# American



## Mon Mon (Mar 22, 2003)

This post is directed to the Anti War protestors: I am fine with you protesting the war in Iraq. BUT DON'T YOU **** HEADS BURN THE AMERICAN FLAG! THAT FLAG STANDS FOR EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY STANDS FOR OUR  ANCESTORS DIED FOR OUR FREEDOM BURNING THE FLAG IN A PROEST IS VERY DISRESPECTFUL! IF YOU DO BURN IT THEN YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYMBOL OF OUR WAY OF LIFE. IF YOU DO BURN THE AMERICAN FLAG YOU ARE A DIRTY PIG!

Remember Terrorists Burn the American Flag in their protests so what dose that action show what kind of person you are? What would your grandparents who were in WW2 think if you burned the Amercan Flag. 


:soapbox:


----------



## Master of Blades (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Mon Mon _
> *This post is directed to the Anti War protestors: I am fine with you protesting the war in Iraq. BUT DON'T YOU **** HEADS BURN THE AMERICAN FLAG! THAT FLAG STANDS FOR EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY STANDS FOR OUR  ANCESTORS DIED FOR OUR FREEDOM BURNING THE FLAG IN A PROEST IS VERY DISRESPECTFUL! IF YOU DO BURN IT THEN YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYMBOL OF OUR WAY OF LIFE. IF YOU DO BURN THE AMERICAN FLAG YOU ARE A DIRTY PIG!
> 
> Remember Terrorists Burn the American Flag in their protests so what dose that action show what kind of person you are? What would your grandparents who were in WW2 think if you burned the Amercan Flag.
> ...



Agree with what your saying.....but I think ya need to calm down and say it in a nicer manner. Shouting didnt get no one no where :asian:


----------



## Angus (Mar 22, 2003)

For the same reason that you have the right to protest against what they do, they have the right to protest whatever and however (nonviolently) that they'd like. It's their right.

I don't agree with burning it, but it's certainly their right to do whatever they'd like.


----------



## Jill666 (Mar 22, 2003)

I agree anyone has the right to burn the flag- BUT I hate it anyway. Is that rational? No. I know that, but the flag is a powerful symbol, and in a way very sacred to me.


----------



## Master of Blades (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jill666 _
> *I agree anyone has the right to burn the flag- BUT I hate it anyway. Is that rational? No. I know that, but the flag is a powerful symbol, and in a way very sacred to me. *



"One mans trash is another mans treasure"......Guess it works opposite as well


----------



## Angus (Mar 22, 2003)

I'm not a practitioner of it either, but take away their right to do so and we're no better than the people we're supposedly warring with to stop.


----------



## cali_tkdbruin (Mar 22, 2003)

I live here in the States, "The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave". I served in our military so that people could maintain their freedoms, including freedom of speech. I know that may sound pollyanish, and during these times jingoistic to some, but, as much as I feel offended by some of their actions, they're still entitled to voice their opinion... :shrug:


----------



## karatekid1975 (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Angus _
> *For the same reason that you have the right to protest against what they do, they have the right to protest whatever and however (nonviolently) that they'd like. It's their right.
> 
> I don't agree with burning it, but it's certainly their right to do whatever they'd like. *



Non-violently??? What? Look at the news. Those protestors are nuts! They are protesting war. Fine. They have a right. BUT if you protest war, why are they setting fire to things, beating people up, and distroying property? If you don't want war, why not protest peacefully? With them acting like they are, they are no better than the war itself. Think about it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 22, 2003)

"I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" --Voltaire 

The problem with freedom of speech is you must be prepared to defend someone elses right to say that which you find yourself against.

I do not agree either with the protesters burning of the flag, but I will defend their right to do so.

People who have read my previous posts on the conflict in Iraq know I am against it.  But, my personal disagreement with the possible reasons for this situation must take a back seat to my desire for a speedy resolution, and a mininimal loss of life and injury to all sides of the conflict.

Regardless of if you are for or against the Iraq campaign, please, send your support to the men and women in the field.  
:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 22, 2003)

1 other point... I do NOT agree with some of their tactics.  There is NO reason for a violent protest, and both the protesters and the police confronting them are crossing the lines between acceptable and not-acceptable behavior.

Do it peacefully folks, or else you invalidate your whole argument...Ghandi made great points, without having to resort to throwing a single punch.  You can do worse than follow his lead.

Peace.
:asian:


----------



## Elfan (Mar 22, 2003)

Dude its just a peice of cloth, it can't hold all the ideals on which America was founded within it. 


karatekid1975, 
I was unable to find reports of any of the violent incidents of which you speak.  Can you cite any articles?


----------



## karatekid1975 (Mar 22, 2003)

Elfan wrote:

*Dude its just a peice of cloth, it can't hold all the ideals on which America was founded within it. 

karatekid1975, 
I was unable to find reports of any of the violent incidents of which you speak.  Can you cite any articles? *

Are you American?????

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

Agreed, Kaith. No one likes war. But if we do nothing, this idiot is going to keep on killing. He has killed millions of his own people .... innocent people. Not to mention all the other people he has killed under his power. I think he would kill many more if we do nothing, than with both this war, and Desert Storm put together. We did give him a chance to disarm peacefully many times. He didn't. If he keeps those weapons, he could kill many more millions. 

