American

[Cliarlaoch]

On a goofy side note, it's funny how, in the 20 minutes it took for me to post that RANT of mine, there have been almost 10 other posts put up in that time frame. Boy, popular subject, eh?

 

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
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.

When my step mother came to Canada from Germany her Grandfather feared for her as the only thing he knew about the Canadians was from the great wars. He sincerely believed that they were wild hairy men who could only be killed with a silver bullet to the heart. He was told stories of Canadians shot multitudes of times and would not fall.

I feel very proud being able to walk anywhere in the world and let them know where I come from.

Having said that. You'll never catch me burning my country's flag. From sea to shining sea forever!

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by 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.

Hell. The only respectable forces you guys have now, are your special forces and your sniper teams. You have practically let the rest of your national defence rot away. If Canada was invaded today, it would be our Marines and 101st to defend your border. So, suck up while you still can. LOL

 

[GouRonin]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Hell. The only respectable forces you guys have now, are your special forces and your sniper teams. You have practically let the rest of your national defence rot away. If Canada was invaded today, it would be our Marines and 101st to defend your border. So, suck up while you still can. LOL

And yet we still go. We go when asked. We fight with almost nothing. They thought us to be expendable and worthless before. We'll still go and fight.

We're not a people who feel that war is something we need to prepare for. We're peacekeepers. Things like excellent Spec Ops and Snipers show that.

We're a quiet people really. But don't confuse that for being a pushover. Never confuse compassion for weakness. We prefer to do our own thing and be left alone. The country that tried to occupy us would be very surprised. It's in our history and proven that we come up big when it's gut check time.

Add to that the fact we're the 2nd largest country in the world. It's a lot of space. We have 30 million people to your 300 million.

If you feel you need to put us down to make yourself feel better that's ok. It doesn't bother us.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch


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


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.


Peace to you, my honoured opponents. :asian:

Sir,

On Canada, I agree they have a good and honorable history. My Comment was for my Canadian Friends on discussions we had had previously. Maybe it was out of line here. :asian:

As to the UN, How long should we wait? Last I rememebr the UN issued Decrees back in 1991 and 1992, to by that count it is 11 to 12 years for him to comply. Well, maybe we should just wait longer and maybe he will die. Sorry for the sarcastic remark, yet I would like to kow how long should the US have waited??

I also respect the troop of allthe nations in the coalition. Also, the Canadians who have gone to Afghanastan to relieve US troops. :asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
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.

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.


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.

Thank You for the Web Site.

I agree that the Sa'ud Family is plit into two camps. I understand that there were agreements of past. I just knew that in the last 13 years KSA and Qu'wait both have bought many of our war machines for their own defense. There is an old doctrine called the Monroe Doctrine the US claims to have complete authority over the western hemisphere and yet we do not follow it today. This is why I was asking for your data. I just no agree that they need our enforcement.

As to the Carter Admin, I do not believe all was his fault. Many times it takes 2 to 3 years to get all the policies of a presidency inot place and working. Some people would say that Reagan benefited from Carter's plans. Some would also say that Reagon was ablt to maintain his own situation from day one. Economics is an intersting subject.

As to Japan, they are still the world's second largest economy. Some would say that our Economy is also not doing well. Look at the Stock Market during the same time as the fall of Japan's Market, and The US Market is only slightly better.


As to KSA being one of the losser, I would have to disagree on this. No matter which party in KSA Pro or Con US would not allow this to go by and would leverage their influence with the US to be a part of the deal, no matter what the deal. Even if it is given a positive KSA spin and a negative US Spin. Just my opnion.


:asian:

 

[Cliarlaoch]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
On Canada, I agree they have a good and honorable history. My Comment was for my Canadian Friends on discussions we had had previously. Maybe it was out of line here. :asian:

As to the UN, How long should we wait? Last I rememebr the UN issued Decrees back in 1991 and 1992, to by that count it is 11 to 12 years for him to comply. Well, maybe we should just wait longer and maybe he will die. Sorry for the sarcastic remark, yet I would like to kow how long should the US have waited??

I also respect the troop of allthe nations in the coalition. Also, the Canadians who have gone to Afghanastan to relieve US troops. :asian:

On the first bit, no worries. I know it wasn't meant disrespectfully. My response was meant to point out that we're more fearsome than we look. I mean, heck, if we can drink the beer we drink, we have to be scary, right?

As for the UN: I don't think the Bush government actually cared about the UN in the first place. Someone can't call the UN irrevelant, then get mad when it doesn't leap to back up that person's or government's proposal for a war. Especially when the comments keep coming in saying that the UN is blind, its inspectors dupes, etc. Look in the news, see the words and the incredibly poor decorum and timing the government used. It's all there.

