think it is moral to prevent a hundred million deaths? If you don't, you might need to rethink your "morals". :|

Either that, or perhaps you'd prefer to wait until after a hundred million people die before deciding that it is "moral" to remove evil.

About 100 Million people died in WWII, partly because the world did not stand up to Germany and Japan when they had the chance. Saddam doesn't have the conventional forces Germany had in WWII, but if he ever gets nukes, he won't need them. North Korea is much like Japan was in WWII, not quite the same threat Iraq is, but still a big one. We'll need to deal with them too after Iraq has been liberated...

Grasshopper

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Preventing Saddam from getting WMD's is a great motive, but its no justification for war. Neither is "Saddam is a evil man who gasses his own people." Shouldn't the act of one country going to war with another need fit the highest of moral standards?? The highest of moral standards are not met in this case, so Canada and Europe have every right to oppose such a war.

War is the only way for one nation to force another nation change its behavior. Diplomacy only works if both sides are interested. Saddam has shown he isn't interested.

There is only one way to make sure Saddam doesn't get nukes, and that is to remove him from power by force. This requires a war.

Yes, the act of war should be started for only the highest moral reasons. This is further proof of how most of Europe is falling off the moral wayside with their "unlimited shades of gray". Oh, poor Saddam, he is just a poor misguided soul, have some compassion!

Gimmie a break...

Do you think it is moral to prevent a hundred million deaths? If you don't, you might need to rethink your "morals". :|

Grasshopper

But we haven't exushted every diplomatic solution. We've tried alot of solutions, but we won't have moral justification for war with Iraq until we can say that there was no other course of action we could have taken. Saying "if Saddam has WMD's, he might attack us" is not reason to invade Iraq. How can you say for sure we're going to prevent millions of deaths?? You can't. But I can say for certain that if the US attacks Iraq there will be Iraqi's killed.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26
Wrong, Iraq is run by an evil man who has already used weapons of mass destruction against both Iran and his own people, started two massive wars, and now wants his own nuclear weapons.

Preventing him from getting them is a darn good motive. What Bush made clear to the world months ago and against yesterday is that we'll do it with, or without the UNs approval.

Bush may not be as smart as some people would like, but he has a very clearly defined sense of right and wrong, and allowing Saddam to get nuclear weapons would be wrong.

BTW, the world is far more black and white than you think. North Korea needs to have their nukes taken away as well, but they will wait until after Iraq. The US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Israel can keep them, but at some point India and Pakistain will have to give them up or that WILL go nuclear some day. No one else in the world can be allowed to have them. Balance of Power, works very well.

Grasshopper

Its definetly true that Saddam is not in the lighter shades of gray his past shows that as clear as daylight. But his actions are not what could be said as "evil" because to him and those who supported his actions at the time they were easy to look past and only see the positive side from their viewpoint.

Preventing him now as a preemtive action is not such a bad idea as itself but what is worse is the precedence it creates, if it would be ok for countries to attack other countries because of a possible threat then using that countries all over the world could have a reason to attack. Now the world community supports in theory countries that get attacked, not the countries that do the attacking, reason for that is that no country wants to be attacked and by making it unthinkable (sorry, correct word lost in my mind somewhere) it prevents countries from actually being attacked in many cases.

sorry, time is up for me, need to go to sleep, would like to write more because frankly you offer a good debate instead of a mudslinging contest

btw, why do you think that only those countries you listed should be allowed to have nukes and not other countries? (will read tomorrow)

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

But we haven't exushted every diplomatic solution. We've tried alot of solutions, but we won't have moral justification for war with Iraq until we can say that there was no other course of action we could have taken. Saying "if Saddam has WMD's, he might attack us" is not reason to invade Iraq. How can you say for sure we're going to prevent millions of deaths?? You can't. But I can say for certain that if the US attacks Iraq there will be Iraqi's killed.

11 years of non-compliance
16 resolutions defied

At what point would you consider "every diplomatic solution" to be exhausted?

It sounds like you're not willing to prevent death, only respond to it. Does that mean that you wouldn't support having stopped the 9/11 terrorists until after they killed 3,000 people?

We cannot wait until Saddam has nukes to find out if he will use them, the price is just too high. We must make sure he never gets the chance. It is the only moral thing to do.

It would be immoral to allow him to obtain them.

In addition, you forget that Saddam has already used WMD against both Iran and his own people. He has killed tens of thousands of people with them. Why would he refrain from using a nuke?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Stopping him is the only moral course of action.