This is just my opinion, though. I'm not dissing anyone for their opinions. You, like anyone else, has a right. Just give the troops suport. They have done a awsome job thus far with minimal lose of life. My heart and prayers go out to those families who did lose loved ones. :asian:  God Bless.


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 22, 2003)

First - 

While I am sickened, repulsed and violently enraged when someone voices their opinion in time of war with contradictory and inflammatory statements which display their lack of solidarity with the Government and troops, I am also empowered with the truth and righteousness of our ideology and culture knowing that the sacrifices made by soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines worldwide are demonstrated...  By our sacrifice they are enabled to be vocal, no matter how wrong they may be in their thinking... (*I mean that with a little bit of sarcasm, don't flame me*)

Second - 

The flag *is[/I] just a piece of cloth, sure.  But it is also much, much more than that.  It is a living symbol, a physical embodiment of the beliefs, ideas and history of what our country stands for and tries to uphold in the world community.  By burning it and desecrating it in other ways, "protesters" show only their disrespect and lack of allegiance to the country that provides them with the freedom to express their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are in their thinking... (*again, I mean that with a touch of sarcasm*)

Third - 

These tree-hugging, bead-wearing, crystal-carrying neo-hippies fail to see the larger picture...  Other countries against whom we may be fighting can use those rather interesting vid clips against us as propaganda by showing their poorly educated and information starved people the division within our country and showing it to be evidence of the inherent wrongness of whatever it is they dislike (our lifestyle, politics, whatever...).

I guess it is just a maturity thing...  Most of the protesters I have seen on TV have been quite youngish - idealistic college students, inexperienced high school kids, etc.  They lack the worldliness that allows for greater understanding.  They demonstrate believing the Government is going to revoke all the troop movements, all the political statements and maneuvering, all because some idealists lay down in a few street intersections and screw up traffic.  Right.  If they really want to effect change, they can take a more active role in political elections.  Although, based on numbers over the last few years, their age groups are one of the least represented in the polls...  

Lastly - 

I have to agree with what Mr. Heinlein wrote in Starship Troopers...  The belief that anyone who has not actually sacrificed on behalf of the body politic has no reason whatsoever to either complain about what the governing body does, or to possess the power to vote.  Giving that power, and it really is a powerful possession, without having made a sacrifice for it is like putting a pistol in the hands of a toddler...  Dangerous, not because of inherent violent power, but due mainly to the lack of experience and understanding on the part of the wielder.

If folks really think we are so wrong, they need to read this thread I found over at E-budo here.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:*


----------



## Angus (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by karatekid1975 _
> *Non-violently??? What? Look at the news. Those protestors are nuts! They are protesting war. Fine. They have a right. BUT if you protest war, why are they setting fire to things, beating people up, and distroying property? If you don't want war, why not protest peacefully? With them acting like they are, they are no better than the war itself. Think about it. *



No need to preach to me, I'm on your side. However, very very little of the protesting I've heard about is violent. The way you phrased it you've made it sound as though all protests are violent, and this is not the case. The ones that are get punished; simple as that. I'm not defending them, just the ones who are protesting non-violently (which, at least here, is pretty much everyone).


----------



## cali_tkdbruin (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by karatekid1975 _
> 
> *karatekid1975,
> 
> This is just my opinion, though. I'm not dissing anyone for their opinions. You, like anyone else, has a right. Just give the troops suport. They have done a awsome job thus far with minimal lose of life. My heart and prayers go out to those families who did lose loved ones. :asian:  God Bless. *



Right! That's why we, the vets formally in the military served, and why the  young kids now in the military are currently serving. That is to maintain our freedom of choice. Irrespective of geopolitics, I stand by the young men and women currently in Harm's Way... :asian:

I'm former US military so maybe I'm baised... :shrug:


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 23, 2003)

the flag is just a piece of cloth the same way our martial arts belts are just pieces of cloth... its the meaning we attach to them that's important.

Some Americans burn the flag because they feel betrayed by what their government is doing.  They have a constitutional right to do so.  That doesn't mean that we have to like it, but it does mean that we have to tolerate it.

Personally, I'm against the war as a concept, but I feel that now that we're in, we'd do more damage if we just up and left rather than finishing what we've started.  I support our troops over there and have several friends over there.

Disagreeing with the government is not unpatriotic... in fact, its rather an American tradition. LOL.  This country was founded on a major disagreement with the government at the time, and we've continued the tradition since then.


----------



## sweeper (Mar 23, 2003)

Just because someone burns the flag doesn't mean they are a dirty pig, it just means they have a diffrent perspective.

Some people just want to make a statement, get your attention, for those people the flag doesn't hold alot of value, it's just an inanimate object.

For others it odes represent the country and everything it has sttod for. For them they are saying that the action we are undertaking IS like burning the flag, and for all your spite of their action, their perspective is the same of our nations action.

yelling on a board realy isn't going to help any, but I would encourage eryone in any argument to look at the issue from the perspective of their opponant.

