American

[Mon Mon]

Peace is something I love and support I want this war to be over as soon as possible. We often as humans de-humanize our enemy but the enemy also has family and friends as we do. They are humans too. I am for the war and I am for people who protest the war in a RIGHT way. I don't care if people do it peacefully. But I do care about protestors who protest the WRONG way. Yes there are different view points and the fact that we do have the right to protest is one of the things that makes this country great. But people who burn the American Flag really upset me I feel angry and sad at the same time. Yes the Flag is made of cloth but like others have expressed here already its a symbol of our way of life and our ideals.


I wrote that stern post just because I can because I have the right to express my ideas just like everyone else.

 

[Matt Stone]

I'm a soldier. I am, along with my brothers-in-arms, among the people most concerned with the war being completed quickly. For those of you who disagree with the war, you rank much lower on the concern scale as far as I'm concerned... Since you won't actually ever be in the line of fire, just nice and comfy on your sofa, your desire for the war to be over quickly sounds sort of lame.

For those of you who disagree with the US going in and liberating Iraq, removing a tyrant from power (since he inhibits his people's ability to do so), eliminating a very potential threat against the US and the world, please, if you will, enlighten me on exactly what you think is wrong with this.

Do you genuinely believe we are out for the oil? Wouldn't we have to occupy the country and maintain it under US possession to make the oil "ours?" What about Saddam's public commentary that he will both continue to produce and definitly use WOMD against us? If you think we should have given him more time to comply with the UN resolutions, don't you think 12 years was long enough? Do you really think a few more weeks would have done any good? If you think we are not moving with the force of the UN, you are partially right - but the UN resolutions that Saddam failed to observe have never been repealed and we are still able to enforce them... If you think we need France and Germany to make this official, are you aware of the debt Iraq owes both of those countries (which debt would likely be erased were Saddam to be replaced, thus making their interest in no war being much less related to their moral stance and much more related to their financial well-being).

Please, enlighten me... Make me understand why we should sit by and let this sociopath murder his own people and threaten the rest of the world any longer. But before you do, be sure you read the link in my post higher up in the thread.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

"Who must do the harsh thing? He who can."

 

[Elfan]

Originally posted by karatekid1975

Are you American?????

Yes.

Anyways, turn on CNN or any news channel. Watch for reports of protests. You'll see.

I search my closed Caption Caption archieve of CNN from the past few days and could not find a single reference to "flag burning." There are a few gaps in that archive though. Searching the news the only incident I could find was a protest in Canada, is that what you are refering too?


On the cloth thing:

The best compairson to how I feal about the American flag is this: Is Batman the cape and cowl or the guy inside?

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
For those of you who disagree with the US going in and liberating Iraq, removing a tyrant from power (since he inhibits his people's ability to do so), eliminating a very potential threat against the US and the world, please, if you will, enlighten me on exactly what you think is wrong with this.

I think the dificulty you have in understanding the other side so to speak to that they share differnt premeses. For example, you said whats wroung with "liberating Iraq." Well the definition of liberate is "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." While ocupatoin is "Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. " So someone who disagrees with the US's actions would go "hmm well it seems the US is staying so it can't be liberation ("foreign control") and it definantly invovles invasion and control from a foreign power so it isn't liberation but ocupation. Did that one example make sense Yilliquan?

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by Elfan
I think the dificulty you have in understanding the other side so to speak to that they share differnt premeses. For example, you said whats wroung with "liberating Iraq." Well the definition of liberate is "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." While ocupatoin is "Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. "

Your definitions are no different than mine.

So someone who disagrees with the US's actions would go "hmm well it seems the US is staying so it can't be liberation ("foreign control") and it definantly invovles invasion and control from a foreign power so it isn't liberation but ocupation. Did that one example make sense Yilliquan?

No, it didn't make sense. Our garrisons in other countries are there at the request of and agreement by the countries we have assisted. We do not control them, they make their own decisions on their policies. Therefore, it is not occupation. What we did to Japan after WWII, THAT was occupation. What we did with Kuwait after GWI, that was garrisoning an allied country that was incapable of defending itself top better enable it to be secure from outside threats.

Saddam tortures, rapes and murders his own people. It is believed he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of people having gone missing in his country over the past 35 years. The man has used WOMD on his own people, uses his civilian population as human shields for military targets and routinely threatens WOMD retaliation against any who would oppose him.

