Why didn't Canada join in an uneccessary war?

[geoffrey]

We won't have to worry about the war soon if bush keeps spending money he will tank the economy.

Do you realise what percentage of the US economy is defense spending? Obviously not.

The problem doesn't sit with the war spending. It sits with the fact that rest of the world is doing dick-all in rebuilding the country and that Bush is pursuing a socially liberal agenda at home.

I really wish you wouldn't value people's freedom with how much it costs the yanks. At least they are doing something, what have we done for oppressed groups in the last 25 years?

[tml12]

We won't have to worry about the war soon if bush keeps spending money he will tank the economy.

Do you realise what percentage of the US economy is defense spending? Obviously not.

The problem doesn't sit with the war spending. It sits with the fact that rest of the world is doing dick-all in rebuilding the country and that Bush is pursuing a socially liberal agenda at home.

I really wish you wouldn't value people's freedom with how much it costs the yanks. At least they are doing something, what have we done for oppressed groups in the last 25 years?

Oppressed groups???

Geoffrey, we must drink our Molson Canadians and submit to Canada's Liberal elite...let those evil yanks take the blame for it all...

[geoffrey]

Do you realise what percentage of the US economy is defense spending? Obviously not.

The problem doesn't sit with the war spending. It sits with the fact that rest of the world is doing dick-all in rebuilding the country and that Bush is pursuing a socially liberal agenda at home.

I really wish you wouldn't value people's freedom with how much it costs the yanks. At least they are doing something, what have we done for oppressed groups in the last 25 years?

Oppressed groups???

Geoffrey, we must drink our Molson Canadians and submit to Canada's Liberal elite...let those evil yanks take the blame for it all...

I'll take a Molson over public stoning most days. Though not after Stampede week, then I'd much rather take the stoning...

[Montgomery Burns]

Speaker:

When one loses all sense of perspective what does one look at?

The CBC and Toronto Star, of course.

[GostHacked]

We won't have to worry about the war soon if bush keeps spending money he will tank the economy.

Do you realise what percentage of the US economy is defense spending? Obviously not.

The problem doesn't sit with the war spending. It sits with the fact that rest of the world is doing dick-all in rebuilding the country and that Bush is pursuing a socially liberal agenda at home.

I really wish you wouldn't value people's freedom with how much it costs the yanks. At least they are doing something, what have we done for oppressed groups in the last 25 years?

Iraq is not safe yet for 'nation building' Why should other countries go help? They were not the ones who fucked the place up in the first place.

And most of you are right, this is a dead horse, keep beating it. The invasion of Iraq was wrong.

NEXT UP, in 5 years we talk about how invading Iran was wrong.

[Insom Elvis]

Innocent people died, we killed the killers and reports say we killed innocent people as well, that makes our actions difficult to justify, but what do we do now that we're there? If we abandon Iraq now, the tyrants will resume control and have a hell of a lot of U.S. supports executed. Remember seeing them on t.v. along with our boys, pulling down statues and whatnot? They wont last a day if we pull out now. What alternative do you suggest?

[BHS]

We need to keep removing the dictators we formely supported.

During the Cold War. Keep it in historical context. For instance, how many dictators enjoy the open support of the American government at present? (I qualified the statement because if I made it absolute I know someone would come back at me with third hand information about CIA operations in one of the 'stans. And I'm not in the mood to follow links to conspiracy websites at the moment.) You just know that Chimpy wants a Hitleresque playmate for the sandbox he had installed in the Rose Garden.

I don't think there's any evidence to show the new Iraq will eb a huge improvement in either living standards or human rights. Unless you expect great things from a semi-radical Islamic regime tied to Iran?

As for Saddam's Iraq being a huge destabalizing force in the region: it wasn't. But Iraq today most definietely is.

Again, context. Post 1991 Iraq wasn't a destabalizing force in the region because the most powerful military force on Earth kept constant vigilence to prevent it from regaining it's military footing. If the Americans had left policing the ceasefire agreement to the Eurocrowd Iraq would have been back up to speed and menacing every nation within Scud distance before the end of the 90's.