Personaly I tihnk what makes this nation so great is freedom. As long as we can burn the flag this nation is great, and for that reason it doesn't directly bother me. How it does bother me though is that it did greatly upset my grandfather who was a WWII vetran (though I don't think it as greatly upsets my other grandfather who is also a vet). Everyone takes it diffrent, and I just think if you are going to take what is viewed as an extreem action you have to be aware of the probable and posable results..  in other words you burn a flag and ALOT of people are gona get pissed.


----------



## yilisifu (Mar 23, 2003)

Seems to me that these protesters are simply following in the footsteps of their anti-VietNam era ancestors...doing a lot of the same kinds of things.

It's one thing to protest.  It's another to desecrate the American flag.

Try protesting against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  The reason these people CAN protest is because other Americans spilled their blood and gave their lives to uphold and protect their right to do so.  They should remember that.

When the Twin Towers were attacked, I didn't notice any of these people rushing over to Afghanistan to protest against Bin Laden.


----------



## Master of Blades (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *
> 
> When the Twin Towers were attacked, I didn't notice any of these people rushing over to Afghanistan to protest against Bin Laden. *



Well said. Protesting on the whole I dont mind....but as some people have said you have to be able to respect the others right to freedom of speech and how they feel. My only problem with that is that by burning the flag THEY ARE NOT SHOWING THE SAME RESPECT BACK! I dont mind peaceful protesting.....but I really cannot stand when people sit down in the middle of roads and stop loads of people from their daily lives JUST because they think that maybe if they stop the car and make it honk its horn then that person is gonna think "Hey Im gonna go stop the war!". Some students tried this outside my school.....They stopped a van in the middle of the road and started bashing on the side because it wouldnt honk. The driver ended up getting out, punching a kid who was swearing at him and then going and getting a spade from the back of the van. You can guess the rest.... I think this kinda way of protesting and trying to enforce your ideals towards people is wrong


----------



## karatekid1975 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *Seems to me that these protesters are simply following in the footsteps of their anti-VietNam era ancestors...doing a lot of the same kinds of things.
> 
> It's one thing to protest.  It's another to desecrate the American flag.
> ...



AMEN! Great post. 

To others, I wasn't saying ALL protests are wrong. Just the way these protestors are going about it is wrong. Why protest violence when they themselves are distructive. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Everyone has the right to protest. BUT there are peaceful ways to do so.

To me (my dad is a vet), to burn the flag is disrespect to your country. It bothers me when someone burns the flag. 

I stand behind our troops, even the vets who fought/fight for our country :asian:


----------



## Mon Mon (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 23, 2003)

*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
> ...



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 (Mar 23, 2003)

*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 (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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!
> ...



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 (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GouRonin _
> *I'm damn proud of my country. *




As you should be!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

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.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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.
> ...




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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *
> 
> Apologies for that rant, but I have to defend Canadian honour.
> ...




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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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
> ...




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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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??
> ...



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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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.
> ...




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 (Mar 23, 2003)

> _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 (Mar 23, 2003)

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 (Mar 24, 2003)

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 (Mar 24, 2003)

> 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 (Mar 24, 2003)

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 (Mar 24, 2003)

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 (Mar 24, 2003)

> _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.
> ...




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 (Mar 24, 2003)

> _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 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 (Mar 24, 2003)

> _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.
> ...



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 (Mar 24, 2003)

> _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.
> ...




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.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by 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.
> ...



The UN can NEVER censor the US because as one of the 5 permanent members, the US can just VETO the censor!  

What a joke, huh?   That is the UN to you.  lol


As for the citizen of the US, over 65% approved the US President and IN SUPPORT of the war.   ANd this is NOT from FOX, mind you.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 24, 2003)

Some interesting points in there....

I want to interject 1 comment....politics (like religion) gets hot n heavy...

Lets not let disagreement on some of these issues turn into a huge flame fest...

Keep it cool, k?

Much apreciated. 

:asian:


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *The UN can NEVER censor the US because as one of the 5 permanent members, the US can just VETO the censor!
> 
> What a joke, huh?   That is the UN to you.  lol
> ...



Yeah, even I have to admit that the UN can't do much... sadly. It COULD do a lot more. But to do that, you need to amend the Charter of the UN, and for that you need US approval, and to make the US approve of the UN, you probably need to get the UN to do more. Catch-22 all over again.

As for the polls... I stand corrected. The rest of the world still disagrees, but Americans apparantly back the war. Fair enough. Error on my part. 


Heh. Funny, this whole thread started as a commentary on flag-burning. It's gotten into all sorts of random tangents. Welcome to the "Magical MartialTalk Mystery Tour," folks. Never know quite where it'll wind up!


----------



## Master of Blades (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *
> 
> 
> Heh. Funny, this whole thread started as a commentary on flag-burning. It's gotten into all sorts of random tangents. Welcome to the "Magical MartialTalk Mystery Tour," folks. Never know quite where it'll wind up!  *



Couldnt have said it better myself.......:asian:


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *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.   *



We have our own mandate to follow. We believe in the UN. You don't have to like it. Mostly because it's our country and not yours to do what we want.