Sure. Sounds like a real stand up guy.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by Elfan
I think the dificulty you have in understanding the other side so to speak to that they share differnt premeses.

No, the difficulty I have is that their premise lacks common sense. They typically claim Government corruption or world domination conspiracy theory but address little of the real danger that Saddam poses to the US. Forget, for a moment, the danger he poses to other countries. He is an avowed enemy of the US, harbors, endorses, trains and funds terrorists, encourages terrorism as a method of warfare, and has publicly stated he will use WOMD as well as continuing to attempt to obtain nuclear capability.

Somehow the whole Lennon-esque "give peace a chance" thing just sounds stale. Protesters say war doesn't solve anything... Sure. Like it didn't solve WWI, WWII and how many other wars in our history...

Sometimes, as much as we all dislike the idea and recoil at the prospect of killing, just sometimes we have no real recourse. This is one of those times. The rest of the world would be content to sit back and let this man continue unchecked. I wonder, were we to leave this all alone, and in 5, 10 or 20 years Saddam really blows something out of the water beyond anything we have seen, will folks come running to the US asking why we didn't take him out when we had the chance?

Makes you wonder...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Elfan]

Well the 2nd premise I was going to deal with was that Sadamn poses a threat to the United States.
-----
Has he ever initiated an attack against the United States?
No.

Is Sadamn going to arm terroists with WMD?

But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping "terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

From : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42517-2003Mar17.html

So he would only arm terroists *if* the US attacks.


Why now? As in if Sadamn is such a threat why has Bush waited over 2 years to do something about it?

Sadamn was easily defeated in the Gulf War, how after 12 years of sanctions and continual bombings, would he have become a threat now?
-----
The two basic reasons for war I have seen are a moral one and a national security one. If you see nothing moral about attacking another country that has never attack us except in self-defense and think that Sadamn somehow poseing a threat to the US from the other side of the world is a load of bull then how could you support this war?

Do you get would I mean about different premises now?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Regarding the Oil theory:
http://www.apiinformation.org/factsheets/oil_imports.html

U.S. Oil Imports
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the United States imports 58 percent of its oil - or over 11 million barrels per day (with total consumption approaching 20 million barrels per day). The reliance on imports is necessary and carries benefits as well as some risks.

Sources of U.S. imports

The United States imports oil from many different countries. This makes it easier to adjust to a temporary interruption in oil supplies from any one country or region.

The United States imports 9.9 percent of all the oil it consumes from Canada, more than from any other nation. It imports 7.9 percent from Saudi Arabia and 7.8 percent from Mexico. It imports 2.2 percent from Iraq1. All Persian Gulf nations together supply only 11.5 percent of the oil the United States consumes.

So, we would be better off invading Canada...hell, its alot closer too.

Regarding why we shouldn't take out Sadamy....
National Sovernty. Why should we spill our blood and do all the dirty work to topple a corrupt government on the other side of the world when the people with the most to gain won't do much if anything? Does anyone think that next year, once we've pumped a few billion into rebuilding their cities (while ours crumble with massive aid cuts) and transportation networks (while our railroad decays further and airlines fall further into bankruptsy) that the average Iraqi will suddenly, after decades of being taught to hate the US will think we're 'All That and a bag od chips too'?

Iraq -may- have WOMD.... N. Korea -does-. Whose the bigger threat, the guy you think has a gun, or the one pointing it at you and slowly squeezing the trigger?

That said....I will shed no tears nor morn a second when he and his circle are gone. The horrors they have enjoyed, lead me to say it is a shame they can but die once.


Regarding the flag
Its only a piece of cloth. No biggie. But to many, especially those who have served, and sacrificed, it is a very meaningful symbol of all they fought and paid for. Its not because its a colored piece of cloth, its because of what it stands for. Too often this country (the US) forgets what it really means... I think there are many that still believe in "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" the way it was meant. It means something. That is why people burn it...and why people get mad seeing it.

 

[arnisador]

Flag-burning
I wouldn't want to live in a country where the govt. prohibited this form of expression. I won't be inviting many flag-burners over for dinner in my house but I won't sanction the govt. repression of protests against the govt. either.

Iraq
The world will be a better place without Saddam Hussein. Hopefully this will also be true of post-war Iraq in particular--I expect so, but regime change is a risky business. I was not convinced that a war now is essential but I am satisfied that it is justified--and that it is not principally about oil, nor about the current president's relationship to his father.

