[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
This argument is totally garbage, as the french government could stop these countries from doing business. and the french government is the one whining to get the sanctions lifted so the french oil companies can put the contracts they already have signed with iraq into effect.

Further more if you want to place a distinction between government and companies, how can you say the US is in this for oil money? After all there is a difference between companies and government, at least according to you.

For informationon how french and russian oil companies pushed heavily on goverment to stall at the UN, see

http://usainreview.com/1_21_Security_Council.htm

Cronyism exists on both sides of the Atlantic



It also helps to know that while IBM did help the nazi's it was IBM's maneuvering and scheming to hide this fact from the US govermentthat allowed this to happen. Their were numerous investigations on this at the time, and it was only later that IBM was forced to admit that they were invovled with Germany.

http://www.acsa2000.net/ibm_and_hitler.htm

Not like today where the companies are blatantly trying to get a piece of the oil pie and keep saddam in power.

Sorry, but you dont read the links i was sending. Showing the involvement of many US Companies during the last 12 years and also their involvement in producing weapons of mass destruction before 1991. So in your words the french government could stop french companies but didnt and the US Government couldnt stop their companies?

As far as i see it companies from almost every nation in the western world are involved in Iraq so your argument french companies are involved with iraq and therefor the french government supports Iraq is not true or do you want to suggest the US government supports the iraqi government?

[BkueKanoodle]

I never argued that US companies weren't involved. Instead my rebuttal was to point out that the left seems to think that this war is about us going in to make war for oil money, while they are perfectly willing to let other countries go in for oil money AND support a murdering dictator. Because allowing a dicator who has done the things he has done to continue to rule IS supporting him. During the times of racial segration in the US, the whites who stayed silent were just as guilty as those who enforced those laws. In Nazi germany, the cirtizens who sat by and let the killings continue supported it with their silence. Silence makes a powerful statement.

Why is the US evil for freeing a country and making a lot of money, but the european powers who oppose us are "the good guys" for making just as much money and letting the continued massacre of the iraqi people go on in the process?

Both sides are gointo take advantage of this financially no matter which way it plays out. Isn't it better to at least get the bonus of removing Saddam from power and freeing the iraqi people?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
Why is the US evil for freeing a country and making a lot of money, but the european powers who oppose us are "the good guys" for making just as much money and letting the continued massacre of the iraqi people go on in the process?

Because, AFAICT, the US is also killing Iraqis, and, playing the moral card, should be held to slightly higher standards than the government they're bombing for allegedly humanitarian reasons.

-s*

[BkueKanoodle]

Yes iraqi's are dieing,and thats horrible, but Saddam is killing many more. So again I ask why is the US evil for removing a dictator who has slaughtered over 1 million of his own people. I suppose the world should have let hitler keep killing the jews for fear of killing germans?

[villalobos]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
Yes iraqi's are dieing,and thats horrible, but Saddam is killing many more. So again I ask why is the US evil for removing a dictator who has slaughtered over 1 million of his own people. I suppose the world should have let hitler keep killing the jews for fear of killing germans?

yeah yeah, but the removal of Saddam is just a fortunate and convenient byproduct for Dubbya. The US are not in Iraq just to free the Iraquis. They are after the so-called WMD, whatever they are. But for PR reasons, that's called Operation Freedom Iraq, And the fact is that the US attacked a country which was not at war with them. That's called an aggression. Time will tell how warranted this was.

Villa

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
I never argued that US companies weren't involved. Instead my rebuttal was to point out that the left seems to think that this war is about us going in to make war for oil money, while they are perfectly willing to let other countries go in for oil money AND support a murdering dictator. Because allowing a dicator who has done the things he has done to continue to rule IS supporting him. During the times of racial segration in the US, the whites who stayed silent were just as guilty as those who enforced those laws. In Nazi germany, the cirtizens who sat by and let the killings continue supported it with their silence. Silence makes a powerful statement.

Why is the US evil for freeing a country and making a lot of money, but the european powers who oppose us are "the good guys" for making just as much money and letting the continued massacre of the iraqi people go on in the process?

