Toronto Freedonia's gone to war

Saddam, though a bastard, has gone forth exactly twice and lost both times (Iran and Kuwait)and was backed by the US the first time. They were uncomfortable allies until he went after Kuwait's oil, which galvanized the US. His attacks against his own people were ignored until he attacked Kuwait, and then the US, having secured Kuwait, retreated, imploring the Kurds to fight the fight themselves after promising support.

To compare him to Hitler is laughable at best and an equal, though distasteful, comparison could be made about Bush Jr. The man has opportunistically played upon the realistic fears of the American people after 9-11 to steal their constitutional rights one by one, attempted to invade their privavcy, and begun a policy of racial profiling against anyone of arabic descent. He has gathered his great weapon of war and used it against the perpetrators of 9-11 and failed, as he is entirely unable to find Osama Bin Laden. Much has been ballyhoed over the capture of one of Osama's lieutenants, except he is the same man they declared they had killed a year and a half ago. Using spurious arguement and outright lies he has convinced the American people and some of the people of the world that the invasion of a sovereign state as punishment for breaking UN resolutions is justified, though he is doing so unilaterally against the UN. Which begs the question how can one uphold the law when one does consider oneself beholden to that law.

Bush is man bent on forcing peace (worked in Ireland and Israel) and distracting his people from their economy and the failure of finding Bin Laden. By spending 70 billion dollars of taxpayer money he hopes to achieve the following:the world's most expensive R&D session for new weapons that no one is sure work; VP Cheny's company which broke UN resolutions to clean up IRaq after Gulf War 1 and made a fortune still have him on the payroll to the tune of $1 million a year, despite conflict of interest, and that company is the forerunner of the cleanup after this operation;by controlling Iraqi oil, Bush opens the door for US controlled companies to move in and take over, leveraging more control over world oil prices despite claims that the oil will be used by Iraq for Iraq after this conflict.

I am utterly and completely disgusted by this action which in the end, is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Robin T.

 

"For the last time please stop comparing Sadam Husein to Hitler. They are no where near the same. The conflicts are completely different. If they weren't I would be on the front line already"

That wasn't towards me was it?

"the stupidity of one American leader is his pathetic band of "yes" men, who are more of a threat to peace, freedom and liberty then anyone else in the world."

At the moment the only threat to peace is if we stop fighting. If Bush stops this war, will Saddam not see it as a weakness and strike again "while the enimy is down"? Will he not send over Chemical weapons?

Now is not the time to want the war to stop with out accomplishing what is nessary, now is the time to want that man killed and cheer Bush on. YES the man is a moron, and all this was more then likly staged, his election staged and so much more, but what we need now is that threat to humanity. He is hitting Quait because he can't send bombs to America.

Our Prime Minister is in the right to back off, this is no ones war but Bushes, a war that should have ended 12 years ago. But honestly Think about what would happen if we stopped.

I hate hearing about this war, I turn the radio, or TV off, and play a CD or a video game. But the threat of chemical warfare making its way to the United States, and maybe even Canada is keeping me on Bushes side here.

Princess Milo

 

Wolf writes: First of all the US is not going to control the government. After Saddam is gone a democratic state will be put in place that will be run by the IRAQI people! Not the US

Really? From what I understand, control of Iraq is to be given to an American General, and that it's impossible to tell how long the restoration of full soveriegnty will take *


---


Is the war about protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction? Sixteen other countries in the world have or might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have chemical weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological weapons, and 16 other countries have or might have missile systems. Yet the US has only swung its might against the one country with major oil reserves.

North Korea has nukes. By next year it will have lots more. North Korea has threatened a first strike on US.* Yet the Bush administration are willing to accept a nuclear North Korea. *. Not even the discovery of a North Korean warhead in Alaska warrents a moment of worry * yet they bend over backwords to try and draw a connection between Iraq and 9/11. *

Is the Bush administration acting to prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction? then you must ask are they being consistent in their policy? If a contridiction exists, kindly check your premise.