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Its definetly true that Saddam is not in the lighter shades of gray his past shows that as clear as daylight. But his actions are not what could be said as "evil" because to him and those who supported his actions at the time they were easy to look past and only see the positive side from their viewpoint.

Murdering tens of thousands of civilians is "evil". Saddam has already murdered tens of thousands of civilians, thus he is evil. He has used chemical weapons against civilians, that is also evil.

Saddam is by any sane definition an evil man who cares nothing for anyone but himself. He cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Preventing him now as a preemtive action is not such a bad idea as itself but what is worse is the precedence it creates

You're missing the point. Dropping the nukes on Japan in WWII was right at the time (it saved millions of lives by ending the war), but is wrong most other times. There are times when preemptive attack is required, and other times when it isn't. This is one of them.

sorry, time is up for me, need to go to sleep, would like to write more because frankly you offer a good debate instead of a mudslinging contest

I try not to sling mud, that serves no use whatsoever...

btw, why do you think that only those countries you listed should be allowed to have nukes and not other countries? (will read tomorrow)

Because those nations have shown that they are reasonable when it comes to world affairs. Even China is responsible when it comes to such things, they have yet to show any behavior that would lead us to believe they would use WMD in a first strike role. Of course the UK and France are fine, those are just sitting in a warehouse somewhere. The US and Russia are the main world powers and as such need them to keep the peace. Israel needs them because she is surrounded by a dozen enemies 10 times her size and power.

BTW, Israel has also shown that it is a reasonable nation which is why she can be trusted with them. Notice that Israel didn't attack Iraq after Scud missiles landed there in the Gulf War.

Grasshopper

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: jahawkin

But we haven't exushted every diplomatic solution. We've tried alot of solutions, but we won't have moral justification for war with Iraq until we can say that there was no other course of action we could have taken. Saying "if Saddam has WMD's, he might attack us" is not reason to invade Iraq. How can you say for sure we're going to prevent millions of deaths?? You can't. But I can say for certain that if the US attacks Iraq there will be Iraqi's killed.

11 years of non-compliance
16 resolutions defied

At what point would you consider "every diplomatic solution" to be exhausted?

It sounds like you're not willing to prevent death, only respond to it. Does that mean that you wouldn't support having stopped the 9/11 terrorists until after they killed 3,000 people?

We cannot wait until Saddam has nukes to find out if he will use them, the price is just too high. We must make sure he never gets the chance. It is the only moral thing to do.

It would be immoral to allow him to obtain them.

In addition, you forget that Saddam has already used WMD against both Iran and his own people. He has killed tens of thousands of people with them. Why would he refrain from using a nuke?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Stopping him is the only moral course of action.

Grasshopper

Why haven't there been UN inspectors in Iraq for the last 4 years?? Becuase the US used UNSCOM as an espionage agent, Saddam had every right to play games with the UN. Then the inspectors got up and left. So no, not every diplomatic solution has been exausted.
Yes, I would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. But we don't know what Saddam is going to do. We didn't know the terrorists were going to strike on 9/11. (one can argue otherwise....). We don't have any kind of evidence that indicates that Saddam has nukes which he will launch at the US.

Sure Saddam may have gassed his own people (The same could be said about the US). But did he use chemical weapons against Kuwait or the US in '91?? He's not dumb. He knows that if he uses some kind of WMD against the US he would be done with, and as supported by the CIA, the chances of him using his weapons are greater if we attack him.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Why haven't there been UN inspectors in Iraq for the last 4 years??

Because Saddam wasn't really cooperating with them. They were not getting anything done.

Becuase the US used UNSCOM as an espionage agent, Saddam had every right to play games with the UN.

That is not correct. Iraq lost a war, thus until the terms of the surrender are completed, we have the right to spy on them.

This is not a game of hide and seek where Iraq tries to hide the weapons and we try to find them. The inspectors are not really meant to uncover the weapons, the idea is Iraq just gives them all up willingly. Time and time again it was discovered that he would reveal a small handful of weapons, only to have hidden a far larger share.

That isn't how it goes. It goes like this. Iraq tells us everything it has, shows it to us, we blow it up. End of story. Until that happens, the Gulf War hasn't ended.

Then the inspectors got up and left. So no, not every diplomatic solution has been exausted.

We have given Saddam every chance to comply, he has refused from day one and has never complied. Shall we give him another 11 years to run around on us?

The Inspectors were close to declaring Iraq free of WMD until 1995 when Saddam's son-in-law defected and revealed that Saddam had 10 times as much chemical and biological weapons as we thought. Turns out the stuff they found from 1991 until 1995 was but just a small percentage of Saddam's stockpile. We found some of it, but not all of it.