If we're attacked and you feel that need to do what you're going to do then do it. if we want help we'll ask for it. if you feel the need to help then so be it.

Otherwise we're quite happy to do our own thing. Keep believing that you're our savior if you need to and it makes you feel good.
:idunno:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *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.
> *



JN,

 Good Points, that I knew of and agree with. Which is why I listed both sides. 



> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *
> 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.
> *



  Yes, I understand your point, I also know that there world is in for a hurt as soon as more women go to work and as a culture they discover divorce. Just My Opinion.

 That Said, I still do not think they are out of the fight. I happen to know Japanese companies doing more business here in the states. Yet this could be limited to my field. 



> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *
> 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?
> 
> ...



 Originally, the US companies controlled most if not all of the oil fields in the Mid East, yet the Governments Nationalized them. Even if the US goes in and takes over, eventually they will be granted the right to elect their own citizens to power and their government will do what most others have done in history. National The greatest resources, and then wipe clean all debts owed to foriegn countries and businesses, and then start over.

I do not see the US becoming the GREAT NEW EMPIRE, you seem to be preaching here. The US would fall aprt from within before that would happen. Just my opinion. 
:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *Rich, I don't think the UN CAN censure the US. Doing so would cause even bigger problems for that organization. That said...
> 
> *



Cliarlaoch,

Yes if the UN was to Censure the US then, in general it would be forcing the US to walk away from teh UN. This would then have the US (* and maybe some allies *) against the world. First, I do nto think the UN wishes this to happen as it would destroy their own power and organization. Second the US would not do well against the rest of the world, in my opinion, since we import so much, unless we get the empire attitude. Which I do not see happening. Third, If the US goes it with out the UN and then decides to create a New World Order or some such thing, then teh US would be dictating who would be members, and who has rights, etc. , ... , .  Once again lengthy and politcal issues with in and without the US and also very costly monetarily.

So, I think we agree here.

Just my Opinion

:asian:


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 24, 2003)

Canadian ships are over in the region on the previous mission of working in the war on terrorism.

We can't get involved offically until the UN says so but of course if the troops in the war on Iraq need supplies or help it wouldn't be neighbourly of us to deny them help and supplies now would it? 
 

Afghanastan won't be rolling down the backside of the US troops as they work.


----------



## sweeper (Mar 24, 2003)

> 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.



well perhaps I have mis stated my position a bit..  I don't agree with the war, I didn't think there was a good reason for it before it started, so how could I think there is a good reason for it now?

At the same time I'm not saying we should up and leave iraq, I'm not for stopping the war, now that we are there we might as well finish it, and I am deffinatly in support of our troops, I don't see an inherant contradiction between being against a military action and supporting the soldiers in that given military action..


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 24, 2003)

Grrr... C'mon UN...get it together. Some of us are chomping at the bit.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *
> So, I think we agree here.
> 
> ...



So do I, actually. No worries. I don't think I was trying to say we didn't... could be wrong. Probably an error on my part. As usual. 



Meanwhile, if anyone knows any way wherein an eager Canadian (Gou) can enlist to kill things, that'd be good, 'cuz it looks like he's getting antsy for some more Chinatown. All we've got up here are overactive gophers and other assorted fauna... and they're protected by environmental laws. And they can't fight back. The cowards.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GouRonin _
> *Canadian ships are over in the region on the previous mission of working in the war on terrorism.
> 
> We can't get involved offically until the UN says so but of course if the troops in the war on Iraq need supplies or help it wouldn't be neighbourly of us to deny them help and supplies now would it?
> ...




I believe that two full divison of Canadian Troops went to Afghanastam to relieve US Troops for the Iraq Theater.

For that I say thank you to the Canadians. :asian:


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *Meanwhile, if anyone knows any way wherein an eager Canadian (Gou) can enlist to kill things, that'd be good, 'cuz it looks like he's getting antsy for some more Chinatown. *



I've never killed anything that didn't need killin'.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GouRonin _
> .... Mostly because it's our country and not yours to do what we want.....



LMAO....   Yeah that has never stopped you Canadians and just about every Dick, and Harry from Europe and the rest of the world from telling the US how WE should use OUR tax dollars to help out some worthless free loading slobs. 

Just remember that line when you feel like telling US what we should do with OUR money.  lol


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 25, 2003)

THere is nothing wrong with the Canadian folks. But the left wing government they have over there, has committed treason but letting their national defense rot away. Other than the elite Task Force and the Sniper teams, the Canadian regular forces are totally wrecked.  The budgeted increase in defense spending has been stolen to buy choppers for the useless politicians. What a disgrace.  Really sorry for the Canadians.