 

Good point Tragic.

Alright now, How about a sing'a'long in bad taste?



Clap your hands everybody!

If we cannot find Osama bomb Iraq!
If the markets hurt your mamma, bomb Iraq!
If the terrors are a Saudi-
And the bank takes back your Audi, and the TV shows are bawdy-
Bomb Iraq!

*Claps hands*

If the corporate scandals growing, bomb Iraq!
And your ties to them are showing, bomb Iraq!
If the smoking gun ain't smoking, that's okay and they're not joking-
That Saddam will soon be croaking-
Bomb Iraq!

*Claps hands*

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq!
From the sand dunes to the valley bomb Iraq!
So to hell with the inspections-
Let's look tough for the elections-
Close your mind and take directions!
Bomb Iraq!

*Claps hands*

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq!
Yay! The clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq!
If the ozone hole is growing-
Some things we prefer not knowing-
Though their ignorance is showing-
Bomb Iraq!

*Claps hands*

So here's one from dear old daddy. Bomb Iraq!
From his favourite little lady, bomb Iraq!
Saying "No" would look like treason-
Its the Saddam hunting season-
Even if we have no reason...

Bomb Iraq!

----------
Edit:

Think American grade schools would make it a school yard hit?

 

Normally I'd leave this argument in Rob's infinitely more articulate hands, but some things just scream to be rebutted, so here goes.

"Did you just read what you said? not any of the United States Bussness, who he was conquering If Hitler in WW2 keep conquring all of Europe but didn't touch the US did the US have the right to interfear? HELL YES! Just because a country being conqured does not affect the US does not mean it is right. It is dead wrong to do nothing."

Interesting. Very interesting point, esspecially considering it was JAPAN that brought the United States into the war, and that only happened because they attacked the US. Until then, the United States was perfectly happy to sit back and let Europe fight "It's own war." And please, Saddam is this generations' Hitler *snort* as if. number 1, Germany had the intent and means to carry out a military expansion of pretty much all of their surrounding countries, which just about everyone else ignored until they went to war. Iraq, may have the intent, but they sure as hell don't have the means to invade much right now, and cerntaily not to actually hold anything. Iraq is a crippled nation right now. Yes, they have a pretty large military as far as manpower goes, but they are running off of equipment that is falling apart, and has been for years. Number 2, Their people are starving, desperate, and most are terrified of a war because of how much civilian damage there was last time. This is not even close to being whipped into an expansionist frenzy like Germany was when war got mentioned. Sure, they might have been able to rebuild in the same way that Germany did, if they weren't under such crippling sanctions, but they haven't, and they aren't likely to get the chance. And let's remember that half of Europe was BEGGING the US to intervene before they finally got off their asses in WW2, whereas now, more than half the freaking world is begging the US to NOT intervene and add even more fuel to a fire in the middle east that's got a good chance of completely destabalizing the whole reigon for decades. Somebody get Jake in here to shut these Amateur historians up once and for all please.


"Sorry did you just say that? I don't think you can honestly say that supplying money to people who blow themselves up is a good thing and something a civilized country does."


Quite right, quite right. So when I say the United States, known for not only selling or just plain donating weapons to nations it is now, (or has been in recent years) fighting against, by that rationale I can also say that it puts them on equal footing with people who donate money to terrorists. They're not just giving them money, they're training them and arming them for goddess' sake. Who do you think helped the Taliban beat back the Russians? Beginning to see the hipocrasy yet?


"Now is not the time to want the war to stop with out accomplishing what is nessary, now is the time to want that man killed and cheer Bush on. YES the man is a moron, and all this was more then likly staged, his election staged and so much more, but what we need now is that threat to humanity. He is hitting Quait because he can't send bombs to America."