It's not so much a question of waiting, so much as a willingness to play by the rules of the UN. They're there for a reason: to prevent war, and to ensure that AGGRESSION is prevented as well. The Iraqi regime has a history of aggression, sure, but I somehow doubt the country's got the military power to flick away a gnat right now, much less the US. Especially after 12 years of sanctions. How long should the US have waited? I don't know, honestly. I can't say. Maybe, instead of "waiting" for the UN, there should have been a stronger committment on the part of the coalition to convince the UN that there was a JUST CAUSE for war. If they happen to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in vast quantities, waiting to be used, in Iraq in the next few days, I'll be eating crow, of course, but otherwise, they really didn't convince me that the war was justified.

In any case, war's upon us again, and I guess the only thing I can do is pray for a quick, and hopefully not too costly, end to the war.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
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

Though not a (full-)dues paying member.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by arnisador
Though not a (full-)dues paying member.

True the US does not pay it dues.

Yet the US is still waiting to be reimbursed for the Gulf War by many of the UN members who promised a certain amount of financial backing.

So, I know it goues both way on the money issue.

I was hoping to get some concrete data on the political issue.

Thanks Arnisador.
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
On the first bit, no worries. I know it wasn't meant disrespectfully. My response was meant to point out that we're more fearsome than we look. I mean, heck, if we can drink the beer we drink, we have to be scary, right?

As for the UN: I don't think the Bush government actually cared about the UN in the first place. Someone can't call the UN irrevelant, then get mad when it doesn't leap to back up that person's or government's proposal for a war. Especially when the comments keep coming in saying that the UN is blind, its inspectors dupes, etc. Look in the news, see the words and the incredibly poor decorum and timing the government used. It's all there.

It's not so much a question of waiting, so much as a willingness to play by the rules of the UN. They're there for a reason: to prevent war, and to ensure that AGGRESSION is prevented as well. The Iraqi regime has a history of aggression, sure, but I somehow doubt the country's got the military power to flick away a gnat right now, much less the US. Especially after 12 years of sanctions. How long should the US have waited? I don't know, honestly. I can't say. Maybe, instead of "waiting" for the UN, there should have been a stronger committment on the part of the coalition to convince the UN that there was a JUST CAUSE for war. If they happen to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in vast quantities, waiting to be used, in Iraq in the next few days, I'll be eating crow, of course, but otherwise, they really didn't convince me that the war was justified.

In any case, war's upon us again, and I guess the only thing I can do is pray for a quick, and hopefully not too costly, end to the war.

Gee, in Jr High School and High School, I had a fight that just devastated the school and it is Admin. A bully who would pick on people and me. I would tell an adult, an instructor, and after nothign happened, I took care of the problem. Guess what, I had very little problems after and tose I did teh Admin Acting upon RIGHT away. Now, I was always asked why I did the things I did. I rpelied, he would not stop hitting or kicking me. You would do nothing about it. I took care of the problem myself. Take what actions you want, yet are ready for the whole story to come out?

I never even got detention.

Is this world situation the same? Not really, yet a very smart young lady said last night in Chat room, "Why do guys always end getting into a Pissing Constest"? So, I guess we came to a point were people could not back up and start over or wait.

Does anyone believe the UN will Sanction the US if not WMD are found? If so why?

Or do yu Believe they will let it slide since we are the big boys and for the UN to truly work they require our presence and backing?

Curious
:asian:

 

[arnisador]

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

I'm really glad to hear that. It was an awful thing but friendly fire accidents are typically double-digits percentage of deaths in a war. I had gotten the impression from reporting here that the Canadian people were really upset about the matter and perhaps didn't agree that it was inevitable that an accident would occur sooner or later. Today the U.S. shot down a British plane. The week I was asked to work at the Army Research Lab. on identification problems, a U.S. jet shot down an allied (in fact, I think it was U.S.) helicopter patrolling the no-fly zone (1994). It was very sobering.

I read within the past week that the U.S. pilots from the Afghan incident are likely to get administrative punishment (not jail time). I hope that doesn't reopen the matter.

 

[GouRonin]

Whatever the official punishment for friendly fire incidents such as this bring is what they should get. Just as if they shot their own people.

In any case. I still won't be burning my flag. I love it. It would break my heart to see it burned for no reason whatsoever.

 

[yilisifu]

Friendly fire has resulted in casualties in every conflict we've ever fought. It has to be expected although it's a terrible thing.

As for not paying full dues to the UN - the US still has not been paid back by numerous countries for what was owed following WWII. They've never once complained about it, either.

