|
|
Post by spozzy on Apr 5, 2003 0:37:01 GMT -5
Go to the land of the selfish invaders who'll fight anyone, anywhere, if there's oil in the ground or if they put the extremist dictator in power. Even better if there's both. That is a such lazy tactic, PTH. There are better ways of making yourself feel good and seem righteous than trying to put those who actually are good and moral down. If you insist on still criticizing others, at least come up with something realistic. No government in the world (save Syria perhaps) has even suggested the absurd notion that the US is in this for oil. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2003 1:27:46 GMT -5
Hey, if you don't like it here, you know what to do.... Go to the land of the selfish invaders who'll fight anyone, anywhere, if there's oil in the ground or if they put the extremist dictator in power. Even better if there's both. PTH, I am sure that you are familiar with geopolitics in the 80's. I am also sure that you understand the interplay between the Truman Doctrine (or the Reagan play of it), Arab states and world economy of that time period. That is why I will take your "extremist dictator in power" as a provocation rather then a view from an erudite person such as yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 5, 2003 8:16:29 GMT -5
If you insist on still criticizing others, at least come up with something realistic. No government in the world (save Syria perhaps) has even suggested the absurd notion that the US is in this for oil. Understanding your World: Oil, Iraq and the US - www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0909oil.htm |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 5, 2003 11:04:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 5, 2003 11:07:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2003 11:11:13 GMT -5
There you go, something that I chuckled about. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2003 11:14:49 GMT -5
By the way, the cartoon is depicting the twin towers and not Saddam's bathroom.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2003 11:20:16 GMT -5
There is absolutely NO PROOF that the fat guy in the picture is me.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2003 11:24:20 GMT -5
My heroes......................................*cries*  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 5, 2003 11:40:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 5, 2003 11:46:17 GMT -5
"It's hard for them to realize we weren't in America any more; we were in a different country."Well, now those kids know... Up here it's the land of the free-loaders and home of the cowards. The basic child isn't born mean, bad, or judgemental. Kids will only preceive this point of view if they are taught to. Teenages may have minds, but they're basically sheep. While I agree we should have participated in the war, I feel the the Canadian public, while divided on the issue, shouldn't be preceived as free-loaders and/or cowards. The Canadian Armed Forces represent the very finest people from our nation. It was they who went over to Afghanistan to take the fight to the Taliban and al-Qadea. Canadian special forces actually conducted snatch operations that caught top al-Qadea officials. The slogan, "I love New York" was written on the back doors of the light armoured vehicles (LAVS) as they drove off of the planes. Now, these same soldiers representing cowards as you refer to us, are mobilizing to Afghanistan once again. Once in theatre, they'll be assuming the American ground responsibilities so as to free up US forces for operations in the Middle East. Why? Because many feel Bush isn't finished after Iraq. After all he's already mentioned Iran as well hasn't he? And what will they be up against? They are supposed to be going in as peacekeepers. They will be facing the same perils as their American counterparts. While Afghanistan is no longer the target of huge bombing raids, US soldier therein will sometimes come under ambush, or conduct aggressive operations to route out remaining Taliban and al-Qadea fighters. It may not be as conventional a war as you're seeing in Iraq but it is war nonetheless. And it's the much dirtier side of conflict at that. This is a conflict where, like in Iraq, many of the fighters disguise themselves as such. They wear civilian clothing, wave to the coalition forces and then end up shooting at them at night. However, unlike in Iraq, in Afghanistan, most opposing fighters are turned over to their Afghan counterparts only to be released into the general public. Only the finatical leaders are retained by the coalition forces. While I respect your right to say what you feel, I had to take issue with the generalizing of you view. Your view is based on the Canadian government's decison not to participate and quite possibly on all of the coverage peace demonstrates have been given on the news. If not, then I'm not quite sure what your opinions are based on to tell you the truth. However, there are a large number of Canadians who support the American action and any Canadian action that may be required. You just don't hear about it because to be pro-war draws just doesn't get you on the news. It gets you singled out. While I respect your right to say what you feel, I have a problem with the generalizing of you view. Cowards and freeloaders? You're entitled to your beliefs. However, I can't share them. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 5, 2003 11:49:24 GMT -5