...so, we should support this war, even though we think the guy running it is as much a powerhungry zealot and warmonger as the guy he's fighting, simply because we like the other guy even less? Sorry, but lesser of two evils don't work when millions of lives are at stake and there is no bloody need to invade in the first place. What was Iraq doing when Dubya picked a fight with them...jack. Why? Because they're still under sanctions. I've heard people calling this a preemptive strike to remove an irresponsible government from power. I call it an illegal attack on a soverign nation, which, while I know Saddam is a sick monster, they still have no right to do based on International laws that they so freely ignore, yet expect everyone else to follow.

I've got more to say, but I have to run to class...to be continued

 

"Somebody get Jake in here to shut these these amateur historians up please?"

Ja Whul! I'll PM Jake to come hold your hand right away...

 

I'm not going to debate the merits of whether this is a just war. I don't think any war is just, personally, and I know that any attempts on my part to convince you of that will be just as lost on you as your attempts to try to convince me that it's a sound action.

So...people are going to die on every side, the economy will probably do some well-documented but unpleasant things, and...let's look to the future. What I want to touch upon is the impact this is going to have on the scope of the United Nations' role and international law at large. The fact that someone can just refute the UN concerns me. The fact that it's the US, who was the one major holdout for a permanent international court at the Hague...well, that concerns me too. We seem to be diplomatically regressing.

I'll assume everyone's versed in the major conundrums of international law - as those have definitely been bandied about of late - and why this puts everyone, internationally, in a difficult position. If not, I'll provide links/cite my sources like Rob does in a later post (by the way, thanks for that).

So...is an international governing/advisory body desirable? Do you think we can actually achieve that without compromising sovereignties, and do you think it would have been able to prevent the situation from decomposing this far?

What, exactly, do you think the future of the UN holds?

Thanks,

~L

 

I'll provide links/cite my sources like Rob does in a later post (by the way, thanks for that).

Hey, no problem.
It's a personal bee in my bonnet that more people don't. My feeling is, if you can't back up your opinion with facts, then maybe it's best to keep your opinion to yourself. You're on the freak'n Internet after all. Is it too much to ask for a couple Google searches prior to posting?

 

Quoting Sandwich: "Somebody get Jake in here to shut these Amateur historians up once and for all please."

LMAO! Thanks for the compliment bud, and Wil did notify me.

********

Ok, many of you see me as a cocky, young, upstart, punk. I'll take that role, and offer three things. 1) An explanation of Americans. 2) Historical comparisons. 3)The opinion of an American, taking Honours History at an acclaimed Canadian University.

1) Why are American's Americans? Why do they love war? Why do they have guns? This will answer all.

The Frontier Thesis: By Dr. Robert Flemming. (pretty sure it's Flemming)

Americans, throughout their history, have always needed guns in their possession for defense, and have always NEEDED war. Here's the facts:

1750's-60's-French and Indian Wars, Americans fight with British

1776 -American *WAR* of Independence.

1780-1810 Numerous conflicts with the Britishand then expansion into the Indian ridden Ohio Valley area. Settlers need guns to protect themselves from 'savages' and Imperial British threats.

1803-Jefferson completes Louisian Purchase, obtaining all land West of Mississippi River to Rockies for settlement from France

1812- War of 1812, again, the British.

1820- Grenada

1820-1860- 'Conquering' the West. Everyone's heard that term, interesting it was 'conquering', not 'settling'. Also, numerous conflicts with the Spanish in Mexico, including Poncho Villa, the Alamo, and the Rio Grande.

1861-1865 AMERICAN CIVIL WAR- This basically shaped the nation to come. In some of the border towns, one brother would go fight for the North, the other brother would go fight for the South, and they'd be shooting at each other the next day. If you can't trust you own brother, how would you feel?

1880-1904- With the rest of the major powers grabbing colonies, the US partakes a little, and gets the Panama Canal, Puerto Rico, and the Philipines from Spain in a lauckluster war.

