|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 7, 2008 21:08:30 GMT -5
Kinda like how the being exposed to left wing ideals long enough lowers IQ (okay, okay - that was a mean, inappropriate joke. That says it all right there. You showed your hand. i.e. if people think even slightly to the left of centre, they're clueless. A cheap, dismissive, personal attack. But I don't take it personally, believe me. Not meant to be a personal attack. It was meant to inject humour (hence the 'that was a mean, inappropriate joke' comment and the better (read: real) examples that followed it. Trust me, I don't think people on the left are clueless. I myself hang out there occasionally. My wife - die hard NDP'er. They'll never win an election, but dammit she'll vote for 'em until the cows come home. And trust me - my wife kicks my ass in the brains department. Seriously - I'd type up some of her thesis for you to read, but I really don't know where some of the right keys are on the keyboard. And she says it's incomplete and not ready for human consumption. If you are going to stop reading because I made a slightly irreverent joke, then you're just looking for reasons to stop reading. Or you don't like my sense of humour, which I will admit is more odd than funny. But I'm an odd kind of guy. I married someone who votes NDP for Christ's sake! Was it a cheap, dismissive attack? Sure was. But then I dumped it as a silly joke, and got on to the real examples. There's a ton of "evidence", lies, half-truths, truths, etc. on both sides of the argument that would allow this topic to be debated ad nauseum. We'll likely never know the truth. It seems to me that one side has a ton of evidence, and the other side is being err... can I quote you and say "dismissive" without it coming off as too personal? I've stacked quite a bit of facts on one side. All you've come out with is conjecture. The US Government was only after oil? Prove it. The war is unjust? Make a case rather than just saying it over and over and over. DU is evil and harmful and bad? Where's the evidence? Where's anything but the tired old retread of countless protesters who just parrot what they've been told by someone else? At least we can all agree on GO HABS GO  Right. GO HABS GO. |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jul 7, 2008 22:06:49 GMT -5
That says it all right there. You showed your hand. i.e. if people think even slightly to the left of centre, they're clueless. A cheap, dismissive, personal attack. But I don't take it personally, believe me. Not meant to be a personal attack. It was meant to inject humour (hence the 'that was a mean, inappropriate joke' comment and the better (read: real) examples that followed it. Trust me, I don't think people on the left are clueless. I myself hang out there occasionally. My wife - die hard NDP'er. They'll never win an election, but dammit she'll vote for 'em until the cows come home. And trust me - my wife kicks my ass in the brains department. Seriously - I'd type up some of her thesis for you to read, but I really don't know where some of the right keys are on the keyboard. And she says it's incomplete and not ready for human consumption. If you are going to stop reading because I made a slightly irreverent joke, then you're just looking for reasons to stop reading. Or you don't like my sense of humour, which I will admit is more odd than funny. But I'm an odd kind of guy. I married someone who votes NDP for Christ's sake! Was it a cheap, dismissive attack? Sure was. But then I dumped it as a silly joke, and got on to the real examples. It seems to me that one side has a ton of evidence, and the other side is being err... can I quote you and say "dismissive" without it coming off as too personal? I've stacked quite a bit of facts on one side. All you've come out with is conjecture. The US Government was only after oil? Prove it. The war is unjust? Make a case rather than just saying it over and over and over. DU is evil and harmful and bad? Where's the evidence? Where's anything but the tired old retread of countless protesters who just parrot what they've been told by someone else? At least we can all agree on GO HABS GO Right. GO HABS GO. Unless you conduct your business in the oval office you too parrot what you've been told told by others. Besides, I don't think this was a debate as much as a discussion. Anyway, we're all polemics to a degree. Party on. Seriously though, Ryan Flinn. He's a bruiser. We may even see him riding the pine if Big George goes down. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 7, 2008 22:41:07 GMT -5
Here is a article....guess what year it was? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WASHINGTON – The controversial White House energy task force two years ago reviewed Iraqi oil-field maps and "foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts," reveal documents turned over under court order to a government watchdog group by a member of the task force.
Judicial Watch Inc. first requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act in the spring of 2001, when Vice President Dick Cheney formed the secret task force. The public-interest law firm has battled the administration in federal court for the information ever since.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton noted the mandated release of the papers "couldn't have come at a more inconvenient time for the administration," given growing questions about the credibility of its prewar claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was tied to al-Qaida – thereby posing a direct threat to America.
"Opponents of the war will argue that Iraq oil was on the minds of at least some members of the task force long before the war," he said. "Supporters might argue they couldn't talk about the Mideast oil situation without talking about Iraq."
Phone calls to Cheney's office were not immediately returned.
Fitton says the White House still refuses to produce the list of corporate and other private task force members who met with administration officials, including Cheney, former head of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based energy-services firm that recently landed a half-billion-dollar federal contract in Iraq.
The unclassified map of Iraq turned over by the Commerce Department, a government member of the task force, shows the location of "supergiant" oil fields, oil pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a long-time Bush friend from Texas, headed a Denver-based oil company before joining the administration.
Though the papers came from Commerce, Judicial Watch says they were responsive to its request for task-force papers.
"These are task-force documents," Fitton asserted.
Maps of oil-fields in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also were produced.
A separate unclassified document, dated March 5, 2001, lists the names of "foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts," including Dutch Royal Shell, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total Elf Aquitaine. It notes the Russian and French energy giants signed "production-sharing contracts" in 1997.
"This is a road map to the corporations who were in conspiracy with the regime in Baghdad," Fitton contended.
Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, United Nations sanctions foreclosed the country's lucrative oil fields to U.S. investors. Discussions are under way now to privatize at least a portion of Iraq's state-run oil company, allowing U.S. oil companies to invest there for the first time in more than a decade, administration officials tell WorldNetDaily.
