|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 12, 2008 14:25:43 GMT -5
Not sure where you're going with that statement, HA. Are you saying a one-time statement totally defines someone? I would say yes, if that person continues on and refuses to consider other opinions. I used those terms in my earlier posts on this topic. Don't we all shoot from the lip at times? The original words were beyond harsh and I took exception to them. A personal explanation.... You are NOT the only one who has made Anti-American statement like that. I have heard variations of that from 13 years old from my communist uncle, through my University year in Athens and it's cafes to travelling in more place then I care to remember. Jumping to Anti-American's defense is not an inherited trait but rather a counter to the holier then thou attitude that is inhearited in nationalism and left-right politics. It's almost a reflexive response on my part I am not as pro American as my posts appear. In fact, get me in a room with Americans nauseatingly waving the flag and I can and do shove the pole up their.... And yes, let's move onward and forward... My thoughts now are, if there is wrong all around, I believe we are less wrong. I agree...the left goes too far in pacifism and points all ten fingers at the evil of military-industrial complexes. The trouble with that slant is that there is no solution in pacifism, at least in realistic terms....you'll get run over. The world has never been perfect....it's necessary to prepare to be, and get, messy. My Spartan forefather hated war because THEY had to wage it, one on one, personal and terminal. In fact, Spartan avoided war as much as possible because they knew they were the ones who were going to die. To them, war was not a solution but a necessity that they had to be good at to survive. Fast forward to our day and age and we see and wage war differently. We in the West no longer suffer direct pain or consequence. We no longer understand what it feels like to have someone put a spear through our arm or rape our daughters. Because of that, we tend to be detached from the consequence or the necessity. So we breed hawks who use and embrace "nuke and "war" like it was some kind of description for cotton candy. Then we have the pacifist who can't get their heads out of their "love" butt. Neither of them are attached to any reality and they are both prone to be misdirected and manipulated. As for Iraq..... Iraq, like many wars could have been avoided or could of had a different outcome. Had the American not had 9/11 in their backdrop, had Saddam been an angel, or at least less evil, had Saddam not used gas, had there been no Kuwait, had the world not needed oil to survive, had there been no oil in Iraq, had there been no USSR collapse, had there been a little more forthright discussion, had there been no politics directing decisions, there would be NO war. On the other hand, had the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias resolved their difference on day 20 and Iraq was on it's way to building a great country, then we would all PRAISED the war as the chance that gave Iraq a new beginning. The ONLY thing that matters is for the Iraqi's is to make the best of it for their future. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 12, 2008 15:10:32 GMT -5
Sure, as soon as Canada takes a leading role. Are you holding your breadth? But hey, as Canadians, we have a damn right to expect OTHERS to do the right thing and God forbid is THEY don't do it the way our pretty little imagination demands. We're special that way. HA, where are we going to get the troops from? I'm reading a lot of "Canada-should-be-doing-more" but, forgive me mate, I'm not hearing any solutions. Right now all, and I say again, ALL of our armed forces are tied up in Afghanistan. In fact, we have an extremely high attrition rate because we have to rely on our current troops to do multiple tours of duty. When you consider each tour can be nine months long, it puts a strain on the personal life, which explains why we have problems hanging onto a lot of our combat troops. Dis, when you brought up the subject in a previous post, I was going to respond back that we had 30,000 military personal and 10,000 reservist. In fact, I did some research and came back with numbers much higher then that. We actually have 62,000 military personal and 25,000 reservist. How can all of those people be involved in what amounts to a small military excursion? As far as I know, we have 2,500 combat troops there. Who many are needed beyond that to support them? Do we have troops in places that have no need for them? Like Europe? Are we still playing the "peacekeeper" with combat soldiers? As for solutions.... Why bother with Europe and peacekeeping. Develop our logistics and go where we make a difference. I really don't care to have Candians stand between two Cypriots ready to kill each other donkeys. I care that we can make a difference in Darfur, Rwanda and anywhere else where there is slaughter. Dellaire was credited with saving 32,000 lives with nothing but words. Imagine what what we could of done with 2,000 combat troops staring down clowns with machetes. Two Canadian rapid response forces. 