WMD
If he doesn't have them now it's not for lack of trying. He's shown in the past that he's willing to use them (e.g. chemical weapons against the Kurds).

The French
They're principally protecting their own interests--most notably by trying to maintain a position as a leader within the EEU. Their economic interests--not just oil but also weapons sales--play a role as well. They're putting their interests first. Which is fine--to a point. We passed that point many weeks ago. Similar comments apply to the Germans.

Invading Canada
Finally, something we can all agree on.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Taking out Saddam is part of the "Empire Strikes Back" strategy. Al Qaeda strikes at America to show their hated Muslim rulers that the Americans are vulnerable to WMD and cannot protect themselves, let along these corrupt rulers. Al Qaeda's goal is to create a Pan Arabic Muslim fundamentalist regime. They want to topple the corrupt rulers in the middle east and replace them with their version of Islamic government. But these governments are allies of the US, eventhough they may not seem so publicly. The Saudis rulers depend on the American miltary to defend them, if they are attacked. So is Kuwait and a long list of the Gulf states.

After 911, the US realized that it is necessary to deal with this threat to its global empire. So, it took out the Talebans, who defied the US in harboring the Al Qaeda. It launched a global dragnet for Al Qaeda. Thousands are rounded up all over the world. Hundreds of cells are eradicated.

Saddam is simply the next one on the target list of enemies of the United States. With Iraq's proven oil reserve, it is just a natural target to conquer and pacify. America will control, via a friendly pro America regime, not only one of the largest energy reserve, but a military outpost in the heart of the Middle East. And once for all, America will have demonstrated to the Middle East rogue states and to any rogue states for that matter, that you threaten the US at your own peril. Strike at America, and you will suffer the same fate as the Taleban, the Al Qaeda, and Saddam.

Bush rides at the height of America supremacy. We can simply do what we want. The UN be damned. The critics be damned. The Russians be damned. The French and German be damned. It also reinforces the American military doctrine that we will NEVER rely on another nation to do our battle (ironically, that was due to an incident in WWII when the British Navy ignored an American Navy's request for assistance. Since then, the US has never relied on them again.)

Iraq is a strategic target in the greater scheme of American strategy of defeating the WMD thread possed by the rogue Al Qaeda. Saddam happens to be a tyrant, simply provide the US with the moral fig leave.

The reality is, Saddam is the type of secular government that the Al Qaeda wants to replace. If Saddam was smart, he could have cut a deal with the US and hunt Bin Laden for the US.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by arnisador
Flag-burning
I wouldn't want to live in a country where the govt. prohibited this form of expression. I won't be inviting many flag-burners over for dinner in my house but I won't sanction the govt. repression of protests against the govt. either.

I agree that it is nice to be able to protest the government.
I just wish the protesters beleived I had a right too a different opinion then theirs.

Originally posted by arnisador

Iraq
The world will be a better place without Saddam Hussein. Hopefully this will also be true of post-war Iraq in particular--I expect so, but regime change is a risky business. I was not convinced that a war now is essential but I am satisfied that it is justified--and that it is not principally about oil, nor about the current president's relationship to his father.

Many of the US Companies, do not import any oil from the Mid East. There are others that do. If you wish to take action find out which ones and then boycott those companies.

Originally posted by arnisador

WMD
If he doesn't have them now it's not for lack of trying. He's shown in the past that he's willing to use them (e.g. chemical weapons against the Kurds).

I wish I could speak freely. I believe they have them and also the capability of using them. Yet, until absolute proof is provided, then there will always be a question.

Originally posted by arnisador

The French
They're principally protecting their own interests--most notably by trying to maintain a position as a leader within the EEU. Their economic interests--not just oil but also weapons sales--play a role as well. They're putting their interests first. Which is fine--to a point. We passed that point many weeks ago. Similar comments apply to the Germans.

The French and The Germans are watching out for their own ecomic concerns. I found it very intereseting to listen to Canadian Television, that was talking about who Canada and the rest of the protestors in the UN Mainly The French all have a postion as representatives of the UN in the Rebuilding of the Iraq. In my opinion, it is nice bit of back peddling trying to save face and the functionality of the UN. We shall see how it plays out afterwards.

Originally posted by arnisador

Invading Canada
Finally, something we can all agree on.

My Preliminary investigations are that none of the Canadian Citizens have Guns and that they feel upset about this. I think we could use some of the leaflet campaign and maybe Ontario would join the US out right just to get the first and second admendmants for themselves.

:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

JN - "(ironically, that was due to an incident in WWII when the British Navy ignored an American Navy's request for assistance. Since then, the US has never relied on them again.)"

Could you point me at your info on this? This is the first I've heard of it, and would like to look into it further...Thanks!

Rich - "maybe Ontario would join the US out right just to get the first and second admendmants for themselves. "

Not if it means closing down the ballet, and making em drink US beer...I think the latter would cause more problems.

Rich - "Many of the US Companies, do not import any oil from the Mid East. There are others that do. If you wish to take action find out which ones and then boycott those companies."

I remember seeing a list... any info on who does what?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
JN - "(ironically, that was due to an incident in WWII when the British Navy ignored an American Navy's request for assistance. Since then, the US has never relied on them again.)"

Could you point me at your info on this? This is the first I've heard of it, and would like to look into it further...Thanks!

Rich - "maybe Ontario would join the US out right just to get the first and second admendmants for themselves. "

Not if it means closing down the ballet, and making em drink US beer...I think the latter would cause more problems.

Rich - "Many of the US Companies, do not import any oil from the Mid East. There are others that do. If you wish to take action find out which ones and then boycott those companies."

I remember seeing a list... any info on who does what?

Kaith,

Well the US should also accept some of the Canadian Strengths. Personally I think the Canadian Beer and the Ballet are strengths the US could do with.


As for the List, A local Gas company published a list, if I can get my hands on it I will post it.

 

[Rich Parsons]

All of our differences aside, A question I will ask.

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
. .
But these governments are allies of the US, eventhough they may not seem so publicly. The Saudis rulers depend on the American miltary to defend them, if they are attacked. So is Kuwait and a long list of the Gulf states.

What is your source on the fact that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia requires the US for protection?

My Knowledge and information has them buying our M1A2+ Tanks and also some of our Air Planes for their own defense. Just because they buy our technology does not mean the require our military for their defense.

So, I am looking forward to you reply and information.



On the issue of the US completely ignoring the UN from now on out. What is your source on this also. Opinion? That is fine. Desire? That is fine also. Last I knew we were a member, we just choose not to wait for them to take action.

Looking forward to this reply also.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
JN - "(ironically, that was due to an incident in WWII when the British Navy ignored an American Navy's request for assistance. Since then, the US has never relied on them again.)"

Could you point me at your info on this? This is the first I've heard of it, and would like to look into it further...Thanks!

Either one of these sites.

www.strategypage.com

www.stratfor.com

I forgot which and where exactly I read that particular info.

 

[GouRonin]

Just a note from a friend in the Toronto Scottish regiment. Canada has for the last 10 years out-performed the US in infantry in excercises due to the fact that we have no reliance on hardware. (Mostly because have no hardware. Ha ha ha!)

The joke from his friend in an US unit is that they plan on giving 5 Canadians an M-16 and a handfull of bullets and drop then in Iraq. They figure they'll be so excited to have the hardware that the war will end in a week.

In any case, just in case you didn't know, in any altercation we've been involved in we've not only proven ourselves but we've held our own.

We still remember our vet's from Vimy Ridge on rememberance day. The British couldn't take it. The US led coalition didn't take it. The French didn't take it. We did. We weren't even supposed to. We were just meant to to be a distraction. The French in fact had 130,000 soldiers killed or wounded in their assault. The other attempts had similar casualties trying to take the stronghold. They gave us the job and we took 20,000 get the job done. 3,598 died and 7,699 wounded. 11,297 of them, over half died or were wounded doing it. I guess 11,297 Canadians equals 130,000 French. I still remember a vet in a TV special telling how he lost his weapons and picked up 2 pieces of coal in each hand to beat the enemy to death.

I'm damn proud of my country.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by GouRonin
I'm damn proud of my country.

As you should be!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

JN - Thanks! I'll be doing some R&D later.

Regarding Canadian Toughness....
In all seriousness.... anyone who doubts the toughness and real contributions that Canada has given in times of crisis, needs to do some research.

/soapbox
I think its about time for Mr. GW Bush to officially and formally apologize to the Canadian people and to the families of their troops that were killed in Afgahnistan by an American fighter crew. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened yet.
/end soapbox.

Gou, you and every Canadian should be proud of your country.... we're just jellous ya got the good beer.

