Guest Pull Up Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 It appears you are one of the few who really are kidding themselves. Either that or you really are dilusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leftbase Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Whoa. Please? Those troops are there to save that oil revenue for IRAQIS?! Good ol' boys layin' it on the line for the common folk of Iraq? Boy, I'd really like to believe that. But when they're done with that tasking, maybe they could spare a few troops to protected the hospital up the road being looted, hmm? Oh, and pity about all those priceless, lost-to-the-world cultural treasures and books that got burned. But, the oil revenue that Uncle Sam has "liberated" for the Iraqi People, (minus a *cough* small fee for their troubles), should buy lots an' lots of shiny new stuff, provided by, well...hey! Guess who! For a country sophisticated in media manipulation, you think they could have come up with some better optics.... Funny thing, sarcasm aside. It's hugely ironic given my past, to be on here taking jabs at US foreign policy. There is a time for the guns to come out. There always will be, idealist flower-wavers aside. So write me off as a left-leanin' liberalist if you like - but if you really believe those mechanized weapons rushed up to surround the Ministry of Oil because Dubya just cares So Much about the Iraqi people, well dang...I guess I'm just a tad cynical. Perhaps I'd be more confident if it hadn't been revealed that that vast majority of Americans polled believed the 911 terrorists were from Iraq. When told they were actually mainly of Saudi descent, SURPRISE, not-so-much-enthusiasm for the war...ah well, good for the economy. "There's gotta be some WMD here somewhere. There's just GOTTA be!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Just my opinion... The reason that the U.S. has asked the U.N. to step in is that the return on investment to secure the oil flow is becoming unmanageable. The States has always said that they would pay for the oil they take, and that is true. However the cost of "Controlling" the flow is becoming way too high in terms of money to support the troops and equipment. As well, the cost in lives is far exceeding what they had projected, especially with more troops being killed after the cessation of hostilities than during the actual war. So the States it looking to download the cost of obtaining oil onto the rest of the world to support their "Energy Fix". Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Sorry Steam Man, I had to try to get some sleep... And now, it's painfully apparent that far more learned folk than myself are carrying the torches... So I'll duck out of this one. I think I owe you an answer though: What would I have done different?... I'd have had a personal pow-wow with the Sad Man to see if he was lying or not... And if I still didn't know, I'd have let the UN do it's thing. Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JakeYYZ Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Maybe campaign should be named "Operation Begging Bowl". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 lefty ...believe what you like and thanks for your feedback. BTW, I love sarcasm. Even when it's full of you-know-what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 ...are you serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 I accept your criticism Upper Deck. Fair enough. Either way, this is a very complicated issue. Isn't it? Reviewing my posts I'm inclined to agree with you. On this subject I AM an absolutist. I've done my questioning of the media hype, the American Gov't hype, Bushes speeches and the Iraqi Information Ministers hype as well as countless others plopped in front of the camera. I've watched the UN Security Council debate the issue. I listened to the many speeches given last fall as the debate heated up and all I heard was wait, wait, and more wait. Their inaction IMHO was worse than the action taken unilaterally by the US. I'd like to believe that we need HARDCORE evidence in this instance but, I'm not quite convinced we do. We have simple evidence and accusations and a country that had over 10 years to give the world the straight goods on WMD. It didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leftbase Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Fair enough! Truth be told, I agree with the vast majority of what you have to say. I actually agree that the US HAD to do something (although they invaded the wrong country if they were serious about a war on terrorism, IMO - but that's another story). My worry is the folks who see things in black and white - the US as "liberators" and saviours of other nations, with nothing but altruistic motivations. Yes, they have the might to act in that capacity - but I have yet to see any conflict the US has engaged in that wasn't more self-serving than not. While lauding at least their attempts to make the world better, we forget the other at our own peril, I think. Balance, balance....somethin' or other about absolute power, etc, .. cheers, lb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 "you care not at all about facts and seemingly rely upon propaganda that has been shown to be false." and by this you mean?