2,000 man unit, each fully equipped and supported. Two non-fighting humanitarian teams of 3,000 people each. That would make a need for 6,000 combat troops and on paper we have 9,000 now. Am I asking for too much? P.S. And if the Americans invade us, you and I can go into rear gaurd action until our boys come back.  First off, that explanation just doesn't sit well with most of the left and the Anti-American spitters because there isn't guilt and hate attached to it. To them, the ONLY "honesty" is for Bush to say "we slaughtered and murdered to steal oil". The rant is so simple...and self defining. Actually, I think the same argument can be used in reverse buds. While you denounce left-wingers for focusing on 'America-for-oil' you seem to be of the opinion that oil isn't the issue, when in reality, it's one of the major issues. For instance, the original American oil companies who were expelled from Iraq, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP, are now poised to move back in. BC also used a link several times that showed why Poland was in Iraq; it was to secure their future oil interests. This can't be ignored. It's good that the US found 'yellow cake' uranium because it proves that there was a program in place whether it was to produce dirty nuke bombs or local nuclear weapons. What I'm asking now is, it is this a legitimate find? If everything was so black and white, then why was there the need to produce fraudulent intelligence? This, too, can't be ignored. Cheers. First off, BC's post was selective and narrow. The neo-con doctrine was much broader and ONE of it's objectives was oil. I believe it was one line in a multipage doctrine and THAT line is quoted so often, it makes it look like the entire doctrine was about oil. The yellowcake story came out of the blue a few weeks ago. If it's true then that HAS to be the story of the past 5 years and yet, have you seen it as blazing story across the CBC? Your local paper? The oil companies going into Iraq make headline news but yellowcake is not news? Had Saddam had the means, that much yellowcake was enough for 150 nukes. 150 nukes AND SCUD's that had already been deployed against Israel in the first Gulf War. Could it possibly be that the left leaning mass media just don't want to hear anything but their own voices? Forget the pacifists. You can hang a picture of dead Kurd babies on a glowing nuke and their bland faced reaction will be.....Bush Oil War. The Iraq story is far from finished. www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_577190.htmlOver the top right winger...... canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3927 |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 12, 2008 20:55:42 GMT -5
HA, where are we going to get the troops from? I'm reading a lot of "Canada-should-be-doing-more" but, forgive me mate, I'm not hearing any solutions. Right now all, and I say again, ALL of our armed forces are tied up in Afghanistan. In fact, we have an extremely high attrition rate because we have to rely on our current troops to do multiple tours of duty. When you consider each tour can be nine months long, it puts a strain on the personal life, which explains why we have problems hanging onto a lot of our combat troops. And of these reservists how many can be told, "... you're going to war ..." If the reservist or militiaman has not agreed to go into a war zone. That's right; the have to agree to it. There are three classifications of reservists; Class A, Class B and Class C. Class C reservists are those who are actually on active duty abroad. They've either been canvassed to go, or have applied to a competition posted in their units. But, in ether case they've agreed to go. They get full pay and benefits. If you're on a Class A, you're only permitted to work 12 days a month maximum at 85% of regular force pay (for whatever rank you are). If you're on a Class B ticket then you're working on 6-month stints for as long as the contract has been taken out. Again, you're only making 85% pay. So you see, not all reservists will agree to combat operations simply because they wear a uniform. For many, it's a way to supplement their incomes, or a way to pay their way through school. Many also have civilian lives they don't want to leave. This is unlike the regular force soldiers who go where they're told. Good questions. To give you an example of how much support goes into an operation or unit, I'll use my old Signals Regiment here in K-town. The Regiment (actually battalion size) has 680 servicepersons in it but only contains 250 (approximately) actual signalers. The remainder are support trades. Currently in Afghanistan we have a large