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 25, 2003)

A crying shame we spend our money how we want.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sweeper _
> *well perhaps I have mis stated my position a bit..  I don't agree with the war, I didn't think there was a good reason for it before it started, so how could I think there is a good reason for it now?
> 
> At the same time I'm not saying we should up and leave iraq, I'm not for stopping the war, now that we are there we might as well finish it, and I am deffinatly in support of our troops, I don't see an inherant contradiction between being against a military action and supporting the soldiers in that given military action.. *



I oppose  the war too. I just think that we should just fly high in the stratosphere and simply keep bombing every one of Saddam's palaces and bunkers, day and night for however long it takes until we fry his ***.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *THere is nothing wrong with the Canadian folks. But the left wing government they have over there, has committed treason but letting their national defense rot away. Other than the elite Task Force and the Sniper teams, the Canadian regular forces are totally wrecked.  The budgeted increase in defense spending has been stolen to buy choppers for the useless politicians. What a disgrace.  Really sorry for the Canadians. *



Ironically, the majority of the policies the current "Liberal" government of Canada has implemented have been anything BUT left-wing. Fence-sitting would be more appropriate. Then again, since Ontario has all the votes, and Ontario likes the Liberal party's economic policies... not much chance of getting them out of power for a while. The Friendly Dictatorship. Sadly, it's no joke. 

On the other hand, I happen to like public health care and education. Nice thing to have. It breeds its own problems, of course (like dependency on welfare, and problems with the quality of service in some areas that can't get as much funding). Then again, when my father has to shell out 25,000 dollars, US, to get brain surgery on a tumour in the US, I can't complain when my own medical is covered here for free. I'm grateful for what I've got, although, I do think we can always strive to do better!


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 25, 2003)

Definitely not all Canadian public policies are wrong, and neither all American policies (domestic or foreign) are right. The US has far more than its share of harebrain policies.  For example, we spend $150 billion US dollar a year, stationing troops in Europe. What a monumental waste!  Just who the heck are we defending them from anymore?   There is no more communist threat anymore. Even the Russian wants to join NATO and the EU!


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Definitely not all Canadian public policies are wrong, and neither all American policies (domestic or foreign) are right.*



I'd agree with that. It'll be a cold day in hell before anyone anywhere agrees on most anything.



> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I just think that we should just fly high in the stratosphere and simply keep bombing every one of Saddam's palaces and bunkers, day and night for however long it takes until we fry his ***. *



I can't say I disagree with that. In fact, I don't know of anyone who likes this guy. When you kill your own people what kind of ruler does that make you? A ruler of no one.

As much as I try to believe in the UN they should have followed through with the consequences of his actions. Right or wrong for troops to be there this early you will NOT hear me bad mouth them for being there. I won't cut off anyone's legs when they're trying to win a race for the good of everyone.

You will definately have at least this Canuck cheering for my Southourn neighbours!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GouRonin _
> *
> You will definately have at least this Canuck cheering for my Southourn neighbours! *




Gou,

How many times do I have to ask you to look at a map.
London ONtario is East of Flint Mi. 

And Windsor Ont is *South* of Detroit MI.

So, you are not all North of US!



Seriously, THe Canadian can do what they want with their own moeny and services. As to the Free Medical Care. I am only curious, would the BRain surgery even be available to the average candian subject?


Thank


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Gou,
> So, you are not all North of US!*



Your brainwashing dogma won't work on me Rich!



> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Seriously, THe Canadian can do what they want with their own moeny and services. As to the Free Medical Care. I am only curious, would the BRain surgery even be available to the average candian subject?*



Yes. Everyone gets it.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 26, 2003)

That explains a lot about Gou's endless ranting and whining.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *That explains a lot about Gou's endless ranting and whining.  *



Hey! Are you accusing us Canucks of suffering brain damage?

'Cuz if so, I'd like you to be aware that I am not as think as you stupid I am.

I can schpel betere than moist ppl I know!


----------



## arnisador (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *Hey! Are you accusing us Canucks of suffering brain damage?
> *



No, causing it.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *Hey! Are you accusing us Canucks of suffering brain damage?
> 
> 'Cuz if so, I'd like you to be aware that I am not as think as you stupid I am.
> ...



LMAO. Soooo... are you saying Guo is brain damaged?


----------



## muayThaiPerson (Mar 26, 2003)

dont fuckn burn the flag....this country gives you rights and makes evryone eqaul. It gives you oppurtunity and stuff. So if u burn the flag, get the **** out. 

ANOTHER THING, DONT BOO THE NATIONAL ANTHEM. WHAT THE ****?????????????????? WHY THE **** WHOULD U BOO THE NATIONAL ANTHEM?


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 26, 2003)

I think we have to remember that we have a long history together.

I remember the USA putting our Flag upside down during the world series the first time the Canadian team won it. (I am still unsure how you could get it wrong but oh well) I remember the Canadian women's olympic hockey team steam rolling the USA team when they found out the USA put the Canadian flag on the floor of their dressing room and walked all over it. You know that if any other country did any of these things to the USA's flag it's be an international incident

But I also remember the Canadian contrubution to the space shuttle with the space arm. I remember losing one of our astronaughts with yours and the pain we all felt. I remember the Iran hostage affair where Canadians snuck a majority of the US hostages out because no one ever suspects the Canadians of doing anything. I remember the 9/11 tragedy where we sent millions of dollars, as ****** as they are, to the USA and poured out as much help as we could. I remember lines 2 hours long and 2 week waits at blood banks here to send to the USA. (Don't forget, we don't get paid to donate blood here)

I remember my American friends Tim Hartman, Rich Parsons, Zach Whitson, Jeff Blay and more when they come visit and I visit there. Staying at each other's housing like family. I remember the good times at seminars there and here and just generally hanging out.

