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:
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. 