1914-1918 US passenger ships are sunk, bringing America into WW1

1939-1945 - Revisionist history basically acknowledges that President had fore knowledge of Peal Harbour, and allowed it to get America into the war so they could fight GERMANY, THEN JAPAN. No one seems to remember that Roosevelt asked congress to decalre war during the Battle of Britain, but was rejected on isolationist grounds. He wanted war, and he got it.

1946-1989 COLD WAR - Another integral part of American ideology. "We have the best life can offer, and the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, to take it away from us."

1956-74 Vietnam War

1978-80 Iran hostage situation. ***Iraq was supported by the US to help against Iran. Saddam was on our side then. All those tanks he had in the Gulf War? Where do you think he got them?

1988- Grenada, again.

1990 Gulf War

2002- 911 American's aren't safe in their own territory.

The point of that is, now many of you can see, that America has always been in a state of 'near' war. Whether or not they should have been can be answered with their current state. They went from being a colonial possession, to the most powerful, economically and militaristcally, country in history. I'd say they were on the right path. These instances shaped the American psyche, making a psyche that is untrusting of other nations, and somewhat paranoid about defense. In their minds, guns/weapons/military = defense. That's why they are what they are.

No matter what anyone says about the US, the United States is the reason we're all NOT speaking German, or Russian right now. The US saved this world countless times over. Granted, they might have instigated some of those instances, but look where we are today. Look at yourself personally, and think of all you have to thank America for.

Hitler vs. Saddam?

Hitler's regime was LEGALLY ELECTED by a downtrodden, derpression ridden people. His slogan was "Bread and Freedom". For everything he did wrong, he also brought Germany from the depths of hell to a world power. He was Time Life Magazine's M

 

And in the Special Edition of Jake' narration, ILM will digitally insert an expanding ring of fire billowing towards the crowd.

 

Actually, I anticipate the SE Naration to include at least one instance of the Americans slaughtering all the Ronto that once used to roam the plains. Thanks Jake for that excellent reporting of the facts. There's only one thing I feel the need to comment on (and I'm sure you saw it coming).

I'm pragmatic. I'm logical. I know what I want, and I know what I have to do to survive in this world. If a bunch of little children die somewhere else to protect my lifestyle, that doesn't bother me.

If it's to protect my life or my rights - then it doesn't weigh as heavily on my conscience. But if it's just to protect my lifestyle... to see that I can have a colour tv, or a pair of Nikes, or be able to eat a fancy schmancy dinner at $50 a plate ...then it seriously, seriously bothers me.

Unfair, but necessary to ask hypothetical question: If someone said to you, the cost of gasoline is going to rise, costing you an additional $500 a year. However, you can avoid the extra $500... all you have to do is allow a child to have a limb be severed by a piece of searing hot metal. Would you pay the extra $500? The maiming of a child or your lifestyle - which will it be?

--

Force - too often - is the tool of the unimaginitive for solving problems. It's the quick and easy way of solving problems. Unless immediate or direct threats are facing us or others, I don't think that force should be brought into the equation. However I disagree with Cristalia that no war is just. No war is good - but sometimes there is a need for action.

What would constitute a just war?

• A war waged in defense of a direct and immediate threat.
  (e.g., Cobra's got a naval fleet heading towards LA with guns armed and ready. GI JOE's got every right to go out and blow up the ships before they can do much damage.)


• The primary goal of a just war should be to re-establish peace. The secondary goal of just war should be freedom and rights of the individual.
  (e.g. the Trade Federation invaded Naboo as a protest of taxes - not an example of just cause. The Gungans fought the droid army to help free the Naboo. That's just cause.)


• A just war must focus on military targets and reducing the oppositions ability to wage war. Civilians casualties must be avoided when possible.
  (e.g. When Gort, the robot, opened up on the US army, he focused his disintigration ray on the rifles, the howitzers and the tanks. Not once was the beam aimed at a person - only on the instruments of war.)