number of civilians working there to help support the camp itself. They're not employed in any combat roles but can be used in limited combat service support roles; messing, quartermaster stores, Tim Horton's (there's a moral booster) etc. As for troops in Europe, Canada has very few remaining. They're mostly staff officers on exchange programs or servicepersons in support roles. Well, it's a good start buds. At least it's something. However, consider this: * we're losing a lot of soldiers these days because of the high operational tempo the Canadian Forces has assumed. If we add Darfur to our present commitments, we'll be burning out more soldiers than we are now. * Consequently, we're also losing many because they've simply had enough. As I was saying, the attrition rate is extremely high nowadays and it has a lot to do with soldiers going back on subsequent tours of duty with only minimal time between tours. A tour of duty now isn't six months, but nine. My old unit policy dictated that a soldier had to be back in Canada for a minimum of one year before he/she could be offered another tour. However, this meant that those soldiers tagged "red" could not be out of the country for anywhere over 2 months. This means those soldiers within that one-year window, could be redeployed on another operation provided they weren't gone for 2 months. Alright for single soldiers (who can sign a waiver and go right back on tour), but what if you're married? * Recruiting is up, or at least we're getting more people joining than we did a few years back, but first we have to find enough people who want to go into uniform. Then if we get them, we have train them, house them, feed them and look after their families as well. Easier said than done considering the numbers we need. Remember "Kelly's Heroes?" Reminds me of Oddball. "While everyone is knocking themselves out to be heroes, we consider ourselves in reserve. That way, if the krauts attack Paris or even ... New York, we can move in and stop them." Actually, BC's opinions are very well researched I find. There were other issues at work here as well. Oil was a big one, but I'm interested in seeing how this "the world's policeman" pans out. I think removing a tyrant isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there are tyrants in many countries. I have to ask why they haven't been removed as yet too. It's hard to know why this hasn't been a major story. From what I was asking before, is there a direct correlation between yellowcake uranium and Niger? Does this yellowcake actually belong to the Iraqis? I'm not trying to minimize the find, don't get me wrong. But, if the USA and Britain didn't alter or ignore intelligence reports in the first place, I wouldn't be asking any questions right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 12, 2008 22:53:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 13, 2008 11:55:09 GMT -5
HA, where are we going to get the troops from? I'm reading a lot of "Canada-should-be-doing-more" but, forgive me mate, I'm not hearing any solutions. Right now all, and I say again, ALL of our armed forces are tied up in Afghanistan. In fact, we have an extremely high attrition rate because we have to rely on our current troops to do multiple tours of duty. When you consider each tour can be nine months long, it puts a strain on the personal life, which explains why we have problems hanging onto a lot of our combat troops. Dis, when you brought up the subject in a previous post, I was going to respond back that we had 30,000 military personal and 10,000 reservist. In fact, I did some research and came back with numbers much higher then that. We actually have 62,000 military personal and 25,000 reservist. How can all of those people be involved in what amounts to a small military excursion? As far as I know, we have 2,500 combat troops there. Who many are needed beyond that to support them? Do we have troops in places that have no need for them? Like Europe? Are we still playing the "peacekeeper" with combat soldiers? As for solutions.... Why bother with Europe and peacekeeping. Develop our logistics and go where we make a difference. I really don't care to have Candians stand between two Cypriots ready to kill each other donkeys. I care that we can make a difference in Darfur, Rwanda and anywhere else where there is slaughter. Dellaire was credited with saving 32,000 lives with nothing but words. Imagine what what we could of done with 2,000 combat troops staring down clowns with machetes. Two Canadian rapid response forces. 