Iraq boasts the world's second-largest proven crude reserves. Its oil fields are highly attractive to U.S. producers, because the crude is not buried as far beneath the surface as in American oil fields, making drilling and other production costs relatively cheap. Also, the crude is considered "sweet," meaning it has a low-sulfur content, which makes it cheaper to refine.
The secret White House task force solicited input from the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston.
The Baker report, which was submitted to Cheney in early April 2001, recommended considering a "military" option in dealing with Iraq, which the report charged was using oil exports as a "weapon," by turning its spigot on and off to "manipulate oil markets," WorldNetDaily has learned.
The report advised the Bush administration to, at a minimum, bring UN weapons inspectors back to Iraq, and then, "once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investment inside Iraq" to gain greater control over the reserves, and "inject" more stability into world oil markets. ~~~~~~ It was Posted: July 18, 2003 www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33642~~~~~~~ And there is at last count, several billion more articles like this one. It's the same old tired oblivious argument that the US invaded Iraq for oil. I just wonder..... If 3,000 Canadians were murdered by a terrorist attack by terrorist based in Greenland. Would we invade Greenland to weed them out? If we did invade Greenland and there was oil, how would Canadians feel if they faced screams of "Canucks Invaded Greenland For Oil"? And of course it MUST be true that Canada would invade Greenland for oil, after all, Harper is from an oil Province and EVERYBODY knows that Harper is in the pockets of Big Oil. Does it matter that Skilly lost his sister in the attack? Does it matter if Dis lost his son in the attack? Does it matter if BC lost his brother in the attack? Would it matter if I lost my wife? None of that matter because the Russian say Canada Invaded For Oil. Would it matter what anger Canadians faced? Who cares, the Italiens say Canada Invaded For Oil. Would it matter what fear Canadians faced walking down Younge street after that atttack? Who cares, the Germans say Canada Invaded For Oil. Who cares how Canadians feel after something as traumatic and horrific like that.... EVERYBODY knows that Harper is in the pockets of Big Oil and we invaded Greenland for oil. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 7, 2008 22:50:01 GMT -5
Unless you conduct your business in the oval office you too parrot what you've been told told by others. Besides, I don't think this was a debate as much as a discussion. Anyway, we're all polemics to a degree. Party on. NOBODY does......but then again, it's so much fun to get on a soap box and spit at Americans because, you know, we are.....so perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 7, 2008 23:45:13 GMT -5
Invading Afghanistan because of 9/11: Reasonable, justifiable, and generally backed by the world community, which is why Canada and many other countries are involved, through the UN. While there's been debate about how things have been done, the principle of invading wasn't seriously questionned.
Invading Irak: Not justified by 9/11, nor by involvement with terrorists in any way, the WMD have clearly been shown to have been a sham* (which is what most people not under Cheney's thumb thought beforehand anyhow), and now we see US/UK firms getting multibillion dollar non-bid contracts.... How are we NOT supposed to find this fishy at the very least?
*: Nothing has been found in terms of WMD. NOTHING, and the US was very motivated to prove its accusations weren't BS, yet couldn't find anything of any real value as a weapon....
And why is it that any debate about Irak always brings up terrorist attacks when there's no (real) link between them ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 8, 2008 0:24:31 GMT -5
Invading Afghanistan because of 9/11: Reasonable, justifiable, and generally backed by the world community, which is why Canada and many other countries are involved, through the UN. While there's been debate about how things have been done, the principle of invading wasn't seriously questionned. Invading Irak: Not justified by 9/11, nor by involvement with terrorists in any way, the WMD have clearly been shown to have been a sham* (which is what most people not under Cheney's thumb thought beforehand anyhow), and now we see US/UK firms getting multibillion dollar non-bid contracts.... How are we NOT supposed to find this fishy at the very least? *: Nothing has been found in terms of WMD. NOTHING, and the US was very motivated to prove its accusations weren't BS, yet couldn't find anything of any real value as a weapon.... And why is it that any debate about Irak always brings up terrorist attacks when there's no (real) link between them ? Is fear rational? Did the US fall apart because 3,000 people died and two buildings came down? Yet that fear and anger was very real to the Americans in a way that Canadians can not understand. There is a cascade of reasons the American went into Iraq. Some rational from an Iraqi perspective, some rational from American security perspective, some rational from a geopolitical perspective, some that obviously irrational in hindsight. What is NOT rational is calling them out as slaughterers and murders going in there for the oil. We have neither the moral authority of sainthood nor have felt the pain of a mass terrorist act. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 8, 2008 8:27:33 GMT -5
I'm American. I live in Canada, but I'm still American, a registered voter, and am fully capable of looking upwind and spitting under the right circumstance. It was an unjustified attack on a dictatorship that really wasn't of any harm to Americans except politically. Ask Iraqis if it's better now with Saddam gone. It's not. One dictatorship has been replaced with hundreds of militias. So they're inserting another government that looks as though it will be replaced with another dictatorship immediately following a withdrawal. Funny, that's what happened last time they meddled in Iraq, only this time the US has provoked a (for the most part) sleeping enemy. And it will affect our (Canadian) way of life in the end. So yes. I'll spit. Gladly.
Despite the "rational" reasons Iraq was invaded, none have anything to do with a terrorist attack, and the net result was another 4000 US citizens dead and 150 to 400 thousand Iraqis (depending on your source).. So quit using "oh the Americans were afraid and angry" BS. When's that ever an excuse for something unrelated to the source of your fear? So they invade, carry out a war with no real objective other than "kill the bad guysdissidents" (which, as it turns out, is far more people than they'd ever imagined) and insert government and infrastructure to help out Americans.