Both sides are gointo take advantage of this financially no matter which way it plays out. Isn't it better to at least get the bonus of removing Saddam from power and freeing the iraqi people?

you raise some valid questions, but IMHO, the fact that certain companies connected to those in charge of this operation are already lining up to reap the financial benefits before the war is even successfully completed implies that those arrangements were previously agreed upon among the powerful behind closed doors before the war was even begun. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck.....

Regardless, financial considerations aside, My personal contention has never been that Saddam was a wonderful guy, but my contention, which is now proving true, unfortunately, is that once we cross the line from pure defensive or protective military actions and go to pre-emptive incursions without significant global support, that we have crossed a very dangerous line. Dangerous in that the world will wonder at what point we will stop. Since I've said that I see we are threatening Syria and Iran and other nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well, as I feared we would.

I simply don't like MY country taking this ethical detour into "regime changing" countries not run to its liking. It is ironic as I type this, CNN is profiling Woolsey's speech today about WWIV.

World War Four? WTF?

[itai195]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
Yes iraqi's are dieing,and thats horrible, but Saddam is killing many more. So again I ask why is the US evil for removing a dictator who has slaughtered over 1 million of his own people. I suppose the world should have let hitler keep killing the jews for fear of killing germans?

Hah, they probably would have. Hitler only became an enemy when he started killing Poles. And even then, nobody really did anything to help the Jews (including the US).

If there's one thing the international community has shown, it's that we are willing to talk the talk when it comes to human rights violations, but we are not willing to actually do anything about them. I don't think that we have to intervene militarily all the time, but Saddam Hussein has been in power for 25 years. How many more years have to pass before we've had enough?

[thunderous_funker]

"We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."--Dubya in response to a question by Sam Donaldson in an interview during the 2000 campaign.

The genocide in Iraq happened at the height of our economic and diplomatic support of the Ba'ath regime, even though it's now used as an excuse by the same men who watched it happen and did nothing back then.

Everbody loves to talk the talk, but when it comes to walking....

France took a totally rejectionist position at the UN and I think they deserve criticism for it. It was wrongheaded and a gross miscalculation.

But that doesn't mean they are automatically guilty of supporting the status quo. In fact, their support of 1441 (and everyone else's) clearly shows that the status quo was unacceptable to just about everyone.

What people keep forgetting in all of this is the vast amount of options between status quo and invasion/occupation. Anyone who has characterized this debate as a choice between one or the other is clearly doing so in service of some other agenda.

[itai195]

Yup, by no means meant to suggest that the US had a flawless record either. There are lots of examples to point to... I'd have to say that getting involved in a regional, violent conflict is an entirely different situation from Iraq. Stopping the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda would have been much more difficult, for example, than providing more help for Jews escaping the Holocaust. The US didn't help European Jews because the depression had brought about a huge upsurge in xenophobia.

I also don't mean to suggest that an invasion was the only solution to this crisis. Inspections were clearly never meant to be a path towards regime change unless they failed. While inspections were certainly a nice departure from the status quo, from the perspective of human rights, I'm not sure even successful inspections would have led us down the correct path. They were a solution to a different problem.

There are a lot of issues at play here; my point is that very little of the discussion is motivated by human rights concerns. In stark contrast, and though I stand to be flamed for saying it, discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is motivated by human rights concerns almost exclusively for many individuals.

[Troll]

Originally posted by villalobos:
But for PR reasons, that's called Operation Freedom Iraq

Actually, it's Operation Iraqi Freedom. Apparently, it was going to be Operation Iraqi Liberation until they realised the acronym would be OIL!

[Sarah31]

as far as i am concerned playing any human rights card is a joke. no country is free of human rights abuses. Even countries such as Canada still abuse human rights and deaths do result from it. perhaps not as many en masse or brutal deaths that have taken place in Iraq or Rwanda but when you stretch it out over the history of the nation the number of deaths or violations are staggering.

in the end what ever action a country takes to elieviate another's human rights abuses (or genocides) is politaclly dicated not morally. Why else did it take so long to step into the fray in countries such as bosnia or rwanada? both countries offer neither strategic alliances nor significant resources. a sad fact but if you cut it down to the base reasons why no actions are taken and that is what you arrive at.

[clarkgoble]

Sarah: ...in the end what ever action a country takes to elieviate another's human rights abuses (or genocides) is politaclly dicated not morally. Why else did it take so long to step into the fray in countries such as bosnia or rwanada?