2,000 man unit, each fully equipped and supported. Two non-fighting humanitarian teams of 3,000 people each. That would make a need for 6,000 combat troops and on paper we have 9,000 now. Am I asking for too much? P.S. And if the Americans invade us, you and I can go into rear gaurd action until our boys come back. Actually, I think the same argument can be used in reverse buds. While you denounce left-wingers for focusing on 'America-for-oil' you seem to be of the opinion that oil isn't the issue, when in reality, it's one of the major issues. For instance, the original American oil companies who were expelled from Iraq, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP, are now poised to move back in. BC also used a link several times that showed why Poland was in Iraq; it was to secure their future oil interests. This can't be ignored. It's good that the US found 'yellow cake' uranium because it proves that there was a program in place whether it was to produce dirty nuke bombs or local nuclear weapons. What I'm asking now is, it is this a legitimate find? If everything was so black and white, then why was there the need to produce fraudulent intelligence? This, too, can't be ignored. Cheers. Over the top right winger...... canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3927I don't want to jump into the middle of a debate. I don't have the time or the in depth level of knowledge on this subject. However, I had to comment on this particular person. I'm glad you described him as over the top because my mouth dropped when I read some of his accusations, particularly the charge that Saddam made assasination attempts against Bush. A recurring theme in this thread seems to be the availability of proof. Don't just say something, back it up. I can't say I wholeheartedly agreed with him but he lost me completely at that point in the article. I think this is a problem with extremists on both sides. They try to build a case but IMO, they end up hurting their cause. BTW: I googled the author of this article. He seems to be a lightning rod for strong opinion, particulary with jis writings on religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 13, 2008 14:32:47 GMT -5
I'd rather have "Big Oil" in control in Iraq than the Sunni's, Sheites or Kurds or the various factions of criminals running local militias there. It is very easy to criticize the US for their mistakes, but the alternatives are far worse.
Iraq; militias of theives replacing a repressive murderous dictator.
Iran; intollerant religeous mullas imposing their sexist extremist ideology.
Saudi Arabia; dictatorial monarchy using pseudo slave international workforce to prop up an elite class of Rolex/Mercedes princes.
Is Big Oil really that bad?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 13, 2008 17:33:21 GMT -5
I don't want to jump into the middle of a debate. I don't have the time or the in depth level of knowledge on this subject. However, I had to comment on this particular person. I'm glad you described him as over the top because my mouth dropped when I read some of his accusations, particularly the charge that Saddam made assasination attempts against Bush. A recurring theme in this thread seems to be the availability of proof. Don't just say something, back it up. I can't say I wholeheartedly agreed with him but he lost me completely at that point in the article. I think this is a problem with extremists on both sides. They try to build a case but IMO, they end up hurting their cause. BTW: I googled the author of this article. He seems to be a lightning rod for strong opinion, particulary with jis writings on religion. Don't really know him as a writer but a fast read through made me roll my eyelashes. I was just looking for multiple sources to confirm the yellowcake story. I should of gone to the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. The New York Times USE to be a reputable paper but they have gone so far to the left that they are twisting stories to fit their agenda. Not as bad as the Toronto Star but getting there. The Star is actually inventing stories if it doesn't have any. . |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 13, 2008 20:00:11 GMT -5
I'd rather have "Big Oil" in control in Iraq than the Sunni's, Sheites or Kurds or the various factions of criminals running local militias there. It is very easy to criticize the US for their mistakes, but the alternatives are far worse. There wouldn't be any "alternatives" as you call them, had the US-led coalition not gone into Iraq in the first place. In that context criticism is warranted in my books. A murderous dictator who had those thieves in check. A murderous dictator who brought stability to the region. Even the American press has admitted to this. Yes, it certainly can be that bad, but you're right in that the Saudi elite does whatever they want. However, why tag the Saudis with this when just about every Islamic nation in the area does the same thing. Until recently, all oil sales were reckoned in US dollars. Yet Iran has now dropped the US dollar as a measuring stick and gone with the Euro and Ruble. However, while Saudi Arabia has an oppressive regime (in many ways much more repressive than Iran's), it can't afford to do the same. Unlike Iran, they and the USA are interdependent on one another. The USA needs the oil and in exchange for recognition of the House of Saud, the Saudis agree to reckon their oil sales in US dollars. While I'm not sure of an elitist problems in China, they too are dependent on the USA despite their poor human rights record. Exports from China to the USA are in the billions of dollars, so it's probably in the USA's best financial interests to look the other way. Coming full circle on you, while I believe that the USA has done some good around the globe, I also believe criticism is well warranted in the Iraqi debacle. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 13, 2008 23:31:33 GMT -5