Sure there are differences and we're not always going to agree but overall I think that I wouldn't want any other neighbour.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *LMAO. Soooo... are you saying Guo is brain damaged?   *



Hey, I'm one of 'em, so I guess if he is, then so am I...


Crap, I'm just digging the hole deeper, now, aren't I? 

--note to mods, can we get a smiley with a shovel for such occurences? I could probably use one--


----------



## Kirk (Mar 26, 2003)

Kudos to Canada for the 100 million dollars in humanitarian aid
being sent to the Iraqi people!  At least they're not just paying
lip service, like the Hollywierd Americans and thier hypocritical b.s!


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *Kudos to Canada for the 100 million dollars in humanitarian aid
> being sent to the Iraqi people!  At least they're not just paying
> lip service, like the Hollywierd Americans and thier hypocritical b.s! *



Remember you guys are 10X in population. So if you do some math that would be about 1 billion dollars for you guys.

Like I said, we're a nation of peacekeepers and that is the role we play. In fact down to the last second we were trying to still broker a deal to the UN for the parties involved. As much as I'd like to think we're a big superpower, the fact is we're just not. The problem is that we're a big country geographically and also we live next to the USA so people see us as bigger than we really are.

We do make good contributions and we do lead the world in some areas but we're just content for the most part to be left alone, do our own thing and when called upon by the UN etc we're willing to help out. Just that military-wise we're not a huge power.

We're also a nation of rule followers. If we weren't we'd have killed our political leaders by now over taxes. Ha ha ha! We like order and such. We're big on that sort of thing which is why we like the UN and play a big peacekeeping role on a regular basis.

By the way, rumour has it that Canada just _happened_ to drop off a whole load of supplies to the USA when they _bumped_ into them. Officially we're neutral on the war but if we get a chance to _accidentally_ meet our neighbours to the south it just wouldn't be right to not be neighbourly and make sure they have supplies.

P.S. - %$#@ you Saddam!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 26, 2003)

> Canada commits $100 million for humanitarian aid for people of Iraq
> http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind...636a2afa0f8e6b1e85256cf400585a09?OpenDocument
> 
> (2003-28) News Release
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 26, 2003)

> Canada pledges continued aid to Afghanistan
> 
> (2003-23) News Release
> March 17, 2003
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GouRonin _
> *Remember you guys are 10X in population. So if you do some math that would be about 1 billion dollars for you guys.
> *



Let's go by land area, not population.


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 26, 2003)

That makes us #2 in the world. Might be #1 depending if you consider Russia to still be whole.


----------



## Kirk (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Let's go by land area, not population. *



Or generosity.  Or humanitarian causes.  Or neutrality.  Or Bob
and Doug McKenzie.


----------



## GouRonin (Mar 26, 2003)

Go kick some dictator @ss!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2003)

Found on the Web
==============
Stand Up for America Rally Speech

Alabama State Auditor Beth Chapman.
Attached is a copy of Mrs. Chapman's speech, which resulted in five standing ovations, tremendous applause and an encore. It's a short read and well worth it.

Stand Up for America Rally Speech
By: Beth Chapman

I'm here tonight because men and women of the United States military have given their lives for my freedom. I am not here tonight because Sheryl Crowe, Rosie O'Donnell, Martin Sheen, George Clooney, Jane Fonda or Phil Donahue, sacrificed their lives for me.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was not movie stars or musicians, but the United States Military who fought on the shores of Iwo Jima, the jungles of Vietnam, and the beaches of Normandy. Tonight, I say we should support the President of the United States and the U.S. Military and tell the liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippy, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and music and whine somewhere else.

After all, if they lived in Iraq, they wouldn't be allowed the freedom of speech they're being given here today. Ironically, they would be put to death at the hands of Sadam Husssein or Osama Bin Laden. I want to know how the very people who are against war because of the loss of life, can possibly be the same people who are for abortion? They are the same people who are for animal rights but against the rights of the unborn. The movie stars say they want to go to Iraq and serve as "human shields" for the Iraqis. I say let them buy a one-way ticket and go.

No one likes war. I hate war! But the one thing I hate more is the fact that this country has been forced into war-innocent people have lost their lives - - and there but for the grace of God, it could have been my brother, my husband, or even worse my own son.

On December 7, 1941, ! there are no records of movie stars treading the blazing waters of Pearl Harbor.

On September 11, 2001; there are no photos of movie stars standing as "human shields" against the debris and falling bodies ascending from the World Trade Center. There were only policemen and firemen - -underpaid civil servants who gave their all with nothing expected in return.

When the USS Cole was bombed, there were no movie stars guarding the ship - - where were the human shields then?

If America's movie stars want to be human shields, let them shield the gang-ridden streets of Los Angeles, or New York City, let them shield the lives of the children of North Birmingham whose mothers lay them down to sleep on the floor each night to shelter them from stray bullets.