I don't care about Big Oil, because there's no alternative. Independent oil manufacturers would be far less efficient and we're probably still looking at the same prices in the end. But whoring out national resources to international conglomerates is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 8, 2008 9:10:46 GMT -5
I'm American. I live in Canada, . And? I was born in Greece and vote Conservative. Despite the "rational" reasons Iraq was invaded, none have anything to do with a terrorist attack, and the net result was another 4000 US citizens dead and 150 to 400 thousand Iraqis (depending on your source).. So quit using "oh the Americans were afraid and angry" BS. When's that ever an excuse for something unrelated to the source of your fear? So they invade, carry out a war with no real objective other than "kill the bad guysdissidents" (which, as it turns out, is far more people than they'd ever imagined) and insert government and infrastructure to help out Americans. At least you dind't say they invaded for oil. Or was that an oversight? As for no real objective? We are forgetting that Iraq was a secular country beforehand. We forget how educated they were. We forget that a lot of people thought that of all Middle East countries, they had the greatest chance of forming a tr democracy. We forget that Saddam really defined the word "slaughter", "murder" and "rape". We forget the Kurds laying in the streets from Saddam's gas attacks. Should I bring up the pictures of dead Kurdish children as a reminder? Had the Iraqi's not been plagued with sectarian violence, how would Iraq look today and what would they accomplish with the money from their huge oil reserves? Of course, nobody would give any credit to the Americans because there is simply NO joy in that. I don't care about Big Oil, because there's no alternative. Independent oil manufacturers would be far less efficient and we're probably still looking at the same prices in the end. But whoring out national resources to international conglomerates is wrong. At least you understand that big boys can be efficient at what they do. And who is going to get that money? Iraq. And who is going to benefit the most? Iraq. But it's Big Oil and it's Bush so the two must mean something. ~~~~~~~~~~ By the way, how is our Canadian mission to Darfur going? Anybody know? |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 8, 2008 10:45:59 GMT -5
And? I was born in Greece and vote Conservative. So when something comes up that attacks Greeks I'll listen to you. I don't care how you vote (not that it wasn't obvious beforehand anyway). I don't tend to vote along party lines in Canada, not because I don't care, but because I can't put myself behind any party. Frankly, they all suck, so whoever's planning on gouging public services the least often gets my vote. At least you dind't say they invaded for oil. Or was that an oversight? As for no real objective? We are forgetting that Iraq was a secular country beforehand. We forget how educated they were. We forget that a lot of people thought that of all Middle East countries, they had the greatest chance of forming a tr democracy. We forget that Saddam really defined the word "slaughter", "murder" and "rape". We forget the Kurds laying in the streets from Saddam's gas attacks. Should I bring up the pictures of dead Kurdish children as a reminder? Had the Iraqi's not been plagued with sectarian violence, how would Iraq look today and what would they accomplish with the money from their huge oil reserves? Of course, nobody would give any credit to the Americans because there is simply NO joy in that. I'm happy to give Americans credit for saving some Kurdish lives (at the expense of thousands of civilian casualties) but if we're going to give credit for that, we are going to take away credit for not intervening in the hundred other nations that have calculated genocide going on. You're either the world cop, or you're not. There's no middle ground. As an American I'm tired of taxpayer money footing the bill to be the world police, especially when there are more pressing domestic issues going on. Iran's is and always has been a more significant threat than Iraq, but there's no action there. As for the "greatest chance at forming a democracy" I think forcing ideals upon other nations is stupid and fundamentally bound to end in failure. Where has it worked? At least you understand that big boys can be efficient at what they do. And who is going to get that money? Iraq. And who is going to benefit the most? Iraq. But it's Big Oil and it's Bush so the two must mean something. I'm sure you weren't intending to be patronizing by using the term "at least." It's not to say that I agree with Big Oil's price fixing (which is closer to what it is than anything else), but recognize both the laws of diminishing return and specialization mean little difference to the consumer in the end. The one that doesn't exist? Canadian lives and money can and should be better spent elsewhere. Canada has done something reasonably intelligent, and instead of building a general military force they've specialized in engineering and infrastructure redevelopment. That's what Canada specializes in and does better than anyone else in the world. If someone wants to go in there and get it to a point where redevelopment is possible, then I'd be all for Canada to go in and help. But our military is neither built nor equipped to fight a long-term battle in Darfur. It's interesting that you appear to believe in specialization and efficiency for oil, but not with respect to military (unless you were just poking your detractors by bringing up Darfur, which really has nothing to do with this conversation). Besides, last I checked, Canada supplies troops to NATO which operates in Darfur. And if you do some reading on the subject (which I'm sure you've done), Canada doesn't have the military resources to operate in both Darfur and Afghanistan (which has now been extended to 2009). That's enough for today. I hadn't intended to actually participate in this thread, but thought the perspective of an actual American might help, as opposed to the assumed thoughts and feelings of Americans which are being purported as reasons for the invasion of Iraq. I wish I hadn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 8, 2008 20:21:54 GMT -5