I'd rather have "Big Oil" in control in Iraq than the Sunni's, Sheites or Kurds or the various factions of criminals running local militias there. It is very easy to criticize the US for their mistakes, but the alternatives are far worse. There wouldn't be any "alternatives" as you call them, had the US-led coalition not gone into Iraq in the first place. In that context criticism is warranted in my books. A murderous dictator who had those thieves in check. A murderous dictator who brought stability to the region. Even the American press has admitted to this. Yes, it certainly can be that bad, but you're right in that the Saudi elite does whatever they want. However, why tag the Saudis with this when just about every Islamic nation in the area does the same thing. Until recently, all oil sales were reckoned in US dollars. Yet Iran has now dropped the US dollar as a measuring stick and gone with the Euro and Ruble. However, while Saudi Arabia has an oppressive regime (in many ways much more repressive than Iran's), it can't afford to do the same. Unlike Iran, they and the USA are interdependent on one another. The USA needs the oil and in exchange for recognition of the House of Saud, the Saudis agree to reckon their oil sales in US dollars. While I'm not sure of an elitist problems in China, they too are dependent on the USA despite their poor human rights record. Exports from China to the USA are in the billions of dollars, so it's probably in the USA's best financial interests to look the other way. Coming full circle on you, while I believe that the USA has done some good around the globe, I also believe criticism is well warranted in the Iraqi debacle. Cheers. He kept the theives in check and the trains ran on time? Keep him in power and negotiate with him to make sure his sons rape and murder less than 365 women a year. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 14, 2008 5:26:59 GMT -5
There wouldn't be any "alternatives" as you call them, had the US-led coalition not gone into Iraq in the first place. In that context criticism is warranted in my books. A murderous dictator who had those thieves in check. A murderous dictator who brought stability to the region. Even the American press has admitted to this. Yes, it certainly can be that bad, but you're right in that the Saudi elite does whatever they want. However, why tag the Saudis with this when just about every Islamic nation in the area does the same thing. Until recently, all oil sales were reckoned in US dollars. Yet Iran has now dropped the US dollar as a measuring stick and gone with the Euro and Ruble. However, while Saudi Arabia has an oppressive regime (in many ways much more repressive than Iran's), it can't afford to do the same. Unlike Iran, they and the USA are interdependent on one another. The USA needs the oil and in exchange for recognition of the House of Saud, the Saudis agree to reckon their oil sales in US dollars. While I'm not sure of an elitist problems in China, they too are dependent on the USA despite their poor human rights record. Exports from China to the USA are in the billions of dollars, so it's probably in the USA's best financial interests to look the other way. Coming full circle on you, while I believe that the USA has done some good around the globe, I also believe criticism is well warranted in the Iraqi debacle. Cheers. He kept the theives in check and the trains ran on time? Keep him in power and negotiate with him to make sure his sons rape and murder less than 365 women a year. You're focusing on the mess created by Saddam and not the current mess created by the Bush administration. There's accountability on both sides not just one. What's the solution for the current mess? Leave office and let the next sucker president handle it? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 14, 2008 15:28:04 GMT -5