But we don't know what Saddam is going to do.

It would be immoral to wait and find out the hard way. I do not require a 20 mile wide crater where New York City once stood to convince me that we must preempt evil that wants nuclear weapons.

To wait for a "smoking gun" might just be that 20 mile wide crater...

We don't have any kind of evidence that indicates that Saddam has nukes which he will launch at the US.

He is the only person alive today that has used WMD against anyone. He has started wars of agression, he has proven completely unpredictable. It isn't worth it to wait and find out the hard way.

We didn't have evidence of 9/11, we are not likly to find evidence of Saddam's intentions until after the fact. We have to go on less than perfect information.

Sure Saddam may have gassed his own people (The same could be said about the US).

Don't be silly, we have never used chemical weapons. Neither has any other person alive today, except Saddam.

But did he use chemical weapons against Kuwait or the US in '91??

Oh, so long as he doesn't kill American's then it is ok? What is up with that? Genocide is Genocide, and cannot be permited.

Slobodan Milosevic used Genocide against non-Americans and we went after him too. Evil cannot be allowed to run nations anymore.

He's not dumb. He knows that if he uses some kind of WMD against the US he would be done with, and as supported by the CIA, the chances of him using his weapons are greater if we attack him.

He doesn't have to use them, he can give them to terrorists. What if he gave a nuke to the Palestinians? He has already provided them with funding and weapons, if he gave them a nuke, they would use it to destroy Tel Aviv. Israel would then probably respond by attacking Iraq because only Iraq could have provided it. Tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions would did.

But since none of them would be Americans, I guess that is ok, right?

Sheesh...

Grasshopper

 

[Colt45]

Slobodan Milosevic used Genocide against non-Americans and we went after him too. Evil cannot be allowed to run nations anymore

how come you ignored it when croats did it to the serbs?

if you want to be 'world cop', you can't be biased.


gotta love how the US calls the KLA 'freedom fighters' and al'quaeda 'terrorists'.

the KLA isnt anything but a group of drug & weapons trafficking criminals.

samo sloga srbina spasava

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Colt45


how come you ignored it when croats did it to the serbs?

if you want to be 'world cop', you can't be biased.

Hey, I agree with you there...

We didn't do anything to stop the Genocide in Rawanda back in 1996-98. 800,000 civilians were murdered, that was horrible...

You're right that we are biased, that too needs to end. But of course we're human and we have built in biases, so it won't...

Doesn't change the fact that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing.

Grasshopper

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: Czar But in Canada's mind like in Europe it is at least moraly wrong to invade another country without a darn good motive, so far there hasnt been another motive brought forth except that Iraq has violated UN resolutions. Thats why this must go through the UN, and thats what Canada wants.

Didn't this whole routine just go through the UN Security Council?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Canadians, like we here in the US are not obliged to all think alike. If they collectively view the situation differently, that is their right.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: eakers
the reason my government doesnt spend money on the military is because canadians feel social programs more important and call for more spending on educuation, health care etc. rather than military.

Too bad they don't actually do that...alteast in Ontario.

 

[SSP]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Czar

Tell me just why on earth should Canada cut back on education and health care to make its army bigger?

They shouldn't, but they should support America when we use our very much nessessary military to keep the world safe from evil dictators who want nuclear weapons.

I never once said Canada should build up a massive military. Canada should support America's military, that is enough.

Grasshopper

Why the hell should we support anyone? If anything, we have done nothing but support U.S. with the whole war on terrorism stuff. All we're saying is that the US should go through UN before they start attacking anyone. Having said that, this is old news now because the Security Council did support Bush's proposal, so if Sadam did refuse, he?s fscked. Pat Buchanan can go fsck himself for all I care.

I hope U.S. do go in and beat his ass. That fscker needs to die!

 

[CanOWorms]

People seem to think that militaries just kill people. It doesn't. So much research and development have come from military research and needs. Didn't the military have an important role in the development of the Internet or am I thinking of something else?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: SSP

Why the hell should we support anyone? If anything, we have done nothing but support U.S. with the whole war on terrorism stuff. All we're saying is that the US should go through UN before they start attacking anyone. Having said that, this is old news now because the Security Council did support Bush's proposal, so if Sadam did refuse, he?s fscked. Pat Buchanan can go fsck himself for all I care.

I hope U.S. do go in and beat his ass. That fscker needs to die!

Why does everything have to go through the UN? This planet got along just fine for a billion years without it.