I'm happy to give Americans credit for saving some Kurdish lives (at the expense of thousands of civilian casualties) but if we're going to give credit for that, we are going to take away credit for not intervening in the hundred other nations that have calculated genocide going on. You're either the world cop, or you're not. There's no middle ground. As an American I'm tired of taxpayer money footing the bill to be the world police, especially when there are more pressing domestic issues going on. Iran's is and always has been a more significant threat than Iraq, but there's no action there. As for the "greatest chance at forming a democracy" I think forcing ideals upon other nations is stupid and fundamentally bound to end in failure. Where has it worked? Do you realize that the "global cop" is not very Canadian? As for "forcing ideals". Hardly. The Middle East can and does have representational democracy. Palestinians voted.....and boy, did they pick a winner.  I'm sure you weren't intending to be patronizing by using the term "at least." It's not to say that I agree with Big Oil's price fixing (which is closer to what it is than anything else), but recognize both the laws of diminishing return and specialization mean little difference to the consumer in the end. I wasn't patronizing, or at least I think I wasn't. In the rush to spit on the Americans, people fail to see who is capable of doing what. Of course,this allows the simple math of Big Oil therefore Bush is profiting. The fact that Big Oil has the best geologist, the best technology and hundreds of billions of dollars to risk on developing oil doesn't really matter in the rush to the spittoon. The one that doesn't exist? Yes, that one. Canadian lives and money can and should be better spent elsewhere. Canada has done something reasonably intelligent, and instead of building a general military force they've specialized in engineering and infrastructure redevelopment. That's what Canada specializes in and does better than anyone else in the world. Not really, the Americans do it better. Actually, any Western country can do it if they chose too. If someone wants to go in there and get it to a point where redevelopment is possible, then I'd be all for Canada to go in and help. But our military is neither built nor equipped to fight a long-term battle in Darfur. Canadian military was whittled to the bone by the Liberlas but that is mostly in the past. As for Darfur, we can if we want to and I'm pretty sure that the Americans can help us with logistics. But do we want too? The entire point of Darfur is to point out how up to very recently, Canadians have specialized in becoming spectators and critics. Only recently have we put Canadian lives on the line and even then, we tell Afganis that if they don't put their house in order by a certain date, we are taking our guns and running away. Actually, if it was up to the Rooster Layton and his merry band of appeasers, we wouldn't even be there. It's interesting that you appear to believe in specialization and efficiency for oil, but not with respect to military (unless you were just poking your detractors by bringing up Darfur, which really has nothing to do with this conversation). Actaully it does, if we are going to sit on the sidelines with our pompoms and critisize the US in every action they take, what have CANADIANS done? Or does a half million dead Africans not count? Besides, last I checked, Canada supplies troops to NATO which operates in Darfur. And if you do some reading on the subject (which I'm sure you've done), Canada doesn't have the military resources to operate in both Darfur and Afghanistan (which has now been extended to 2009). While we may not have the logistical resources, we have more then enough ability to put down a couple of thousand man. And like I said before, I bet that those "slaughtering, murdering, thieving" Americans can easily and happily supply the logistical support. Are we willing to do the right thing? Are we willing to EARN the right to critisize? That's enough for today. I hadn't intended to actually participate in this thread, but thought the perspective of an actual American might help, as opposed to the assumed thoughts and feelings of Americans which are being purported as reasons for the invasion of Iraq. I wish I hadn't. Assumed thoughts? Hardly. While these are your feelings here, I am on other American based forums and their thoughts are 180 degree opposite to yours. PARTICULARLY when it comes to 9/11. I have no problem with American complaining or disliking the war. They are the ones who are putting it on the line in every way. Canadians on the other hand have no moral standing if they sit on the sidelines and let millions of people get slaughtered while spitting on the ones who tried to do something EVEN if they half screwed it up. I can hold up a sign that says "You Dumb Yanks, You Screwed up the War and Here Is How We Did It In Darfur". But I won't hold up any sign if it makes me look like a hypocrite. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 9, 2008 5:44:37 GMT -5
The entire point of Darfur is to point out how up to very recently, Canadians have specialized in becoming spectators and critics. Only recently have we put Canadian lives on the line and even then, we tell Afganis that if they don't put their house in order by a certain date, we are taking our guns and running away. Actually, the Canadian government told it's NATO allies that they'd better start contributing more to the war effort in Afghanistan or they'd be pulling their own troops out by a specific date. I don't recall the Canadian government ever giving the Afghan government the same ultimatum. Are you familiar with the Rwandan slaughter of '94? Canada was the only Western Country to go into theatre to try and stop the genocide. By Western, I mean North American. The international press, not Canadian press, ripped the USA for not going in as well despite knowing what was going on. I know only a bit about the Darfur situation and Canada's position. Very quickly, Canada wanted to go into the country under the UN, but other African nations handled it. One of the reasons for that is because all of our combat troops are busy in Afghanistan. And when I mean ALL of them, that's exactly what I mean ... ALL of them. In fact, we don't even have the manpower to sustain our current operations. The attrition rate is so high that we're having problems recruiting enough replacements. Granted, recruitment is up over the past few years, but at the same time it's not enough. We have soldiers going back for multiple tours of duty because there simply aren't enough replacement combat troops. However, I do recall the Canadians sending over Grizzly APC's to assist the African nations already there. While we aren't providing troops (we do have observers in there ... that's about all we can provide as far as manpower goes) we are supporting the African troops on the ground in other ways. BTW, the Rwandan UN effort was mostly comprised of African nations as well. These are the countries who understand these conflicts; how they come about and why. Many times, they're the best options for going into an African conflict. It's the same for Darfur, but at the same time, the Canadian government wanted to send troops in. They simply didn't have them to send. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 9, 2008 7:34:07 GMT -5
Funny thing about the Americans . . .