There you go, something that I chuckled about. Excellent. Your turn. Post something that will make me smile. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 5, 2003 12:54:42 GMT -5
According to that article, I'm just a little too cynical to view oil as being such a big part of it all. I prefer this next article myself, though both seem to have pretty good insight IMO: Oil in Iraq: the heart of the Crisis www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 5, 2003 13:06:20 GMT -5
That is a such lazy tactic, PTH. There are better ways of making yourself feel good and seem righteous than trying to put those who actually are good and moral down. Who the heck is good and moral in all of this ? Surely not the handful of oil execs who are invading a country with possibly the worlds largest oil reserves - and their own bases are located on countries with plenty of human rights abuses themselves. And surely not the same guys who pulled out of Afghanistan, Kosovo and Somalia as soon as things got messy (leaving their allies to do the dirty work), and surely not the guys who don't care that the Taliban is re-appearing..... And they're still supporting a regime that completely ignores dozens of UN resolutions... in Israel. A good and moral government would have used the UN to the utmost to try and get a resolution passed, and would have used the inspectors to the utmost to get proof of Saddam's WMD. Eventually one of threee things would happen: 1) WMD are clearly found/Blix makes it clear Saddam's not cooperating; then there's a good clean case for war, that would pass the UN and have international approval. It would be 1991 all over again, with US troops along with French, UK and other soldiers. 2) WMD are NOT found, Saddam cooperates enough, within a year or two we can be sure enough that Iraq isn't a real threat, and then we pull out. 3) Saddam kicks out the inspectors, in which case war is again justified. And don't tell me #3 happened already, in 1998 the inspectors were pulled out by the UN - because of a US strike on Iraq. Scenario #2 is what appeared to be unfolding, hence Dub's rush to get things rolling before it became even more clear that there was no real reason for invasion. And don't bother bringing human rights into this - Saddam's regime is disguting, despotic with the works, but so are plenty of other regimes, often supported by the US. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Apr 5, 2003 15:52:03 GMT -5
Who the heck is good and moral in all of this ? Surely not the handful of oil execs who are invading a country with possibly the worlds largest oil reserves - and their own bases are located on countries with plenty of human rights abuses themselves. And surely not the same guys who pulled out of Afghanistan, Kosovo and Somalia as soon as things got messy (leaving their allies to do the dirty work), and surely not the guys who don't care that the Taliban is re-appearing..... And they're still supporting a regime that completely ignores dozens of UN resolutions... in Israel. A good and moral government would have used the UN to the utmost to try and get a resolution passed, and would have used the inspectors to the utmost to get proof of Saddam's WMD. Eventually one of threee things would happen: 1) WMD are clearly found/Blix makes it clear Saddam's not cooperating; then there's a good clean case for war, that would pass the UN and have international approval. It would be 1991 all over again, with US troops along with French, UK and other soldiers. 2) WMD are NOT found, Saddam cooperates enough, within a year or two we can be sure enough that Iraq isn't a real threat, and then we pull out. 3) Saddam kicks out the inspectors, in which case war is again justified. And don't tell me #3 happened already, in 1998 the inspectors were pulled out by the UN - because of a US strike on Iraq. Scenario #2 is what appeared to be unfolding, hence Dub's rush to get things rolling before it became even more clear that there was no real reason for invasion. And don't bother bringing human rights into this - Saddam's regime is disguting, despotic with the works, but so are plenty of other regimes, often supported by the US. FYI: Considering you basically only speak in half-truths when it comes to this war, I'm not going to bother expending any longer energy and time in cutting up your feeble arguments. They've already been shredded countless times (see habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&thread=1048212873&action=display&start=90). |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 5, 2003 16:01:46 GMT -5
You said you weren't going to do that.  Tsk tsk. |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Apr 5, 2003 16:04:57 GMT -5
You said you weren't going to do that. Tsk tsk.  Last time, I promise!  |
|
Tsk tsk. 