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 "Regardless of our opinions of what the US is and isn't, by their presence, the US "fouled" sacred ground and bin Laden found a home for his ideas." Vacationing is not a possibility for us in SA. We Canadian's are foul too and as such, are not welcome. Personally, I've had quite enough of all this Muslim crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 We collectively blast JC and most all his decisions yet are willing to believe that the decision to not support the US was noble, moral, informed and correct? I think it was a lucky guess and the true basis for the no support decision was related to the fact that Canada doesn't have a military machine capable of a meaningfull contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Where or what is your conection to the "true story"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 What's also scary is the fact that the Americans are the world power they are and have decided to act unilaterally in this case. While I agree with it this time, I may not the next. Then what? That's been going through my mind moreso now that a few have contributed to this string of comments (and thankfully not everyone agrees with me) and got me thinking again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Upper Deck No. I probably didn't meet a different group of people. But I do recall their showing me the most incredible video (believed to have been made in Saudi Arabia) about America and Americans that was pure propaganda. I do recall flying over there during Desert Storm with a partial Local crew onboard who were disgusted with the Americans for what they were doing to Iraq for their invasion of Q8. That seemed odd to me at the time in light of the tactical flying that was going on in that neck of the woods. I guess the minute we think we understand them and their motives...somethings wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Is it any particular word you fail to understand or the manner of their grouping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 ...ahhh.. no, I was just playin' with these buttons with letters on them on my keyboard... Whaddya think? Of course I'm serious. What kind of a question is that, am I serious? We're talking about blowing into a country full of moms and dads and kids and babies and grandmothers and sisters and brothers and aunts and uncles, and literally stripping them of any chance to live a peaceful existence. Who has the flippin' right to do that? Someone who wants to make sure the oil keeps flowing? Someone who want's to fulfill a promise he made to his dad? Someone who thinks he's tough enough and therefore he's right to do it? Did the people of Iraq invite these hero's to come in and be their "saviour"? You evidently believe it was right... Sadly, we'll get to see the results. Years from now, we'll know a lot more about the reasons, the lies, the truths and the effects. We'll get to judge it's benefits and the harm it's done... but a hell of a lot of Iraqis won't, 'cause their dead. Maybe you can go tell all the kids that lost their dad's why it is this had to be done. I'd just have to shrug and give them a hug I think... 'cause I haven't got a clue why it is that killing people, en masse, is ever "right". But I suppose that just makes me one of those "bleeding hearts" that you and so many others despise eh? Ya, I'm serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Okay, you are serious. You just don't get it then. I can't understand it. It's all clear to me now. Want a hug? ...seriously though Mitch, I take your points and I certainly accept their validity. Every bit of what you say is close enough to sympathetic as you can get. If this situation were that simple we'd both be geniuses. As for the innocents in this mess, I'd say the Evil War Machine did a remarkable job of hitting a significant number of all the right targets and missing one heck of a lot of innocent targets. I don't think we'll ever get to agree on this issue, but thanks for setting me straight in some small respect. (now for some sarcasm again) You're a shameless, Bleeding heart liberal (wags finger) and I'm a whacko warmonger (draws circles around temple area). War/Invasion sure as heck sucks, doesn't it? But I'd like to have something for my kids one day, so I can get some hugs and their grand parents can too. Maybe even see some grand kids one day. I guess I'll just have to hope I say the right things to those nasty, evil terrorists to make sure they attack the US and not Canada or Europe. Phew! (crosses fingers) Sure glad we're not involved. One of us might get killed. That wouldn't be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 lol... OK, ya dog.... Look, I'm not well educated, and I'm not the kind to pour over all the war stories in the newspapers, but I read a bit, and I see and learn... And I care. I once read a book once called "All Quiet On The Western Front" that was about WW1, and I couldn't help but be amazed, that after that mess, anyone could ever go to war again.... I read one recently called, "King Arthur The True Story" which, while attempting to find out just who exactly was this guy, (Probably a man named