Wow. You honestly think that because there are some human rights abuses in Canada or the US that it puts those nations on the same moral ground as Ruwanda or Iraq? Degree doesn't enter in at all? Nor does the response of the government/people towards human rights abuses?

Heaven knows there have been abuses in the US. But typically there are lawsuits over those abuses. People go to jail. The system tries to avoid them. In Iraq it was systemic abuse on its population condoned and sponsored by the government. Further the abuses were far worse than anything done the past 50 years in either Canada or the US.

To not be able to judge the extent of human rights abuses or worse just that as irrelevant tends to undermine your entire position.

As for why it took the US so long to intervene in Bosnia or Ruwanda I think it is somewhat complex. Remember that Somalia had just taken place. So there was a strong loathing to intervene militarily - especially if there wasn't already strong opinion for it. We also had a politician in office who was more directed by popularity than principle. (IMO) But, as I've said in other threads, I think Clinton was very misguided in his actions in Ruwanda and that a lot of those deaths ought to be laid at his head.

For Bosnia it was a trickier situation. The US felt that because it was transpiring in Europe that Europe should have taken the lead role. It intervened late and even then with some misgivings. It ended up being successful. Probably they should have intervened earlier. But at the same time one really ought to ask why Europe didn't do more and do it earlier.

To that I think Europe, for all its complaints of the US, really expects the US to be the "bad cop" while they are the good cop. They didn't know how to handle the trend of the US getting out of international endeavors after Somalia. Further the European political game only really works when the US is being its typical self. European powers prefer to discuss things a lot before acting, regardless of the cost. They also prefer making economic ties rather than military action.

One has to give Europe credit. They did finally intervene. And there is a great deal of ignorance in the US regarding how much they did do. But at the same time it can't be seen as Europe's finest hour.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm surprised you seem to think that a different president would have acted much differently towards Rwanda. Dubya's answer is clear enough.

I think what Sarah is saying (and I agree with her) is that even when politicians invoke the Humanitarian justification, they are really motivated by interest.

When it suits our interests, we will intervene in humanitarian crises. When it doesn't, we won't.

I don't think that can be disputed historically. Perhaps you can argue that the new Bush Doctrine marks a departure from that kind of realpolitik (in rhetoric at least) but I don't think it does. We are embarking on a "humanitarian" cause in Iraq because it suits our interests.

[itai195]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

When it suits our interests, we will intervene in humanitarian crises. When it doesn't, we won't.

Basically that's my point to. At a personal level, I'm happy we are intervening in Iraq, if only because personally I'd like to see the humanitarian situation resolved.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itai195:
Basically that's my point to. At a personal level, I'm happy we are intervening in Iraq, if only because personally I'd like to see the humanitarian situation resolved.

I can see that. I just happen to think we could have achieved our humanitarian goals differently. In fact, I think that might have led to a better means of effecting the political/strategic change that we wanted as well.

[mikerally]

We are embarking on a "humanitarian" cause in Iraq because it suits our interests.

I would actually start to respect Bush if he just came out and said that.

How about just dropping the whole libersation thing altogther - I don't think it's valid arguement - I would have even supported this war if he just stuck to the WMD arguement and nothing else - but as soon as a politician starts to try taking the moral highground I start to smell the stink of bullsh*t - it's an insult to our intelligence really, we all know Bush is embarking on this "humanitarian" cause it suits his interests, anyone who'd think otherwise is naieve.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by mikerally:
I would actually start to respect Bush if he just came out and said that.

How about just dropping the whole libersation thing altogther - I don't think it's valid arguement - I would have even supported this war if he just stuck to the WMD arguement and nothing else - but as soon as a politician starts to try taking the moral highground I start to smell the stink of bullsh*t - it's an insult to our intelligence really, we all know Bush is embarking on this "humanitarian" cause it suits his interests, anyone who'd think otherwise is naieve.

I think this is part of why many Americans find Blair to be more persuasive and convincing on the issue of justification. Bush tipped his hand way too early about "regime change" (in fact I believe he advocated regime change before the issue of disarmament even came up) and that led to a lot of credibility issues when he tried to talk about anything else.