He kept the theives in check and the trains ran on time? Keep him in power and negotiate with him to make sure his sons rape and murder less than 365 women a year. You're focusing on the mess created by Saddam and not the current mess created by the Bush administration. There's accountability on both sides not just one. What's the solution for the current mess? Leave office and let the next sucker president handle it? Cheers. I try to relate this to my relationship with my children. When they take the wrong path, make a mistake and get into trouble, I intervene. I try to make things better and fix whatever they broke. After that they are on their own. I can't be with then all the time. I can help them with their homework, but I can't go write the exams for them. They have to take responsibility at some point. We ousted Saddam and his party. We helped them hold elections. We rebuilt the roads, electric plants and infrastructure. They continued to bomb the power stations. It's time for them to sort things out. It may take a civil war. It will get worse before it gets better. It may take a lot of deaths on all sides before they decide to stop the nonsense. At some point the Hatfields and Coys, Irish Protestants and Catholics decide to end the bloodshed. They have to police themselves. It doesn't make our initial intervention and assistance wrong. Now it's up to them. The US did the right thing when we intervened. We didn't have a plan to rebuild their country, but rerbuilding is up to them. When the US declared independance from Britian is wasn't up to the King to set up their government. When Canada declared independance, the Queen was only too happy to let them have their own constitution. Canada couldn't get all 10 provinces to aggree on a new constitution, but that wasn't Britians fault. The responsibility for Iraq lies with the Sunni and Sheite government and militias. I don't trust either side and I wouldn't want to call the shots for them. Let them sort it out. Our work is done! |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 14, 2008 16:15:13 GMT -5
You're focusing on the mess created by Saddam and not the current mess created by the Bush administration. There's accountability on both sides not just one. What's the solution for the current mess? Leave office and let the next sucker president handle it? Cheers. I try to relate this to my relationship with my children. When they take the wrong path, make a mistake and get into trouble, I intervene. I try to make things better and fix whatever they broke. After that they are on their own. I can't be with then all the time. I can help them with their homework, but I can't go write the exams for them. They have to take responsibility at some point. We ousted Saddam and his party. We helped them hold elections. We rebuilt the roads, electric plants and infrastructure. They continued to bomb the power stations. It's time for them to sort things out. It may take a civil war. It will get worse before it gets better. It may take a lot of deaths on all sides before they decide to stop the nonsense. At some point the Hatfields and Coys, Irish Protestants and Catholics decide to end the bloodshed. They have to police themselves. It doesn't make our initial intervention and assistance wrong. Now it's up to them. The US did the right thing when we intervened. We didn't have a plan to rebuild their country, but rerbuilding is up to them. When the US declared independance from Britian is wasn't up to the King to set up their government. When Canada declared independance, the Queen was only too happy to let them have their own constitution. Canada couldn't get all 10 provinces to aggree on a new constitution, but that wasn't Britians fault. The responsibility for Iraq lies with the Sunni and Sheite government and militias. I don't trust either side and I wouldn't want to call the shots for them. Let them sort it out. Our work is done! The question that is always avoided is, whose next? Which country of 'children' will need direction next? I can't buy into your parenting theory, HFLA. Dictating to other countries that this is the way they will live is akin to a number of things, but one of them isn't parenting. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 14, 2008 18:34:21 GMT -5
...... We ousted Saddam and his party. We helped them hold elections. We rebuilt the roads, electric plants and infrastructure. They continued to bomb the power stations. It's time for them to sort things out. It may take a civil war. It will get worse before it gets better. It may take a lot of deaths on all sides before they decide to stop the nonsense. ...... If it may take many deaths, then how is it justified for the outside world to intervene and change the natural course of their society ? You can't justify it on humanitarian grounds, given that Saddam's evil deeds are dwarfed by the current troubles; you can't justify it by Irak being a threat to the outside world, given their lack of WMD and lack of support for terrorism and their weak army. In fact, as a secular state, Irak under Saddam was usually the type of stable government the US wants to put into place. The end result is no better for Irak and Irakis then the original situation, so how can we justify the American intervention ? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 14, 2008 18:59:53 GMT -5