Owain Ddantgwyn who used the Bear on his shield - bear, in the old British language Brythonic (and in Welsh) is "Arth"...lots more evidence...sorry, sidetrack)... details a hell of a lot of war... it boggles the mind the history of death and slaughter in our world! To what end????? Are we any better off because the Angles and the Saxons eventually killed off most of the old Britts" Is the world a better place because the Spanish slaughtered the "Indians" in South and Central America? Are we somehow advantaged because the poppy's now grow in Flanders Field? Is there anyone who can tell me we'll have a peaceful world soon because we've beaten all the bad guys? I guess I am a bleeding heart, 'cause I just can't wrap my head around the thought that killing hordes of people is the right way to make things better. I think history will show all of this to be just more of the same kind of "dark ages" slaughter that only promotes more of the same. Maybe one day, two thousand years from now, people will look back on this and thank their lucky stars it happened this way, but I doubt it. I think it's much more likely that they'll be looking on all this as just more of the sad, sad lessons we never learned. Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 lol... OK, ya dog.... Look, I'm not well educated, and I'm not the kind to pour over all the war stories in the newspapers, but I read a bit, and I see and learn... And I care. I once read a book once called "All Quiet On The Western Front" that was about WW1, and I couldn't help but be amazed, that after that mess, anyone could ever go to war again.... I read one recently called, "King Arthur The True Story" which, while attempting to find out just who exactly was this guy, (Probably a man named Owain Ddantgwyn who used the Bear on his shield - bear, in the old British language Brythonic (and in Welsh) is "Arth"...lots more evidence...sorry, sidetrack)... details a hell of a lot of war... it boggles the mind the history of death and slaughter in our world! To what end????? Are we any better off because the Angles and the Saxons eventually killed off most of the old Britts" Is the world a better place because the Spanish slaughtered the "Indians" in South and Central America? Are we somehow advantaged because the poppy's now grow in Flanders Field? Is there anyone who can tell me we'll have a peaceful world soon because we've beaten all the bad guys? I guess I am a bleeding heart, 'cause I just can't wrap my head around the thought that killing hordes of people is the right way to make things better. I think history will show all of this to be just more of the same kind of "dark ages" slaughter that only promotes more of the same. Maybe one day, two thousand years from now, people will look back on this and thank their lucky stars it happened this way, but I doubt it. I think it's much more likely that they'll be looking on all this as just more of the sad, sad lessons we never learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 You are missing one very important point. There is no such thing as Iraqi people. Iraq is composed of many distinct people who only have the Islamic religion in common. Iraq was put together by the British without regards to the different sects living in it. So different peoples suddenly found themselves living in a unified country. How far back do you want to go? The Turkish Ottoman Empire ruled the land for years before the Brits. You say that the people who occupy the land called Iraq are not the same. They are not "one people". Do they not deserve the same rights and freedoms that we have come to observe as citizens of the west? You would prefer the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Husein and his clan to a government that can be freely chosen by the people? The Iraq war was 100% unecessary. It made the whole world a more dangerous place, for no reason at all. There were no justifiable reasons to attack that country. That's why 99% of the countries on the planet did not support the war. That's rich. No "justifiable reasons" to attack the country. That Saddam used Mustard Gas against his own people is not at issue. He did that. He killed religious factions who disagreed with his views en-masse. That can not be denied. He had and fomented a hatred of the West, not just the US, Canada is in the West too, that raised the hysteria that I would argue lead to the Sept. 11 attacks. He siphoned UN Oil for food/medicine money into his own coffers while letting the sick die parading them on TV to show how "Evil the West was" and how hard done by he was. He had been PAYING the families of martyr's who went to Israel and blew themselves up, killing innocent bystander's. That would seem like justification to me. I'll put the question to you. What would you have done different? Keep the sanctions? Write and angry letter to Saddam? Increase the boycott? Stand back and allow events to play out and be reactive? His army invaded Q8. The country was raped, pillaged and plundered. He destroyed thousands of Oil Wells creating havoc in the environment and untold damage to the land. Sanctions were applied. They were ignored. Inspectors went in and were rebuffed. What would YOU do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.