The UN has got some serious flaws, including the inability to act quickly to stop serious crimes such as Genocide. Either the UN mandate changes, or we need to seriously think about a replacement for it.

It worked great during the cold war, but it might be outliving its usefuleness...

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
People seem to think that militaries just kill people. It doesn't. So much research and development have come from military research and needs. Didn't the military have an important role in the development of the Internet or am I thinking of something else?

Yep, and that came about because of nuclear weapons because they needed a communication system that would function with 2/3 of it knocked out.

The military brought us the computer too, the first one was used to compute highly accurate artilery tables in WWII.

The military brought us modern airplanes, modern first-aid, and a whole host of other things.

Grasshopper

 

[Martin]

ahh, so many many replies:


HotChic
While it may not show here, compared to most Canadians I am definately to the right. In case you know anything about Canadian politics, I am a fan (though not a party member, I like to keep my options open) of the Canadian Alliance and will probably vote for them during the next elections.

Millennium
What I was saying was that many americans support going to war because he may have WMD and he may pose some general unspecified threat, which is crap and the world has called it for what it is. When you put it into the context of the UN and broken treaties, then you gain lots of support, as todays's SC vote has shown. I have yet to see/hear a person who is opposed to that.


Czar
The two need not be mutually exclusive. We can have our cake and eat it too. We don't have to cut back on healthcare and education to have a decent military. The military is extremely underfunded and simply cannot perform what the government is asking of it. In addition to many peacekeeping missions, they are also asked to do a number of jobs at home (such as helping out during natural disasters). No Canadian wants to see huge sums of money go towards pointlessly building and maintaining an enourmous military. We want to have a decent military with decent equipment, that can perform its duties properly. We are a sovereign nation and should not depend on others for our protection.

grasshopper
Can you think of a major situation where your theory ("carry the biggest stick and make sure everyone knows you can use it") has actually worked? I can't.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: SSP

Why the hell should we support anyone? If anything, we have done nothing but support U.S. with the whole war on terrorism stuff. All we're saying is that the US should go through UN before they start attacking anyone. Having said that, this is old news now because the Security Council did support Bush's proposal, so if Sadam did refuse, he?s fscked. Pat Buchanan can go fsck himself for all I care.

I hope U.S. do go in and beat his ass. That fscker needs to die!

Why does everything have to go through the UN? This planet got along just fine for a billion years without it.

The UN has got some serious flaws, including the inability to act quickly to stop serious crimes such as Genocide. Either the UN mandate changes, or we need to seriously think about a replacement for it.

It worked great during the cold war, but it might be outliving its usefuleness...

Grasshopper

And you're a fool if you think the US can do a better job. You can think about some changes you can make to it, but replacing it? hell no.

 

[her209]

I don't know if its been said before, but Canadians are half French and we know how those French people are. :Q

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: her209
I don't know if its been said before, but Canadians are half French and we know how those French people are. :Q

Yes Canada has the largest population of french people that have never surrendered to Germany.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak<br.grasshopper
Can you think of a major situation where your theory ("carry the biggest stick and make sure everyone knows you can use it") has actually worked? I can't.

Cold War...

The most amazing thing about the past 60 years? We're all still here...

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

And you're a fool if you think the US can do a better job. You can think about some changes you can make to it, but replacing it? hell no.

I'm not suggesting we have nothing to replace it, but it may simply be beyond repair.

The League of Nations never really worked, but it was a good idea. The UN is an even better idea. Third times the charm?

Grasshopper

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak<br.grasshopper
Can you think of a major situation where your theory ("carry the biggest stick and make sure everyone knows you can use it") has actually worked? I can't.

Cold War...

The most amazing thing about the past 60 years? We're all still here...

Grasshopper

CW is not a really a valid example, since it wasn't an actual war. Think about it, was the treaty of Versailles better than the treaty at the end of WWII? Are germans and japanese and americans friends today because the US has the larger military, or is it because after the war the americans helped out ther Gs and Js and became friends?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

And you're a fool if you think the US can do a better job. You can think about some changes you can make to it, but replacing it? hell no.

I'm not suggesting we have nothing to replace it, but it may simply be beyond repair.

The League of Nations never really worked, but it was a good idea. The UN is an even better idea. Third times the charm?

Grasshopper

While that may be a noble thought, it is probably unworkable. A new world body to better tackle issues would have to have more power, and we know how many americans would embrace that

 

[CraigRT]

Canada bashing = teh ghey.

any American who takes part in this, sucks.

<-- Not bashing the US.