Now, explain to me how a country, "ravaged" by the evil Amerikkkan Armed Forces and on the verge of civil war by your estimation, is more of a threat to it's neighbours than pre-1990 Iraq was.

[BHS]

Based on your post here, I wonder when "The Coalition of the Willing" will be paying a visit to Darfur or any of the other number of places that sound exactly like Iraq, but without the oil of course.

So, if I may clarify: the "legality", and the morality, of a country intervening militarily into the affairs of another is entirely dependant upon whether or not the intervenor stands to gain economically from the action. You accuse the other side of reasoning this way without any evidence, and then turn the reasoning on it's head and claim it as your own. Interesting. You're willing to argue that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and immoral on any number of grounds despite the humanitarian issues, but that an invasion into Sudan under identical conditions is perfectly acceptible because the US stands to gain nothing? (You're wrong, by the way: Sudan has enormous oil wealth, and it hasn't made a bit of difference. Perhaps you think a military incursion would go straight into Darfur and leave the oil-rich part of the country inhabited by the putative aggressors untouched. Which, by the way, would suit China just fine, speaking of countries that base their Security Council approval on how it affects them economically.)

[BHS]

NEXT UP, in 5 years we talk about how invading Iran was wrong.

More likely, we'll be talking about how we should have invaded Iran before it got nukes, and since the mullahs' nukular fatwa the Yanks have decided to screen every vehicle crossing the border for radiation, and we'll marvel at what a huge surge in our economy that this has brought, and then we'll laugh at how cleverly sarcastic we can be when we're starving.

And, likely, we'll blame former President Bush for getting the US tied up in Iraq which, as stable as it is, was never as much of a problem as the Republican neocon racist warmongers made it out to be. I mean, it was obvious all along that Iran was the real problem. And we'll probably blame Hamas' use of intentional starvation as a political tool on him too. That is, before the Egyptians finally drove the Gaza Palestinians into the Mediteranean to almost no one's surprise.

[Black Dog]

During the Cold War. Keep it in historical context. For instance, how many dictators enjoy the open support of the American government at present? (I qualified the statement because if I made it absolute I know someone would come back at me with third hand information about CIA operations in one of the 'stans. And I'm not in the mood to follow links to conspiracy websites at the moment.) You just know that Chimpy wants a Hitleresque playmate for the sandbox he had installed in the Rose Garden.

How about Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Uzbekistan (who's president shoots unarmed protesters and bolis dissidents alive and was, until very recently, a recipient of millions of dollars of U.S. aid and military assitsance and a host of a important U.S. military base). Egypt. Kuwait. Colombia. Haiti. There's probably more, but I think that proves my point.

Again, context. Post 1991 Iraq wasn't a destabalizing force in the region because the most powerful military force on Earth kept constant vigilence to prevent it from regaining it's military footing. If the Americans had left policing the ceasefire agreement to the Eurocrowd Iraq would have been back up to speed and menacing every nation within Scud distance before the end of the 90's.

You're pretty selective wih your context. Prior to 1991, Iraq wasn't much of a destablizing force. the Iran Iraq war was a blunder (spurred on by the U.S., who sought to destabalize the Iranian regime). The subsequent invasion of Kuwait occurred within the context of the Iran Iraq conflict. So really, in 25 years, Iraq invaded two countries, which is as many as Reagan.

Now, explain to me how a country, "ravaged" by the evil Amerikkkan Armed Forces and on the verge of civil war by your estimation, is more of a threat to it's neighbours than pre-1990 Iraq was.

Instability in Iraq Threatens the whole region. If a full scale civil war broke out, you'd see Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia embroiled in short order. Instability, political and military strife is far harder to control and contain than the rigid structur eof Saddam's dictatorship.

[moderateamericain]

blackdog you wrote:

Instability in Iraq Threatens the whole region. If a full scale civil war broke out, you'd see Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia embroiled in short order. Instability, political and military strife is far harder to control and contain than the rigid structur eof Saddam's dictatorship.