• for a war to be just, all non-violent means must be exhausted.
  (e.g., has anyone ever tried just talking to Godzilla? No. They just open up with their guns, and tanks, and laser tanks. Doesn't matter that he's saved the world from other giant monsters, assorted alien invaders, and evil folk from under the sea. Nope. They just start shooting away at the big guy on sight. Maybe -just maybe- if they offered him a bottle of sake, some sushi, and sat down to chat with him, they'd find he wasn't such a bad radioactive dinosaur after all.)

The current war doesn't meet these criteria. The threat is neither direct nor immediate - despite the lies and propaganda to the contrary - nor were all non-violent means exhausted. I'm willing to grant that there is an effort made to avoid civilian casualties - but I do not think that the establishing of peace nor the rights of the Iraqi people are truly a part of the equation. Simply afterthoughts that may or may not come to pass at the whim of the Bush Administration.

---

What does the future hold for the UN... too soon to tell, I think.

 

Good points, Tragic. All of them, good points. That's what I was trying to elude to with the whole "sham" thing. But you were able to articulate it better...not surprising, in the least.

In answer to your hypothetical question, no I wouldn't ask that.....for $500. But I would ask that if it meant my colour tv, my computer, my car, my refridgerator, my CD player, my DVD player, and my XBOX were in jeopardy.

And, this is not meant to be rude, as I totally respect your opinion, but I have to fire a hypothetical back at you:

Would you have a child maimed in another country, or even 10, or 20 children, if it meant your child would be safe?

This war is "pre-emptive security", which is even a step further. Would you have children in another coutry hurt if it was meant to secure your children from the *possibility* of being hurt themselves?

Evidently, the vast majority of Americans would.

 

I'd forgo the $500. I'd be willing to pay double - triple for my computer/PS2 and tv if it would mean freedom and opportunity for another. I am a capitalist. I trade production for produce of comparitive value. My buying power might drop if all goods were actually traded for comparitive value instead of gained through looting and at the point of the gun. But that's something I'd be willing to bear.

But if it were the safety of my wife or my child... then yes. One. Ten. A hundred. If it is my family at risk then all the world can be damned.

As for 'pre-emptive security'...
I value reason and freedom over any promise of safety. What good is safety if you aren't free to enjoy it? If reason and logic and objective facts are not the means for doling out 'justice', then what safety can I or anyone else expect to have?

 

Tragic, Sandwich, Jakey-boy: Just wanted to say that I've been reading your post on ye old war, and I want to thank you all for displaying your ideas and opinions in mature and thoughtful ways. You don't all agree on every little point, but I think it's cool that you're not getting irritated with each other the way others on this and other message boards are.

Though this is clearly a subject where emotions invariably get raised, I think it's great that you guys can do it without the typical mudslinging and the ubiquitious "If you don't agree with me, you're just stupid" stance taken by so many others.

Jake already knows, but many of you are unaware that I co-host a fairly popular radio program on Toronto's CFRB Newstalk Radio (1010 AM). The usual spin is the paranormal and supernatural, but tonight, in lieu of world events, the show will have an angle on the war in Iraq.

If you're interested in listening in, the program airs tonight 9pm to midnight.

 

There's an interesting point I thought I'd make here.....

Sandwich has stated above his feelings on this war. However, his feelings in this instance seem to negate his signature.....



What the dilly-yo?

 

Sandwich's sig line only applies in the case of giant robots.


If we gave Saddam and a bunch of his boys some giant mechs, and had them go toe to toe with Bush n' crew in their own mechs, not only could we solve this whole mess without any civilian casualties, but from the proceeds of ticket sales, we could guarantee an ice cream bar for every man, woman and child on this planet of ours.

 

Bush and Saddam playing Battletech...

Hmmmm. I'd put Saddam in a Vulture Mech with jump jets and double heat sinks.

Have Bush hide behind a +3 elevation and lob LRM's over the tree line...



The best way to peace is through customizable card games...