If they want to be human shields, I say let them shield the men and women of honesty and integrity that epitomizes courage and embody the spirit of freedom by wearing the proud uniforms of the United! States Military. Those are the people who have earned and deserve shielding!

Throughout the course of history, this country has remained free, not because of movie stars and liberal activists, but because of brave men and women who hated war too. However, they lay down their lives so that we all may live in freedom. After all - "What greater love hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friend," or in this case a country.

We should give our military honor and acknowledgement and not let their lives be in vain. If you want to see true human shields, walk through Arlington Cemetery. There lie human shields, heroes, and the BRAVE Americans who didn't get on television and talk about being a human shield - they were human shields.

I thank God tonight for freedom - - those who bought and paid for it with their lives in the past - - those who will protect it in the present and defend it in the future.

America has remained silent too long! God-fearing people have remained silent too long!

We must lift our voices united in a humble prayer to God for guidance and the strength and courage to sustain us throughout whatever the future may hold.

After the tragic events of Sept. 11th, my then eleven -year-old son said terrorism is a war against them and us and if you're not one of us, then you're one of them.

So in closing tonight, let us be of one accord, let us stand proud, and let us be the human shields of prayer, encouragement and support for the President, our troops and their families and our country.

May God bless America, the land of the free, the home of the brave and the greatest country on the face of this earth!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GouRonin _
> *
> 
> By the way, rumour has it that Canada just happened to drop off a whole load of supplies to the USA when they bumped into them. Officially we're neutral on the war but if we get a chance to accidentally meet our neighbours to the south it just wouldn't be right to not be neighbourly and make sure they have supplies.
> ...




Gou,

A couple of things, First you you cannot run into one of our aircraft cariers and call it accidental . Second our insuraces agent will be calling you.  Third, the Beer was good, bring more!
BTW, some of the guys did not think you brought enough to bribe them all  

Lastly, I tell you I go east to Sarnia or South to Windsor. I just do not understand how you are north of us??   


PS: Thanks for the Support you guys rock, and if everyone had the relationship that the Americans and Candians have then the world woudl be a much better place! :asian:


----------



## Elfan (Mar 27, 2003)

Just as counterpoint to the movie stars not risking their lives thing, many prominant suporters of the war like Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Tom Delay, Trent Lott... also lack military experience, although many of them were elegeble for the draft.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Just as counterpoint to the movie stars not risking their lives thing, many prominant suporters of the war like Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Tom Delay, Trent Lott... also lack military experience, although many of them were elegeble for the draft. *



Well, Bush WAS in the armed forces... but he apparently went AWOL in 'Nam. I haven't seen much evidence on that particular bit of rumour, but I have heard the rumour pretty often, so if anybody can confirm or deny it, I'd love to hear the truth.

Either way, most of their kids sure ain't military.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 28, 2003)

GWB was in the National Guard AirForce. He was a fighter pilot. He didn't serve in Vietnam.

Btw, did the leftwing people protest Clinton's draft dogdging the Vietnam war? Guess not.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 28, 2003)

Bush Sr. was a vet..
Bush JR. I think was in the Nat. Guard, but its questionable if he ever showed up. (conflicting info)

Clinton was taken to task repeatedly for his draft doging.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> ....Clinton was taken to task repeatedly for his draft doging...



not by those who criticize GWB..


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *not by those who criticize GWB.. *




And those that do criticze GWB are the one that were taken to task by those going after Clinton. And so the cycle continues. Both parties see the other as the attacker.

And I sit back and wonder if those in the rest of the world have succeeded in trying to take this country apart.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *And those that do criticze GWB are the one that were taken to task by those going after Clinton. And so the cycle continues. Both parties see the other as the attacker.
> 
> And I sit back and wonder if those in the rest of the world have succeeded in trying to take this country apart. *



Nope. This country has always been butting head with the recalcitrant ingrates among us.  It has never let them block its path to progress.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Nope. This country has always been butting head with the recalcitrant ingrates among us.  It has never let them block its path to progress. *



Yes it has, It also has had to deal with the elitists and those who assume their point of view is right, by either divine right or some other way. Yet, we seem to muddle through and succeed when others have failed. Maybe the people ?

Note: JN this is not a personal attack on you so do not take it this way. I am only replying abstractly to your comments.

Have a Nice Day. It is sunny and 68 F or 20 C right now.


----------



## Chuck (Mar 28, 2003)

OK. let's start with, I'm opposed to this war. It's for oil, it's unjust and the Iraquis are allready losing out to American companies (an aAmerican company will be running the docks at the seaport under US contract. Britain is opposed to this. The company is famous as "Union Busters". How truly Republican.)

I would never burn the US flag as a protest. I hold it to importantly to destroy or damage it. But it should be noted, if it has not allready been, when a flag becomes to soiled or damage to be flown it is not thrown out with the trash. If you take it to the Boy Scouts or to the Veterans of Foreign Wars they will dispose of it properly by ceremonially burning it and burying th ashes.


----------



## TKDman (Mar 28, 2003)

All we are saying is, give Peas a chance! come on now everyone...