They go in and they are called on the carpet for not caring about anyone but themselves
They stay out and they are called on the carpet for not caring about anyone but themselves
I think they should wait for an invitation to the party rather than crashing it [and go once invited!] . . . then stay to the end and help clean up the mess [under the hosts direction] before gracefully leaving . . . remembering all the while it is not their house.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 9, 2008 7:45:21 GMT -5
Funny thing about the Americans . . . They go in and they are called on the carpet for not caring about anyone but themselves They stay out and they are called on the carpet for not caring about anyone but themselves I think they should wait for an invitation to the party rather than crashing it [and go once invited!] . . . then stay to the end and help clean up the mess [under the hosts direction] before gracefully leaving . . . remembering all the while it is not their house. One more thing about Rwanda. The Americans stayed out, but I'm really not sure why. If you believe the press it was because there was nothing of interest for the Americans in Rwanda; however, that's just the press. The European nations, less Belgium, stayed out of Rwanda because of the European history in Africa. I don't have time to Google any of this but generally speaking, the Europeans left a sour taste in Africa when the left. The Belgian peacekeepers were slaughtered not because they were a foreign army on Rwandan soil, but because of past Belgian influence in Rwanda. When they left, they left the Tutsi minority in charge of the Hutu majority (15% to 80% ratio) with the instructions to keep the Hutu in line or they'd come back and keep them in line. The Hutu never forgot that. Before my regiment deployed to Rwanda, we were given the historical background, which included the Belgian influence and explained why 'white-European-officers' were being targeted and butchered. I don't know why the Americans never went into Rwanda, but it's possible the USA was tied up somewhere else (just speculation on my part really. Don't have the time to look it up). And, again, while I don't have the time to look it up, I'm willing to bet that the USA might have been providing logistical support in some capacity. I know the Russians were providing that as well. Have to run. Work calls. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Jul 9, 2008 11:06:19 GMT -5
foolish to think that america does anything in the world that isn't for a buck.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 9, 2008 11:22:00 GMT -5
foolish to think that america does anything in the world that isn't for a buck. You see, I'd say foolish to think that America does anything in the world only for a buck. Sure, some people profit - but lots of people profit off of lots of things. Profit, contrary to popular belief, can often be a happy (or even desired) side effect, rather than the prime motive. Do you have anything to back your claim up, or are you just throwing out a random phrase in hopes of distracting people from the fact that your particular argument has no substance? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 9, 2008 12:38:21 GMT -5
Okay, just one more time... ===================================== On the use of DU weaponry.....let's hear from Dr. Doug Rokke, a U.S. Army Health Physicist and Nuclear Medical Sciences Officer, who's had first hand experience with it, studied it, and speaks very knowledgeably about it. And here's an article citing the same Dr. Rokke, which also outlines why DU weaponry violates UN resolutions and almost all of the conventions of war. Is Dr. Rokke anti-American? Is he not an expert in his field? And there are more studies out there...lots more...that link DU to the above. I know one can cite the same number of reports that say there is no correlation, no evidence, no whatever.....but ponder this: Can you imagine the billions of dollars in long-term health care payouts to soldiers and their families, not to mention domestic and international lawsuits, if the Pentagon admitted that DU was responsible for all these things? There's no way they're ever going to admit it. No way. And they'll find their own experts. =================================================== If we had a family member come back from Iraq, who developed some inexplicable illness/cancer or had children with birth defects (along with thousands of his/her contingent), and we heard that it was linked to exposure to DU, to a man on this board we'd be outraged and demanding action. We certainly wouldn't dismiss it. And if Iraq had used such weapons and this link was reported, we'd believe it in an instant. ===================================================== |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jul 9, 2008 13:25:59 GMT -5
All warfare is based on deception.
Sun Tzu
The Art of War
An unjust peace is better than a just war.
Cicero
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 9, 2008 13:55:47 GMT -5
On the use of DU weaponry.....let's hear from Dr. Doug Rokke, a U.S. Army Health Physicist and Nuclear Medical Sciences Officer, who's had first hand experience with it, studied it, and speaks very knowledgeably about it. And here's an article citing the same Dr. Rokke, which also outlines why DU weaponry violates UN resolutions and almost all of the conventions of war. Is Dr. Rokke anti-American? Is he not an expert in his field? And there are more studies out there...lots more...that link DU to the above. And there are lots that don't. The ICJ, who are the experts when it comes to international law, have stated outright that the use of DU does not, at this time, violate any known treaty or convention on the use of weapons in war. Therefore Dr. Rokke, as knowledgeable as he might be, is incorrect when he states that it violates "all of the conventions of war". That much is definitive. Does it violate a UN resolution? Possibly. But a lot of things violate UN Resolutions. For example, the State of Israel was legitimatized by resolutions 181 (1947) and 273 (1949), banned by resolution 3379 (1975) and made legitimate once again resolution 4686 (1991). So violating a UN Resolution - doesn't mean a whole lot (for those who care, resolutions from the General Assembly of the UN are considered non-binding on member states, and only truly hold weight when directed towards the operation of the General Assembly itself). Even so quick scan of Wikipedia suggests that even this limited denouncement of DU weapons is not clear enough to Dr. Rokke to build a case around. To quote Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen, who was commissioned by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to deliver a report on various and sundry new weapon technologies: To paraphrase, no treaty exists which ban DU weapons. They must be tested by recourse to the general rules governing the use of weapons. The ICJ oversees this. Go bother them. I know one can cite the same number of reports that say there is no correlation, no evidence, no whatever.....but ponder this: Can you imagine the billions of dollars in long-term health care payouts to soldiers and their families, not to mention domestic and international lawsuits, if the Pentagon admitted that DU was responsible for all these things? There's no way they're ever going to admit it. No way. And they'll find their own experts. One can cite mountains of evidence that say there is no link between DU and cancer, and another, slightly smaller