And Gou, speaking of beer.....please relay to your shock troops to a-save the beer til after the battle, and b-pointy end of bullet is aimed at the enemy.
You put Red-Green in charge, and Iraq will be covered 3 layers deep in Duct Tape.

 

[Cliarlaoch]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons

My Preliminary investigations are that none of the Canadian Citizens have Guns and that they feel upset about this. I think we could use some of the leaflet campaign and maybe Ontario would join the US out right just to get the first and second admendmants for themselves.

:asian:

Actually, we do have guns. A lot of them. About 11 million households in Canada have at least one or two. So be careful on that one. Not to mention, while we may have a reputation for peaceful, happy, nice-guy politics, Canadians have been anything but peaceful or nice during the last century. We sent almost a huge proportion of our population (at the time) to fight in WWI. We were on the front lines, fighting, dying, and shedding blood. We were FEARED. You mention the word Canadian to a Nazi in 1940, and the first thing he thinks is where he can hide from death. We were assassins and soldiers. We made the US look friendly at the time. Nowadays, we're just... well, nevermind, I'll get depressed if I look at Canada's military right now. But we still know how to fight, and darn it, we're still armed.

Apologies for that rant, but I have to defend Canadian honour.

That said, I also have to pipe up in defense of protestors. I don't burn flags. I am peaceful in my protest. THAT SAID, I am incensed at those who think it is appropriate for cops and national guardsmen to beat protestors senseless, attack innocent civilians (witness the Battle of Seattle, here), or to imprison those protestors without charging them or in accordance with the rule of law.

I can, however, understand the anger some feel at flag-burning. There's usually a good reason for it, but even then, it's not one of those "feel good" protest methods. Protestors in the US typically burned the US flag because they believed that the rights, liberties, and privileges that their soldiers and ancestors had fought, bled, and died for had been violated by unjust wars, laws that violated civil rights, etc. Therefore, they burn the flag, the symbol, to suggest that the country they hold dear has been marred by those in power. That's their argument, usually, although sometimes, it's just a dumb stunt. And in the latter case, I agree with sentiments expressed earlier. It's stupid, it's disrespectful, and it serves no real purpose. If there is a deeper motivation, one of challenging the policies and actions of the government or the country in general, then it is excusable, and perhaps even laudable, as an action. It doesn't make you feel good, sure. It's not SUPPOSED to. It's supposed to make you angry, sit up, and notice. But the reason they do it is to make you ask why they are doing it. So ask why. And if you disagree, fine, then argue with protestors, engage in discourse with them, but if you do none of these things, then you ignore them and their message. The primary reason that young people protest and don't vote? I'm willing to bet it's because they feel that the people in power, namely older, white elites, are not responsive to their needs. And they aren't. Public education is slashed, housing for homeless youths is slashed, and to say that the job market is hostile to young people is to make an understatement of massive proportions. No wonder we protest. We don't feel like people listen to us.

In fairness, there are better ways to get involved, and maybe if we young pups got into politics, we'd be better off, and get listened to, and wouldn't have to protest in the first place. Problem is, the way things are set up, you don't GET power until you're old, rich, and white. If you're none of these things, you're S*** in the eyes of those running the country. No, actually, you're lower than S***. Putting us down as S*** would give S*** a bad name. So what the hell else are we supposed to do? If the system is not responsive to the people that it governs, it is not legitimate, and it is NOT democracy. We protest because, to us, that is the only way that our voices are heard. Voting doesn't get the guys in office out of power. It just puts another, equally unresponsive group, in their place for 4 years. You call that democracy? I call that an elected OLIGARCHY. One of the greatest lines ever written about American, Canadian, and modern Western democracy was that the only real change was that the RICH had replaced the nobles as the new aristocrats. And its true. The founders of the US never WANTED universal voting rights, for the poor to vote, etc. Their idea of democracy was to let THE RICH vote who would rule. It's right there in the founding methods of election for the government. It took years to get property restrictions on voting removed, and A HUNDRED ****** years to ALLOW WOMEN TO VOTE!!!!!!