Saddam Hussein is a truly evil and dangerous man. I remain absolutely convinced that WMD will be found in his country; weapons he denied having in his possession.
It doesn't take much in the way of technology to cause thousands of deaths in this or any other country with such weapons. Better to stop him now than wait until another 9-11.

 

[sweeper]

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 don't think what you said above is wrong, I don't think that is what we are doing.

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?

No we would just have to set up a pro US government to get oil out of it.

I don't think there has been any evidence of sadam successfully producing any WMD but there is quite a bit of chemical and biological weapons un accounted for.

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.

None of the terrorists he has funded/trained have been successfull to my knowledge, and to the best of my knowledge he has used chemical weapons against israil and iran, but I would question the thret level he poses as he hasn't used chemical or biological weapons since.

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

I disagree, what is so diffrent about now than any other point since the golf war? What has changed that has elivated the thret level of sadam? Sadam has thretined to kill americans and cause terror for a long time, but he has not realy tried (outside of the early 90s and those were all failures) he postures alot but how is the thret he poses any greater now than before?

If they happen to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in vast quantities, waiting to be used, in Iraq in the next few days, I'll be eating crow, of course, but otherwise, they really didn't convince me that the war was justified.

I second that view.

(edit) But I do think we will find agents to create biological weapons and some chemical weapons burried somewhere eventualy.. wether they could be used or not is what is in question.

 

[Mike Clarke]

When you folks in the U.S. get to see the footage of the American P.O.W's being displayed in front of the cameras, you might get behind your people on the front line a bit more.
The U.S. t.v. companies have been asked not to show the footage of them as it 'looks bad'. But all would do well to remember that those people who put their lives on the line in such situations, are the reasons we can sit at our computers and babble on about what we should and shouldn't do with monsters like Saddam.

I grew up in England but now live in Australia, and I'm proud to say that these two countries have also had the guts to stand up to one of the worlds sickest people.
This is going to get worse before it gets better, we should stand firm behind our fighting men and women and give them nothing but our strongest support.

By all means, feel free to have your say, but aim it at those who need to hear it. I hear a lot from some Americans about their 'rites', they would do well to remember their responsibilities too.

Mike.

 

[Cliarlaoch]

Rich, I don't think the UN CAN censure the US. Doing so would cause even bigger problems for that organization. That said...

You raise a good point. I disagree with war, no matter what the cause. Somebody bloody well has to. That said, again, there does come a point where you need to stand up and fight. I just don't think the US ever managed to convince me, the world, or even a large number of its own citizens (Fox pundits aside) that there was just cause. There are some here who obviously disagree with me on that point, and that's fine. However, if you're gonna fight a war, you better be sure that it's for a good and justifiable cause, or else all the war'll do is breed more hatred, and more terrorists. That's a part of my concern, as well. Maybe Iraq wasn't a threat before the war, and maybe it was. If this war turns out to be a big mistake, though, it WILL be a threat AFTER the war.

Anyway, 'nuff said. I've spouted long enough. Respectfully stepping OFF the soapbox now and asking "Can't we all just get along."

(Resounding answer from the crowd... "NO!!!!")

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by GouRonin
And yet we still go. We go when asked. We fight with almost nothing. They thought us to be expendable and worthless before. We'll still go and fight.

We're not a people who feel that war is something we need to prepare for. We're peacekeepers. Things like excellent Spec Ops and Snipers show that.

We're a quiet people really. But don't confuse that for being a pushover. Never confuse compassion for weakness. We prefer to do our own thing and be left alone. The country that tried to occupy us would be very surprised. It's in our history and proven that we come up big when it's gut check time.

Add to that the fact we're the 2nd largest country in the world. It's a lot of space. We have 30 million people to your 300 million.

If you feel you need to put us down to make yourself feel better that's ok. It doesn't bother us.

On the contrary, we are pissed b/c you folks are taking a free ride on our national defence. Because you know very well that if anything happen to you ie, any nation dumb enough to attack you, WE will be there to save your bacon, while you can sit on your *** and watch us defend you.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Sir,

On Canada, I agree they have a good and honorable history. My Comment was for my Canadian Friends on discussions we had had previously. Maybe it was out of line here. :asian:

As to the UN, How long should we wait? Last I rememebr the UN issued Decrees back in 1991 and 1992, to by that count it is 11 to 12 years for him to comply. Well, maybe we should just wait longer and maybe he will die. Sorry for the sarcastic remark, yet I would like to kow how long should the US have waited??