[mikerally]

I think this is part of why many Americans find Blair to be more persuasive and convincing on the issue of justification. Bush tipped his hand way too early about "regime change" (in fact I believe he advocated regime change before the issue of disarmament even came up) and that led to a lot of credibility issues when he tried to talk about anything else.

Blair is guilty of taking the moral highground too...

The only reason why I respect him is because he actually put his money where his mouth is and said he was prepared to step down from his position if the parliament didn't back him in a vote just before the war - and believe me it was pretty risky a lot of people were against him, something like a quarter of the parliament voted against him in the end, but the threat looked a lot bigger.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by mikerally:
Blair is guilty of taking the moral highground too...

The only reason why I respect him is because he actually put his money where his mouth is and said he was prepared to step down from his position if the parliament didn't back him in a vote just before the war - and believe me it was pretty risky a lot of people were against him, something like a quarter of the parliament voted against him in the end, but the threat looked a lot bigger.

That's why I said more persuasive (than Bush). It's a matter of degree or comparison, not an endorsement

Blair has "stayed on message" better than Bush, whose rhetoric has ranged from open advocacy of CIA assassination, need for UN solidariy, every minute we wait another 9/11 is closer to happening, God wants us to do it, won't somone please think of the children, etc

[shmerek]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Sarah: ...in the end what ever action a country takes to elieviate another's human rights abuses (or genocides) is politaclly dicated not morally. Why else did it take so long to step into the fray in countries such as bosnia or rwanada?

Wow. You honestly think that because there are some human rights abuses in Canada or the US that it puts those nations on the same moral ground as Ruwanda or Iraq? Degree doesn't enter in at all? Nor does the response of the government/people towards human rights abuses?

Heaven knows there have been abuses in the US. But typically there are lawsuits over those abuses. People go to jail. The system tries to avoid them. In Iraq it was systemic abuse on its population condoned and sponsored by the government. Further the abuses were far worse than anything done the past 50 years in either Canada or the US.

To not be able to judge the extent of human rights abuses or worse just that as irrelevant tends to undermine your entire position.

The US and Canada (to some extent) were founded on the genocide of the North American aborigines.

[theolein]

As for the original direction of this thread, Chirac has since officially apologised to the UK on behalf of the French people and condemned the actions. Doesn't really mean much, since Chirac is walking the edge between placating the US/UK and keeping France's stand on the war and the UN.

[Sarah31]

Wow. You honestly think that because there are some human rights abuses in Canada or the US that it puts those nations on the same moral ground as Ruwanda or Iraq? Degree doesn't enter in at all? Nor does the response of the government/people towards human rights abuses?

If the govenmnet or people fail to act in rectifying the rights abuse what makes it different than what Rwanda or Iraq does? Many people in those nations are powerless to act against the groups/governments that perpetrate the abuses. In Canada, which is all I can speak for, most people acknowledge the abuses but do nothing. Our government acknowledges abuses but allows them. In fact aboriginals, the most widely abused group, remain the largest population in our prisons. While indeed many of these people have committed crimes how is it that the significantly smaller population of aboriginals make up the majority of the incarcerated? Simple it is far easier for a white man to get less or no punishment simple because they are white or because they can afford the lawyers that can get them off.

In Saskatoon in just the last few years those sworn to protect ALL Canadian citizens have chosen to take drunken aboriginals out of city limits on the coldest of days and leave them to freeze to death or nearly to death. Should this be condoned? Are you telling me that those people's lives are worth less than anyone else's?

Degrees of abuse mean nothing. In the eyes of the law ALL abuse is illegal. How much of it you commit decides your punishment but in the eyes of the law you are a criminal regardless.

Heaven knows there have been abuses in the US. But typically there are lawsuits over those abuses. People go to jail. The system tries to avoid them. In Iraq it was systemic abuse on its population condoned and sponsored by the government. Further the abuses were far worse than anything done the past 50 years in either Canada or the US.

Imagine being a aboriginal in Canada in let say the thirties or forties. You are living way up north away from all of the big cities. You can move about your reserve and the out lying area without impunity. Your parents talk to you in your native tongue and are very warm and caring.

This year you just turned to the age where you would be going to school. Evrything is great until.....