mountain of evidence to suggest that it does not cause birth defects. You have one man - whose veracity and neutrality can be heavily discredited by his own statements - who says otherwise. Oh, and some conjecture based on the rationale that it would cost the Pentagon too much money if it ever came out that DU was harmful, so they must be covering it up (and I hear the US didn't land on the moon too - it was all filmed in Arizona somewhere). First, my sources come from an international community, none of whom are beholden in any way to the US government. To be able to enact a cover up on that scale would be quite the feat. Second, you postulate that the Pentagon would owe too much money in the wake of the discovery that DU was harmful. First off, although I am no expert I believe that the U.S. provides full health care to all veterans of the armed forces for life anyways. So there goes that expense. Secondly, the U.S. Government possess a power called Sovereign Immunity which prevent it (or any of its branches - including the military) from being named as a defendant in a civil suit. Which is why the U.S. Government didn't pay a cent for Agent Orange (the settlement was made by Dow, the company that produced the product). So, quite frankly, there goes the other leg of your argument. Got any more? If we had a family member come back from Iraq, who developed some inexplicable illness/cancer or had children with birth defects (along with thousands of his/her contingent), and we heard that it was linked to exposure to DU, to a man on this board we'd be outraged and demanding action. We certainly wouldn't dismiss it. Sure, but a single example does not prove causality. It proves that it was a single case. People tend to react, and to a certain extent overreact on things like that, and its understandable. But the math doesn't lie. There is an increased incident of mortality of soldiers returning from the first Gulf War, but unless one of the symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome is getting into car accidents, it's not the result of some strange disease/anthrax vaccine/depleted uranium. More than likely the symptoms that veterans of the first Gulf War report are the result of PTSD, a well known (and very serious) condition which affects many veterans. And has been since man first started going to war. And unless you, or Dr. Rokke can prove otherwise, then honestly, you're just coming out of left field and hoping your accusations stick. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 9, 2008 15:32:45 GMT -5
Sure, but a single example does not prove causality. It proves that it was a single case. People tend to react, and to a certain extent overreact on things like that, and its understandable. Perception is often > than reality . . . PM may just do us in more than we realize. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 9, 2008 16:06:13 GMT -5
But the math doesn't lie. All depends on whose figures are being used. Math and stats can be manipulated to prove just about anything when it comes to justification for areas such as these. Thanks for your excellent points...I enjoy looking at all sides of an argument and I'll look into them further, when time (and energy) permit. We ain't gonna solve it, that's for sure. You know, when it all boils down to it, wars have been around forever...and the true reasons for each are rife with conjecture/propaganda. Even if all sides are in the wrong in varying degrees, I do firmly believe we're on the side that's less wrong. Over and out....and back to the Habs for good this time. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 9, 2008 16:37:58 GMT -5
All warfare is based on deception. "The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed." - Karl von Clausewitz |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 9, 2008 23:43:35 GMT -5
Actually, the Canadian government told it's NATO allies that they'd better start contributing more to the war effort in Afghanistan or they'd be pulling their own troops out by a specific date. I don't recall the Canadian government ever giving the Afghan government the same ultimatum. Whether or not we tell NATO or the Afghan government, a pull out is a pull out an the effect on the Afghan people will be the same. Will the Canadian people even agree to a mission extension past 2009? The last extension was worse then pulling molars with a claw hammer. if the conservatives are not in power, kiss that mission goodbye. The Taliban is counting on it. Are you familiar with the Rwandan slaughter of '94? Canada was the only Western Country to go into theatre to try and stop the genocide. By Western, I mean North American. The international press, not Canadian press, ripped the USA for not going in as well despite knowing what was going on. The US didn't go in first after it had it's hands bloodied by Mogadishu AND got critisized for it.....AGAIN....as usual. Correct me if I'm wrong, in Rhwanda we had 50-60 Canadian man as "peace keepers" and the Liberals scratched themselves for months before sending in a communication unit with a few hundred more personal. We led the Multinational "force"......of 500 people. We did play a decent humanitarian role AFTER the slaughter for which we can be proud off. BTW, the Rwandan UN effort was mostly comprised of African nations as well. These are the countries who understand these conflicts; how they come about and why. Many times, they're the best options for going into an African conflict. The African nations barely have a functional CCC, let alone the ability to wage any defensive action that we or the Yanks or the French/British/Danes/Germans/Aussies can put on the ground. Secondly, the African nations response is rife with politics. I know only a bit about the Darfur situation and Canada's position. Very quickly, Canada wanted to go into the country under the UN, but other African nations handled it. One of the reasons for that is because all of our combat troops are busy in Afghanistan. And when I mean ALL of them, that's exactly what I mean ... ALL of them. In fact, we don't even have the manpower to sustain our current operations. The attrition rate is so high that we're having problems recruiting enough replacements. Granted, recruitment is up over the past few years, but at the same time it's not enough. We have soldiers going back for multiple tours of duty because there simply aren't enough replacement combat troops. However, I do recall the Canadians sending over Grizzly APC's to assist the African nations already there. While we aren't providing troops (we do have observers in there ... that's about all we can provide as far as manpower goes) we are supporting the African troops on the ground in other ways. It's the same for Darfur, but at the same time, the Canadian government wanted to send troops in. They simply didn't have them to send. Cheers. Dis, this is how much total manpower we have right now.... Total manpower: 62,000 military personnel of which there are 1....9,000 sailors, 2....19,500 soldiers, 3....12,500 air force personnel and 4....20,000 administrative and support personnel. AND 25,000 reservists. 18 billion operating budget. We can't field 2,000 combat troops for something like Darfur? I do NOT have the same expertise that you have but it makes me curious as to what all these personal are doing. Do we have troops in Europe? Why? Where have we spread our troops that we can't field a couple of thousand combat troops? Dis, we were a major military power after WW2 and we---actually, mostly Liberals Gvts---let it slide into semi-oblivion. We HAVE the ability to field and the financial wherewithal to make a difference in the world. For years, we told ourselves, actually, we convinced ourselves that we make a difference by peacekeeping, well, when has peacekeeping stopped anyone who wanted to fight? Rhwanda, Darfur, Balkans, Lebanon and many others are a testament to that. As one of the top ten countries on this planet, WE need to do MORE before we can preach to others. WE need to rush to the fire rather then spitting critisizing how others broke the door down, let alone accuse them of slaughter, murder and theft. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 9, 2008 23:51:18 GMT -5