When the US declared independance from Britian is wasn't up to the King to set up their government. When Canada declared independance, the Queen was only too happy to let them have their own constitution. Canada couldn't get all 10 provinces to aggree on a new constitution, but that wasn't Britians fault. Canada didn't "declare" independence, we were granted a Dominion. The US official name is "The United States of America" .... Canada's official name is "The Dominion of Canada". It took Canada 113 years to repatriate our constitution. The Kings and Queens didn't let go very easily. Back in 1867 Canada only comprise of 4 "provinces" and one observer territory, just as in 1776 America only comprised of 13 states .... |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 14, 2008 19:17:53 GMT -5
When the US declared independance from Britian is wasn't up to the King to set up their government. When Canada declared independance, the Queen was only too happy to let them have their own constitution. Canada couldn't get all 10 provinces to aggree on a new constitution, but that wasn't Britians fault. The responsibility for Iraq lies with the Sunni and Sheite government and militias. I don't trust either side and I wouldn't want to call the shots for them. Let them sort it out. Our work is done! The American Revolution is nothing like what happened in Iraq....on any level. A third party didn't invade Colonial America, thereby deciding for them, and that third party didn't oust the King, resulting in his execution. The revolutionaries fought for their own independence and were more than happy to establish their own government in the aftermath. Canada's independence from Britain is even further removed from the Iraqi example. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I know what you're saying. Now that they're free of the tyranny of the Husseins' regime, which they couldn't bring about themselves, the Iraqi's should be grateful to reap the riches of their country once again and live freely and peacefully. If they still want to fight amongst themselves, that's their problem. It's like, "Duh...what's wrong with you people? Knock off the fighting and let your country heal and grow." And I would agree with that sentiment. It seems to be common sense. I think the U.S. vastly underestimated the complexity and resolve of Iraq's ethnic-religious-political factions....and also their resistance to and mistrust of perceived Western influence and control. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 14, 2008 21:09:46 GMT -5
Actually, Bush felt the same way. That's why he tried to guilt the UN into sending blue helmets into Iraq to replace the coalition forces. Well, it wasn't the UN's problem and Bush didn't get the blue helmets he asked for. The UN was pushed aside by Bush and it was he and his administration that acted unilaterally in this case. Your work, as you call it, is far from done. You, or your government, has got to clean up their mess. And that's only Iraq. I'm really hoping your country's recession doesn't affect our economy too much. That would be another mess altogether and, that mess too, would have been avoidable. But, Bush, himself, won't have to worry about either. He'll retire a very wealthy man and live in peace for the rest of his life. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 14, 2008 22:35:30 GMT -5
Many differing opinions. The good thing is we can agree to disagree politely without shooting eachother.
The US gets criticized for infringing on the soverignty of other countries. That is justifiable. It also gets criticized for not interfering when China threatens Taiwan or Tibet; Darfur; Hitler invading Austria, Idi Amin, Castro.
We all share a fragile blue planet. What happens in Iraq is our business. Who should rule Iraq? I don't know.
Should we continue to prop up the repressive Saudi monarchy and keep the oil flowing? One day we will be criticized for that too.
Should women have equal rights everywhere?
When South Africa had apartheid, was it our business? Should we have continued to trade with them, invade them?
One of the reasons we all disagree and can't change eachothers opinion with our well constructed arguments is that there is no simple solution, no absolute truth, right and wrong.
Indigenous peoples have a different culture and they have a different viewpoint on womens rights within the tribe. If that conflicts with the Canadian Bill of Rights, do we have the right to intervene?
In reality, we choose our battles. Situations we don't like and policies we don't agree with are very different from agregious torture by Saddam and gassing of the Kurds. Invading Kuwait, rape and pillage. It doesn't matter to me if he had weapons of mass destruction. He gassed millions of innocents, invaded Iran, invaded Kuwait, murdered intellectuals and dissenters.
After the invasion we did not punish all the Sunnis. The Sheite majority took charge and sought revenge. We underestimated the hatred between militias and the lawlessness.