 

And you call yourselves geeks...:

Cheney ->Emperor Palpatine
Dubya ->Maul
Rumsfeld ->Tarkin
Blair ->Jar Jar
Powell ->Vader?
Saddam ->Dooku
Osama ->Nute

Folks, this whole thing has been in the planning stages for ever. The liitle group of politicains and Corp CEO's want a hegemony of American dominance. They didn't get it really going under Bush the first, then that clown Valorum, er, Clinton got in, and they had to work like crazy to make anything stick to get him out so the conquest could continue. Then they finangled Dubya in, then Naboo was blockaded, er 911, and everybody supported Dubya. Then Nute gets off, and we find a new villan.

Next up, intergalactic clone war.

Iraq will be long, drawn out and it will spred. Remember the Techno Union, Galactic Banking Clan. Iran, North Korea. The AXIS OF EVIL? This is far from over. They want an Empire. Just be happy we live on Alderaan, a peacful planet with no weapons...

Aw crap.

 

ROTFLMAO!

Chris, thank you for putting it into proper perspective.

So... um... does this make Michael Moore Princess Leia? "Govenor Bush, I should have recognized your foul stench the moment I was brought aboard"

 

Here's an idea for Bush and Sadam. Give each other a BIG HUG!!!

Listen guys, regardless of whether the war is just or not I think we can all agree that it needs to end ASAP. The sooner it is resolved the sooner we can find peace again. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, its happening. People are going to and have died.

I think a resolution is best for everyone. Take this thread for example. By the looks of things Wolf and myself don't get along. Yet yesterday, we laughed together and had a great time. We forgot about the issues and shared a collective interest in FanForce, despite the fact we don't agree. I know that we can't get everyone to agree all the time, but indifference can be a more detramental catalyst to war then Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I just hope that like Wolf and myself others can find the ability to set aside person conflicts and just get along. It makes a better world in my mind.

Then again I could be wrong. ?

 

Couldn't have said it any better James.

Lets end this war as fast as possible.

 

Interesting little bit from Neil Gaiman's blog:

Thursday, March 20th -

I turned on the news.

Male newsreader: "It looks -- for now -- like the Iraqui missiles have stopped dropping on Kuwait, although the all-clear sirens haven't sounded. Tonight should see the beginning of Operation Shock and Awe."

Female Newsreader: "And the Big Question on Everybody's Lips is -- How will all this affect the Oscars?"

Male newsreader (realising that this may be a slight gaffe, trying to fix it): "Er, the big Entertainment Question, you mean."

Female Newsreader (irritated at being interrupted): "Well, it's all we're thinking about in LA."

I turned off the news at that point, feeling like I was living in a rather broadly written satire...
------------------------------

Speaking of which, did everyone else watch Micheal Moore's acceptance speech last night? I don't think I've ever had an acceptance speech by anyone make me smile like that...bravo, Mr. Moore, bravo.

And yes Leah, I'm really hoping the UN manages to take over the rebuilding effort away from the "coalition" (gotta love how when three countries are against them as a common enemy, they call it an "Axis", but when they're part of such a triumverate, it's a "coalition") so that we can avoid the same mess we now have in Afganistan, where a great many people are no better off (or even worse off) since the US took charge, than they were during the Taliban rule...4 of whom, in case anyone has forgotten, were Canadians.

And yeah, Jake, my sig line being what it is in this thread is a shining example of irony...but until we're all fighting with Giant Mecha, I think I'll hold off on the brute force theory for politics.

 

I have little to comment on this war, other than I myself, think it's completly usless. Bush see's the world as a school yard, and he's just a big bully.

My little tidbit though is to tell you all to check out a french website I'm advertising. http://www.bretzelsforbush.com

Basicly they are sending pretzels to bush...

 

The war ain't over till the Bob Hope sings...

 

Personally, I'd like to see saddam and bush get into a wrestling ring, and duke it out. No weapons, just fists!

Yet that'll never happen.....