All warfare is based on deception. "The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed." - Karl von Clausewitz As the Spartans said...."come and get them". Two old fogies......you be my spotter and I'll knock down anything up to 1000 meters. . |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 10, 2008 0:10:07 GMT -5
Funny thing about the Americans . . . They go in and they are called on the carpet for not caring about anyone but themselves They stay out and they are called on the carpet for not caring about anyone but themselves I think they should wait for an invitation to the party rather than crashing it [and go once invited!] . . . then stay to the end and help clean up the mess [under the hosts direction] before gracefully leaving . . . remembering all the while it is not their house. One more thing about Rwanda. The Americans stayed out, but I'm really not sure why. If you believe the press it was because there was nothing of interest for the Americans in Rwanda; however, that's just the press. The European nations, less Belgium, stayed out of Rwanda because of the European history in Africa. I don't have time to Google any of this but generally speaking, the Europeans left a sour taste in Africa when the left. The Belgian peacekeepers were slaughtered not because they were a foreign army on Rwandan soil, but because of past Belgian influence in Rwanda. When they left, they left the Tutsi minority in charge of the Hutu majority (15% to 80% ratio) with the instructions to keep the Hutu in line or they'd come back and keep them in line. The Hutu never forgot that. Before my regiment deployed to Rwanda, we were given the historical background, which included the Belgian influence and explained why 'white-European-officers' were being targeted and butchered. I don't know why the Americans never went into Rwanda, but it's possible the USA was tied up somewhere else (just speculation on my part really. Don't have the time to look it up). And, again, while I don't have the time to look it up, I'm willing to bet that the USA might have been providing logistical support in some capacity. I know the Russians were providing that as well. Have to run. Work calls. Cheers. I'm fairly certain it all had to do with Somalia. As usual, the Americans were spat on for going in and drawing blood. At that point the US got a temporary "screw the world" mentality. The only minor tie up was Haiti. Dis, as a military man, tell me, what would a couple of American battalions and their air power do to mitigate the genocide? How many hundred of thousands of lives would have been saved? And do you believe that some people would NOT spit on them for killing those who would slaughter? . |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 10, 2008 0:37:25 GMT -5
Funny thing about the Americans . . . They go in and they are called on the carpet for not caring about anyone but themselves They stay out and they are called on the carpet for not caring about anyone but themselves I think they should wait for an invitation to the party rather than crashing it [and go once invited!] . . . then stay to the end and help clean up the mess [under the hosts direction] before gracefully leaving . . . remembering all the while it is not their house. It's not so simple. First, the American will NEVER let anyone else CCC them (Command and Control). NEVER. Modern military action requires a 3-D approach and since the American have that already in place and in spades, it's hard for them to just "show up". The boots on the ground can call in artillery, gun ships, helicopters, anything they need. They can function with some of the Allies, particularly Brits/Canucks but for them, they prefer to do their thing. As for cleaning up the mess, the Americans are a war machine, not the local cop shop. Actually, that is 90% of their problem with Iraq. The knew how to slice and dice the Iraqi army like the joke that it was, but they were practically clueless as to what it took to administrate the coutnry back to civility. You know what they say about history? It repeats itself. You heard of the Spartans and their unbeatable war machine. Well, the Spartans had a long war with the Athenians and in the end, they prevailed. Trouble was, the Spartans didn't know how to be conquerors. For all their bravery and military might, for all their ability to defeat an enemy ten times their size, they couldn't administrate the peace even if their lives depended on it. Sounds familiar? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 10, 2008 0:39:26 GMT -5
foolish to think that america does anything in the world that isn't for a buck. You see, I'd say foolish to think that America does anything in the world only for a buck. Sure, some people profit - but lots of people profit off of lots of things. Profit, contrary to popular belief, can often be a happy (or even desired) side effect, rather than the prime motive. Do you have anything to back your claim up, or are you just throwing out a random phrase in hopes of distracting people from the fact that your particular argument has no substance? EVERY nation on earth acts for their own best interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 10, 2008 13:27:19 GMT -5
One more thing about Rwanda. The Americans stayed out, but I'm really not sure why. If you believe the press it was because there was nothing of interest for the Americans in Rwanda; however, that's just the press. The European nations, less Belgium, stayed out of Rwanda because of the European history in Africa. I don't have time to Google any of this but generally speaking, the Europeans left a sour taste in Africa when the left. The Belgian peacekeepers were slaughtered not because they were a foreign army on Rwandan soil, but because of past Belgian influence in Rwanda. When they left, they left the Tutsi minority in charge of the Hutu majority (15% to 80% ratio) with the instructions to keep the Hutu in line or they'd come back and keep them in line. The Hutu never forgot that. Before my regiment deployed to Rwanda, we were given the historical background, which included the Belgian influence and explained why 'white-European-officers' were being targeted and butchered. I don't know why the Americans never went into Rwanda, but it's possible the USA was tied up somewhere else (just speculation on my part really. Don't have the time to look it up). And, again, while I don't have the time to look it up, I'm willing to bet that the USA might have been providing logistical support in some capacity. I know the Russians were providing that as well. Have to run. Work calls. Cheers. I'm fairly certain it all had to do with Somalia. As usual, the Americans were spat on for going in and drawing blood. At that point the US got a temporary "screw the world" mentality. The only minor tie up was Haiti. You