----------



## Kirk (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TKDman _
> *All we are saying is, give Peas a chance! come on now everyone... *



I recommend them with butter, lil salt & pepper!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 28, 2003)

Just wanted to write in and speak up for the, "recalcitrant ingrates." Could be worse. I could be Lucky Lindy, the Nazi sympathizer.


----------



## Elfan (Mar 28, 2003)

Yes Bush served in the Texas Air National gaurd but was AWOL from it.  I searched and found many  references to it (someone apparntly sued with the FOIA so they have his military records)  to it and no attempts to refute it.  Sorry for not making that point clear.


----------



## Chuck (Mar 28, 2003)

"I eats my Peas with honey,
I've done it all my life.
It may seem kind of funny,
but it keeps them on my knife."


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Yes Bush served in the Texas Air National gaurd but was AWOL from it.  I searched and found many  references to it (someone apparntly sued with the FOIA so they have his military records)  to it and no attempts to refute it.  Sorry for not making that point clear. *



Gee, if you are so sure, time to call the MP to have him arrested and prosecuted.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Yes it has, It also has had to deal with the elitists and those who assume their point of view is right, by either divine right or some other way. Yet, we seem to muddle through and succeed when others have failed. Maybe the people ?
> 
> Note: JN this is not a personal attack on you so do not take it this way. I am only replying abstractly to your comments.
> ...



Even if you mean it to be a personal attack, I still wouldn't have picked that up.  Never thought of myself as an elite nor have been blessed by divine right.  If anything, it is to the opposite.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Chuck _
> *"I eats my Peas with honey,
> I've done it all my life.
> It may seem kind of funny,
> but it keeps them on my knife." *




Dudley Doo Right!


----------



## Elfan (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Gee, if you are so sure, time to call the MP to have him arrested and prosecuted.   *



Others have sent letters of complaint to the DoD but I feal the nation would not benifit from proscecution at this time.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Others have sent letters of complaint to the DoD but I feal the nation would not benifit from proscecution at this time. *




I do. It might remind him that he still hasn't proved to me that he actually won the election. Not that I'm important enough for that, but I can dream, can't I?

Bah, I'm sick of it all. So much bull-crap these days. Just for once, I demand an honest politician, an intelligent news report that presents all sides fairly, and a steak that won't cause me to go nuts from mad cow in 10 years. Is that so much to ask?


----------



## Elfan (Mar 30, 2003)

Well sadly the answer seems to be yes, that is too much to ask.

Some come prety close at times (Ron Paul, Rep TX comes to mind) but I'm too jaded to really trust any of them any more.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Others have sent letters of complaint to the DoD but I feal the nation would not benifit from proscecution at this time. *


...as if you really have a case to prosecute.......  

Hint: it is all a wishful thinking from those who cannot get over the fact that they lost the election to GWB.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *...as if you really have a case to prosecute.......
> 
> Hint: it is all a wishful thinking from those who cannot get over the fact that they lost the election to GWB. *



So....who was the winner again?
I don't mean the court appointed winner either...

PRESIDENT  Vote % Votes 
BUSH  48% 50,456,169 
GORE 48% 50,996,116 
*------------------^* 

Hmm...I see different numbers....


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 31, 2003)

You have conveniently forgotten all the voter frauds in other states that the GOP didn't bother to pursue. So don't bet the farm on those "popular" vote count numbers.

Regardless, Bush is better off for the nation than Gore would. If  Gore was president, Osama would be staying overnite at the Lincoln bedroom. Gore would be apologizing to him that our WTC buildings got in the way of his terrorists hijacked planes.  The Chinese military intelligence would be running the NSA.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2003)

As a tangent...did you see the Celeb. Death match between Al Gore and Weird Al? 

Ya know....I'm on record saying I dont care for GWB....that said, I have to agree with you here.  I think given the situation, GW is better than AG.

I just had to pull yer chain a little bit. 
:asian:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Apr 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *As a tangent...did you see the Celeb. Death match between Al Gore and Weird Al?
> 
> Ya know....I'm on record saying I dont care for GWB....that said, I have to agree with you here.  I think given the situation, GW is better than AG.
> ...



lol

Nope. I seldom watch TV, if at all.


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *As a tangent...did you see the Celeb. Death match between Al Gore and Weird Al?
> 
> Ya know....I'm on record saying I dont care for GWB....that said, I have to agree with you here.  I think given the situation, GW is better than AG.
> ...



Hahah... yeah, somehow I don't think ol' Gore could have done as good a job.


(And now, all the guys who think I'm a left-wing loony (which I am!) will start thinking I'm trying to change my stripes and jump all over me... I'm not, I'm just not sure Al Gore or even Clinton would have been up to the task here. That's one thing that Bush and the hawks in D.C. these days are good at, handling war.)


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 4, 2003)

http://msnbc.com/news/895185.asp

Just adding


----------



## Seig (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *Hahah... yeah, somehow I don't think ol' Gore could have done as good a job.
> 
> 
> ( I'm just not sure Al Gore or even Clinton would have been up to the task here. *


Unfortunatley, Bill Clinton proved you exactly right, several times...




:wah:  I wish he hadn't, 911 would have never been an issue


----------