GOOD, let them all blow eachother up, then we will have an easier time dominating them all

[Black Dog]

blackdog you wrote:

Instability in Iraq Threatens the whole region. If a full scale civil war broke out, you'd see Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia embroiled in short order. Instability, political and military strife is far harder to control and contain than the rigid structur eof Saddam's dictatorship.

GOOD, let them all blow eachother up, then we will have an easier time dominating them all

What: you think you'll enjoy paying $25 a gallon at the pump?

[moderateamericain]

blackdog you wrote:

Instability in Iraq Threatens the whole region. If a full scale civil war broke out, you'd see Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia embroiled in short order. Instability, political and military strife is far harder to control and contain than the rigid structur eof Saddam's dictatorship.

GOOD, let them all blow eachother up, then we will have an easier time dominating them all

What: you think you'll enjoy paying $25 a gallon at the pump?

True enough

[CanadianBeaver]

I think that it was useful that we didn't join the Iraq war because the Americans are stealing the only source of money that generates in Iraq, but you Americans will say that 'we went to catch Saddam' and that's not true for millions of reasons and Stephen Harper said about 1-2 years ago that the Iraq invasion by the U.S. was 'wrong to do'. So in conclusion to my reply to this topic, I say that it was unnessecary to join the U.S. and G.B. in the so-called "Iraqi Freedom". And in conclusion, Operation: Iraqi Freedom was a total waste of soldiers for the U.S. because many American soldiers are getting killed in Iraq because they want their own "Iraqi Freedom" from the Americans and the British soldiers.

[BHS]

blackdog you wrote:

Instability in Iraq Threatens the whole region. If a full scale civil war broke out, you'd see Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia embroiled in short order. Instability, political and military strife is far harder to control and contain than the rigid structur eof Saddam's dictatorship.

GOOD, let them all blow eachother up, then we will have an easier time dominating them all

What: you think you'll enjoy paying $25 a gallon at the pump?

True enough

Okay, let me get this straight: American meddling in the Middle East will lead to a regional conflagration, and shut down local oil production. Meaning what, a 25% drop in global oil production at most? And this leads to a tenfold increase in price? I know you're being facetious, but come on.

This is all assuming, of course, that a conflict involving the entire Middle East won't quickly spread to Europe and Asia, meaning global war and a shutdown of the global oil market, meaning that North America learns to

live on Canadian oil production alone. From an eco-warrior standpoint, isn't that a good thing?

[Black Dog]

Okay, let me get this straight: American meddling in the Middle East will lead to a regional conflagration, and shut down local oil production. Meaning what, a 25% drop in global oil production at most? And this leads to a tenfold increase in price? I know you're being facetious, but come on.

What's so hard to believe?

This is all assuming, of course, that a conflict involving the entire Middle East won't quickly spread to Europe and Asia, meaning global war and a shutdown of the global oil market, meaning that North America learns to live on Canadian oil production alone. From an eco-warrior standpoint, isn't that a good thing?

How would the potyential collapse of the global economy (on top of the potential loss of millions of lives) be viewed as a good thing from any perspective?

[BHS]

Okay, let me get this straight: American meddling in the Middle East will lead to a regional conflagration, and shut down local oil production. Meaning what, a 25% drop in global oil production at most? And this leads to a tenfold increase in price? I know you're being facetious, but come on.

What's so hard to believe?

This is all assuming, of course, that a conflict involving the entire Middle East won't quickly spread to Europe and Asia, meaning global war and a shutdown of the global oil market, meaning that North America learns to live on Canadian oil production alone. From an eco-warrior standpoint, isn't that a good thing?

How would the potyential collapse of the global economy (on top of the potential loss of millions of lives) be viewed as a good thing from any perspective?

It just seems sometimes that the extreme left is hoping for any and all catastrophes, so that their doomy prognostications are proved correct and all the non-nutters are taught a big important lesson. That's the subtext I'm getting from a lot of posts.

[Black Dog]

It just seems sometimes that the extreme left is hoping for any and all catastrophes, so that their doomy prognostications are proved correct and all the non-nutters are taught a big important lesson. That's the subtext I'm getting from a lot of posts.

Works the other way too, y'know.