I also respect the troop of allthe nations in the coalition. Also, the Canadians who have gone to Afghanastan to relieve US troops. :asian:

AS for the UN, why the hell that the US still pay the lion's share (25%?) of its expenses or more precisely BUREAUCRATIC WASTE??

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Thank You for the Web Site.

I agree that the Sa'ud Family is plit into two camps. I understand that there were agreements of past. I just knew that in the last 13 years KSA and Qu'wait both have bought many of our war machines for their own defense. There is an old doctrine called the Monroe Doctrine the US claims to have complete authority over the western hemisphere and yet we do not follow it today. This is why I was asking for your data. I just no agree that they need our enforcement.

As to the Carter Admin, I do not believe all was his fault. Many times it takes 2 to 3 years to get all the policies of a presidency inot place and working. Some people would say that Reagan benefited from Carter's plans. Some would also say that Reagon was ablt to maintain his own situation from day one. Economics is an intersting subject.

As to Japan, they are still the world's second largest economy. Some would say that our Economy is also not doing well. Look at the Stock Market during the same time as the fall of Japan's Market, and The US Market is only slightly better.


As to KSA being one of the losser, I would have to disagree on this. No matter which party in KSA Pro or Con US would not allow this to go by and would leverage their influence with the US to be a part of the deal, no matter what the deal. Even if it is given a positive KSA spin and a negative US Spin. Just my opnion.


:asian:

1. Carter put no economic policy inplace that benefited the nation. During Reagan's administration, the Fed chief Paul Vaulker (sp) broke the back of inflation by forcing a recession. That and Reagan's tax cut, worked together to create an economic boom , which brought the nation out of the malaise that Carter has doomed the nation in (by his all well-meaning by lack of vision, leadership. Carter is a good man; but a lousy president.) Reagan also rekindled the American CAN-DO spirit. Reagan won the Cold War and defeated communism for the free world.

AS a result, today you don't hear about inflation or the Soviet bear threat anymore. The younger generation does not even know what these are.

2. Japan is like a beached whale. Its banking system is still saddled with bad real estate/property loans and worthless stocks. They have no courage to reform the system. To reform the system would mean putting banks through bankruptcy, forcing corporate restructuring that causes unemployment. This will upset their much cherished social harmony. A violation of the social contract between the rulling class and the populace. So the rulling class does nothing. It is rotting from the inside out. You don't hear about the Japanese buying up or taking over anything in the western corporate world anymore. They are broke.

3. AS for KSA, once we have Iraq, the second largest proven reserve, who needs the KSA anymore? Their leverage as a energy supplier is going up in smoke. As a military base provider? Nah, we have Qatar, Kuwait etc. They and the Turks, manage to prove to us that we don't their stinking support any more. How intelligent of them, huh?

Besides, by controlling Iraq, the American suddenly has the key control on oil price ! Now, we can cripple Russia economically AT WILL. Russia is totally dependent on oil revenue. So is OPEC. Now, the American is the master of their fate.

As mentioned before, Iraq is a key piece of the puzzle in the greater scheme of the Empire's global strategy. Bush II essentially kills 2 birds with one stone. Defanging Saddam and Al Qaeda, and put America in the driver seat to continued world domination.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
On the first bit, no worries. I know it wasn't meant disrespectfully. My response was meant to point out that we're more fearsome than we look. I mean, heck, if we can drink the beer we drink, we have to be scary, right?

As for the UN: I don't think the Bush government actually cared about the UN in the first place. Someone can't call the UN irrevelant, then get mad when it doesn't leap to back up that person's or government's proposal for a war. Especially when the comments keep coming in saying that the UN is blind, its inspectors dupes, etc. Look in the news, see the words and the incredibly poor decorum and timing the government used. It's all there.

It's not so much a question of waiting, so much as a willingness to play by the rules of the UN. They're there for a reason: to prevent war, and to ensure that AGGRESSION is prevented as well. The Iraqi regime has a history of aggression, sure, but I somehow doubt the country's got the military power to flick away a gnat right now, much less the US. Especially after 12 years of sanctions. How long should the US have waited? I don't know, honestly. I can't say. Maybe, instead of "waiting" for the UN, there should have been a stronger committment on the part of the coalition to convince the UN that there was a JUST CAUSE for war. If they happen to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in vast quantities, waiting to be used, in Iraq in the next few days, I'll be eating crow, of course, but otherwise, they really didn't convince me that the war was justified.

In any case, war's upon us again, and I guess the only thing I can do is pray for a quick, and hopefully not too costly, end to the war.

The UN has never stopped any war nor deterred any aggression.

Name one war that the UN prevented?

The UN is just a wasteful dog and pony show.
It is nothing more than a tax payer funded international cocktail party.