might be right, HA. Elements of my regiment also went to Somalia when the conflict first broke out; however, some of those same guys went to Rwanda in '94. Not sure when the US withdrew from Somalia. However, what did the Americans in, in Somalia, was that they took sides. They led a coalition into a civil war, with the best of intents mind you, but they decided to go after one of the local warlords. This single action more than anything else, told both factions that the Americans had chosen to take sides (whether true or not). However, it also created a division in the coalition forces as well. The Americans didn't consult any of their allies about the raid beforehand. It was solely a unilateral decision. While the raid was again done with the best of intentions, it might be the point where the mission began to fail. The movie "Blackhawk Down" is based on this raid, which went very, very bad right from the get-go. It doesn't explain the whole story, for instance the events leading up to the raid, but it does convey the brutality of the situation. It's very possible that the American forces and their technology could have had a deterrent on genocides everywhere, HA. Just a few things off the top of my head: The Americans initially chose to stay out of the Balkans when war and "ethnic cleansing" broke out. I have friends who were there when the war was in full throttle and, like Rwanda, their hands were tied by UN bureaucracy. However, while there were isolated instances of Canadian troops distinguishing themselves, they were powerless to do anything about genocide. The warring factions had bigger and better guns, so you could only bluff your way through so much. Yet, the Yanks did come in albeit under the NATO banner. At least when the mission was handed over to NATO, the UN had to relinquish their military policies, but could concentrate more on the humanitarian crisis that was consuming the region. Now, under the NATO umbrella, peacekeeping gave way to peace enforcing. The American-led NATO forces basically said, "... stop all hostilities or we'll bomb your countries to the Year Dot." Of course, several local warlords called their bluff only be bombarded. There's no way NATO could pulled this off without the Americans who, by the way, were the ones insisting that this be a NATO mission. However, I also believe a strong American presence in Rwanda would have prevented the same thing. I think a lot of us already know the story of Gen Romeo Delaire. Very quickly, he predicted the genocide some months before it occurred, but one of his own, Gen Maurice Baril, told the UN that Delaire was a young brigadier trying to make a name for himself. This, and a combination of other events, let the UN to ignore Delaire. Yet, being the world's policeman can be a pretty unappreciated job. If that's the job they've assumed, then I think it might be more than they can handle all by themselves. And, more importantly, as a policeman you can't afford to pick and choose which bad guy you're going to take out. If you're a policeman, then you have to put 'the new world order' behind you and remain totally neutral. If you're not ... guess what happens. The US has established themselves as military power over the decades but it means nothing if they don't have the leadership, HA. And right now, they simply don't have that at the highest level. There are competent leaders in the field, don't get me wrong, but when men like Colin Powell leave office the way the did, there's normally a reason for it. When he left I thought it left a huge dent in high-level leadership. It's all a matter of perception, HA. Perceptions are often created by the information, or lack of it. Too often we aren't privy to the whole story. Yet, it comes back to being selective. If you rectify one genocidal situation, then you'd better be prepared to go into the next one right away. If you rectify the 'lack of human rights' in one country, then you've got to uphold those values in the next conflict or it sends out the wrong message. And, as we've seen in the past, the international community will jump on that if given the opportunity. In some instances, I feel some missions around the world couldn't have been accomplished without the USA. In other instances, I feel some conflicts could have been avoided had the USA simply kept out of it. It's tough being the world's self-appointed policeman. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 10, 2008 14:14:30 GMT -5
While the raid was again done with the best of intentions, it might be the point where the mission began to fail. The movie "Blackhawk Down" is based on this raid, which went very, very bad right from the get-go. It doesn't explain the whole story, for instance the events leading up to the raid, but it does convey the brutality of the situation. Cheers. Dis, for a more complete description of events I would recommend the book (Black Hawk Down) by Mark Bowden. Although it's been a few years since I read it, I recall that it told a more thorough version than the movie did. Also, PBS Frontline also did a documentary on this raid. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 10, 2008 15:18:41 GMT -5
While the raid was again done with the best of intentions, it might be the point where the mission began to fail. The movie "Blackhawk Down" is based on this raid, which went very, very bad right from the get-go. It doesn't explain the whole story, for instance the events leading up to the raid, but it does convey the brutality of the situation. Cheers. Dis, for a more complete description of events I would recommend the book (Black Hawk Down) by Mark Bowden. Although it's been a few years since I read it, I recall that it told a more thorough version than the movie did. Also, PBS Frontline also did a documentary on this raid. Thanks JKR. I haven't read the book either. However, I was able to talk to some friends who were there at the time of the action and what they had to say wasn't very favourable. In keeping with the thread, there was no oil in Somalia, so in this case, the US tried to do some good by preventing a genocide by starvation. There was an inter-warlord war gong on that led to a humanitarian crisis. This was a civil war by any other name and it was the main reason the UN did not get involved militarily (though they did intervene in the Balkans). The US-led coalition tried to resolve it if only to ensure humanitarian aid got to those who needed it. The way they went about it, was to remove the factions that were preventing aid from getting in. The coalition did reasonably well with that, but in the end they could have used more international support. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 10, 2008 19:51:57 GMT -5
. The US has established themselves as military power over the decades but it means nothing if they don't have the leadership, HA. And right now, they simply don't have that at the highest level. There are competent leaders in the field, don't get me wrong, but when men like Colin Powell leave office the way the did, there's normally a reason for it. When he left I thought it left a huge dent in high-level leadership. I thought that Colin Powell would be the next President. I have HUGE respect for the way the man thinks and his integrity. Dis, thank you or your input. My intent is not to turn this into an American love fest, simply to beat back the reflexive anti-American cantilating. I get the same axe yielding hunched back on foreign military boards when I hear "cowards" and "Canadians" in the same sentance. |
|