So why are we so upset about this war? Napalm had a great point, there. The US CAN do whatever it wants. But the question is not what "CAN" the US do, it's what "SHOULD" the US do? The US spends hundreds of billions of dollars on war-making, but Bush promised only a meager 1.2 Billion to combat AIDS in Africa. And most of that money went to corporate R&D, not to relief efforts. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but it's not bloody well enough. I'm not a US citizen. I have no control over US policies. But the actions and will of the US have an effect on the policies of Canada, on the policies of the UK, and on the rest of the world. We have no say whatsoever in what the US does, but because it CAN and WILL do "whatever the hell" it wants, as has been so amply stated, we lose control over our own lives in the rest of the world. If, for example, Canadian environmental laws can get repealed (as they have been) because the US government sues our own government to remove them because they represent a "barrier to trade" to logging companies in the US, that presents a serious challenge to Canadian democracy. We don't have a say in the rest of the world, and as a result, when the US goes outside the bounds of the UN, where we DO have a say, we got ticked. Because suddenly, our views are ignored. Sure, the US can say "damn the critics, damn the UN," etc., and do whatever the F*** it wants. But if it does that, because it IS the single most powerful country on the planet, it means that it may very well violate the will of the people of other countries where it gets involved. If the US wants to avoid the flag-burning, the protests, and the anger and resentment it has engendered as of late, then its government and its people must be willing to take a long, hard look at the way it plays the game of international politics.

Look, I'm not trying to be a bastard on this, and I actually happen to LIKE the US. Hell, I lived in DALLAS, TEXAS for six years, and for two more in D.C. All I, and I think much of the rest of the world, is for the US to stop, and occassionally LISTEN to the concerns we have. If the Bush administration were to have given UN inspectors time to disarm Iraq, or to have been patient and gotten Security Council support, then I would have been one of the first to say to my fellow Canadians "alright, it's legal, and it's just, let's get in there and help them out!" But they didn't. Those with GREAT POWER must be aware that they have the Great RESPONSIBILITY of using that power well and justly. By just, I mean doing it in a way that all parties are given the respect they deserve in the decision-making process, and the rights of all are equally respected. The UN was founded to "save suceeding generations from the scourge of war" (I quote the UN Charter, here), and to preserve humanity from threats to peace, security, and life. While I recognize that Saddam is an utter, absolute, monster, and while I applaud the US for taking a stand against him, I would also suggest that the best way for the US to show the world that its cause is just would be to go through the laws and institutions of the international community that have been established to deal with such monsters. The UN can't act if it's members DON'T WANT IT TO ACT. The French showed poor faith in threatening a veto on any and all resolutions against Iraq, but the US has done the same in the case of Rwanda and Israel, to name but a few such situations. Get a compromise, work it out, go through the law's due process, let everyone have a voice. Take Saddam to the criminal court, put him in jail for the rest of his sorry life in the deepest, darkest hole of a cell that can be found. Show the world that genocidal maniacs and murderers will no longer be tolerated. Suddenly, you'd have a lot less flag-burning. Proclaim to the world that the US, unlike Saddam Hussein, stands for decency, for human rights, for JUSTICE. The reason we protest is because the US Government hasn't done this.

Make no mistake, I have the utmost respect and sympathy for the men and women of the US and British armed forces. You folks have more guts than any of us, and you're the ones who'll bear the brunt of our decisions. I hope that no-one makes the mistake, however, of thinking that casualties OF ANY KIND are ever justifiable. Collateral damage is just a nice way of saying that somebody, a living, breathing, human being, is dead or in pain. I don't want people from the US or the UK dying in Iraq, but I also don't want Iraqis dying either. There's no purpose to that, and it'll only make the people of Iraq want revenge. There's a vicious cycle building here, and that's another reason why people like me protest. Part of the reason bin Laden hit the WTC on 9/11 was because the CIA trained him, taught him, and helped him kill "infidels." When he looked around after the USSR left Afghanistan, the only enemy left for him to fight was the West. That doesn't justify murder, but there's definitely REASONS for why he did what he's done. Instead of fighting and killing, maybe it's time for both sides to take a step back and rethink the way they're going about the whole process. A lot of complaints were made about the protestors "not respecting" the rights of others to disagree. Fair enough. But the pot and the kettle shouldn't be calling each other black. We in the West assume that if we attack our enemies, we'll make the world safe for ourselves, when in fact, we may just be perpetuating the violence. Just something to think about. I always liked the Christian adage of "turning the other cheek," if only because it was a reminder that more violence is the only offspring of itself and hatred. Enough war. Enough death. I'm sickened of both. That is why I protest.

Awful long and angry rant on the subject, I know. And I know I've probably bruised a few egos. Even then, I do not apologize, and I hope you'll respect me for not backing down from my viewpoints.