It was profoundly stupid to have allowed the Iraq army to wave white flags and return to Iraq without punishment for the invasion, rape and setting oil wells on fire. Our biggest error is we were too nice. Setting up our 18 year old boys as targets for crime gangs doesn't make sense. Lets go home and let them sort it out for themselves. If the regeim they establish is worse than Saddams, we can always go back, not as policemen but as air force bombers.
I am as fed up with Iraq as everyone else. I remember the fear after 9/11, the uncertainty. I don't feel we owe them anything, we've done more than our share to help them.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 17, 2008 11:20:20 GMT -5
HFLA: have a read (as I suggested in the Reading List thread) of The Sirens of Baghdad, by Yasmina Khadra. It is an interesting perspective from the other side.
I'm no dove, but I'm also not a "it's all about the oil" guy either.
Ya gotta wonder, though, if an ill-conceived plan is harbouring more anger.
fwiw, a friend of mine is a captain about to go on his third tour. -- and thinks effectiveness has waned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 17, 2008 13:53:27 GMT -5
HFLA: have a read (as I suggested in the Reading List thread) of The Sirens of Baghdad, by Yasmina Khadra. It is an interesting perspective from the other side. I'm no dove, but I'm also not a "it's all about the oil" guy either. Ya gotta wonder, though, if an ill-conceived plan is harbouring more anger. fwiw, a friend of mine is a captain about to go on his third tour. -- and thinks effectiveness has waned. I wish I felt unequivocal about my position supporting the US in world affairs. I would love to say to hell with you guys and the rest of the world. As Davey Crockett said on Disney, "Be sure that you are right, then go ahead!" Unfortunately I am not certain we are doing the right thing. I am not certain who the good guys are that we should be helping. I'm not sure we should support human rights in places where we are not wanted. I do remember the school yard bully. When he jumped on my friend, I intervened. I wasn't sure who started the fight, but I knew who my friend was and I supported him. I knew the history of the two parties even if I didn't see the incident that started it. Sometimes you have to take a stand for what you perceive to be an injustice. Often actions will lead to mistakes. Sometimes the outcome is worse than the situation that created the problem. World War II was worse than Hitler invading Austria with little fighting and bloodshed. The atomic bomb brought about a swift end to the war and saved American lives although it cost Japanese lives. Defending South Korea has led to a protracted standoff and a rogue North Korean government with a population of uninformed citizens. War is not a good thing, but it is sometimes better than the alternative. If you owned a small grocery store and you were told to pay $600 a week protection money, it would be better to pay it than to risk your store, life and customers. Standing up to the mob takes courage and probably will lead to more bloodshed than capitulating. Informing the police assumes that: a) they CAN help you b) they are not being paid off by the mob c) you won't be made an example for other businesses. It's never an easy decision. Mistakes will be made guaranteed. Doing the right thing is neither easy nor popular. Iraq and Iran are not popularity contests. The goal is not to steal oil, kill arabs, cause unrest, help one tribe anhilate the other team, or get your own young people killed. Bush and Chaney, contrary to popular belief and liberal propaganda, do not want to see soldiers killed and anti-American sentiment throughout the world. Bush is not proud of his low popularity and esteem. I don't think either of them values oil profits for their buddies above American lives ofr their legacy. We are in a quagmire. We got there because we did the right thing, not the east thing. To extricate ourselves we need to take a harder line and enable Iraquis to take responsibility for their own country. The least of my concerns is France and Europe sitting on their hands wagging a finger and saying, "I told you so." We felt compelled to act and we did. We quickly won a war with a minimum of bloodshed. We didn't install an American Governor to run the place like a colony. We didn't punish the Sunnis and Iraqi Army. We were not vengeful. We helped rebuild the infrastructure and helped establish THEIR government and constitution. I've reworked essentially the same position in several posts. I've convinced no one. Several good posts have taken the opposite position and failed to convince me. Within the HabsRus family as in all families, there are disagreements and a time to conveniently avoid some subjects. I am unilaterally taking a moriatorium on this one because it inflames more than it advances. GO Hab's! |
|