I do apologize for the length, and I know I've gotten off-topic on occassion. Just ranting and raving, basically. Somebody has to do it.

One last thing I do want to make clear: I am grateful that folks like Yiliquan1, Jonathan Napalm, and others for saying what they've said. You're just as right as I or anyone else on this site. I don't agree with everything people have said here, but that doesn't mean I don't respect their views, or their courage in standing behind those views.

Peace to you, my honoured opponents. :asian:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
All of our differences aside, A question I will ask.

What is your source on the fact that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia requires the US for protection?

There is a strategic alliance between the Saudi ruling family and America. In return for a steady supply of oil, the US will defend the House of Saudi with its military power. This was established after WWII between then US president Roosevelt (sp?) and the first ruler of Saudi Arabia then.

Check out this site www.stratfor.com

Right now, the ruling family is divided into 2 camps, one pro US and the other which would rather be more independent. The US has been trying to work with the pro US branch. The curent King is pro US. But he is so sick, that his brother the Crown Prince Abdullah is actually running the country. He is not as pro US as his brother.

People on the streets of Cairo, Amman, Ridyah (sp) are against the US over the Palestinian issue. The rulers have to deal with this problem. So they have to butt head with the US in the public, in order to patronize their citizens. Not that they care about their citizens. They just don't want troubles.

On the issue of the US completely ignoring the UN from now on out. What is your source on this also. Opinion? That is fine. Desire? That is fine also. Last I knew we were a member, we just choose not to wait for them to take action.

Looking forward to this reply also.

There is a wing within the Republican party that views the UN as a waste of tax payers' funds as well as a hotbed of anti-american despots. They want to cut the wing off the UN. Bush II, unlike Bush I, has demonstrated total willingness to ignore international sentiment and niceties.

Bush II will use the UN as it sees fit and ignores it when it suits its interest.

This Gulf War II is a demonstration to the world that America calls the shot now. Besides it is going to be another 10-20 years if Russia or China is ever going to catch up with US militarily.

The US has shaken off the economy weakness it got snared in during the Carter Administration. It has demonstrated that it can fence off the Japanese economy challenge in the 80's and today Japan is not only no longer an economic threat, but a sick man of Asia, businesswise.

In every aspect, America is on top of the world. We abandoned the ABM treaty. All the leftists cried foul and predicted arm races with the Russians and the Chinese. GWB ignored them and trashed the ABM. We agreed to decommissioned the nuke forces but despite the Russians' protest, we are keeping 3-4000 nuclear warheads on storage, ensuring that no one will ever catch up with us in strategic nuclear forces.

The French and the German made a fool of themselves. The Turks shot themselves in the foot. Chirac is still whining. But does any one care? Is anyone paying any attention to what Putin has to say? By the way, where are the Chinese? Aren't they a permanent member of the UN? And does anyone care what Kofi Anan has to say?

Saddam is just a crown who got caught up in the greater American strategic realignment. When an Empire realigns its position, the ripple effect runs all direction. The French and the Germany want to check the American power and to dominate the EU at the same time. It back fired big time. Most of Europe sided with the US, and consequently, France and Germany are isolated.

At the conclusion of Gulf War II, the UK (Blair) , Spain, Australia, the Eastern Europeans (new Nato members) and the Gulf states what actively supported the US will come out the big winners. France, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the UN are the biggest losers.

 

[GouRonin]

Actually, the majority of the world didn't think much of the Canadians as we were a birthing country and the only reason they sent us in was because they believed us to be disposable. After that for the rest of the war we known to be the stormtrooper shock troops they would send in to %$#@ you up and leave you messed before the rest came in. We WERE shock & awe.

Politically we belive in the UN. Right or wrong. We do. That does not mean that we don't feel a lot of support for the USA. A lot of us are behind you. And believe you and me the moment the UN gives the green light you're going to have a boatload of crazy Canucks ready to rock and roll.

As for the Afgahnistan incident. Many Canadians understand that in war things happen and we accept it as the price of peace.

The world wars. The Korean War. Vietnam. (Many Canadians went and enlisted and fought along the US troops because they felt it right and returned home to a country that didn't recognize their efforts because they fought for the USA) Cypress. To Desert Storm. We went. We fought. We're in it to win it.

The USA is not an easy neighbour to have. But despite it all we genuinely like you guys. We do. I am always defending my American friends. We're neighbours and neighbours don't always get along but we support each other because that is what good neighbours do.