The planes from the south come and take you away from your parents. You are flow south to some sort of institution or something. All of these adults are saying things to you but you don't understand when you try to talk they get very angry with you. you are scared you waant your parents but all you have is yourself.

Days and years go by you learn to speak english. At night you try to hide but it does not work. here comes one of the "teachers" again and you know that this means you will have to touch his privates again. he may even make you suck his penis again. of course it ends out with you having a sore bottom again. you feel dirty unclean. you are afraid to even tell any one but everyone knows. when you see your parent for a few weeks or minutes they seem foriegn to you and to them you have become different to you are not the outgoing child they remeber.

You wake up ... you know it is 2003 but those memories are still so fresh. they hurt. you want so much to see those who committed those acts upon you for all those years pay. but no one listens. you console yourself with the fact though that you made it through. you did not end out in prison or commit suicide.

To not be able to judge the extent of human rights abuses or worse just that as irrelevant tends to undermine your entire position.

The problem is that looking so hard at other countries acts on their people tends to diminish and hide the obvious abuses in your own. I don't condone what happened in Iraq or Rwanda but by no means is what is committed with our own borders any less criminal. how long should aboriginals wait to be treated like your average white north american? Or how about african americans?

As for why it took the US so long to intervene in Bosnia or Ruwanda I think it is somewhat complex. Remember that Somalia had just taken place. So there was a strong loathing to intervene militarily - especially if there wasn't already strong opinion for it. We also had a politician in office who was more directed by popularity than principle. (IMO) But, as I've said in other threads, I think Clinton was very misguided in his actions in Ruwanda and that a lot of those deaths ought to be laid at his head.

My reason for bringing up Rwanda or Bosnia was not to condemn the US. A hell of alot of country's government and military turned i blind eye to the atrocities in those countries. My point for bringing them up was the they are good illustrations of a people who are unfortunate enough to live in a country that has no significance on either strategically or economically. governments and their people may be abhorred by what was happening but the fact is they are miles away in small countries and sending our people over there to die "for no reason" is a waste.

the fact is the entire world failed these two countries and their people. More than just Bill Clinton deserve blame for the deaths there. lives of our countrymen were more important than the millions of people that died in these countries.

as countries that consider ourselve good and just the first sign of atrocities should have been a signal to act in a swift and descisive manner...within the confines of international law.

For Bosnia it was a trickier situation. The US felt that because it was transpiring in Europe that Europe should have taken the lead role. It intervened late and even then with some misgivings. It ended up being successful. Probably they should have intervened earlier. But at the same time one really ought to ask why Europe didn't do more and do it earlier.

As mentioned above the US did not fail Bosnia, the world did.

However, the Bosnia situation is an excellent example of many countries getting together and assiting a population enough to take back power for themselves. I feel that there should have been a way to do such a thing in Iraq without the extent of intrusion that the coalition chose. empower the people. it is a hard thing to do but bush sr. managed to convince thousands of iraqis to rise up after the last war and go against hussien's regieme. unfortunately when they asked for help bush sr. abandoned them.

To that I think Europe, for all its complaints of the US, really expects the US to be the "bad cop" while they are the good cop. They didn't know how to handle the trend of the US getting out of international endeavors after Somalia. Further the European political game only really works when the US is being its typical self. European powers prefer to discuss things a lot before acting, regardless of the cost. They also prefer making economic ties rather than military action.

Well this is hard to say. Alot of the time I see that the US tries very hard to be the bad cop by not thinking through crisis situations. for example one of the answers bush jr gave n one of his press conferneces for going to war was that if he did not then there would eventually be firefights in the streets of america. this to me insinuated that he though that iraq would invade the US. Seriously this is the most rediculous answers i have ever heard in my entire life. terrorist strikes are possible sure but firefights in the streets compliments of Iraq? No organized external force would be capable of of that except much much larger powers such as britian, germany, china etc. Hussien maybe a madman but he is not an idiot.

As for Europens be procrastinators. When your country has felt, seen and experienced the true effects of a full scale war on you own homeland you might well consider long and hard what the best course of action is to preserve lives both civialin and military.

That being said I think many many many many countries could be accused of being more talk and less action when action is necessary.

One has to give Europe credit. They did finally intervene. And there is a great deal of ignorance in the US regarding how much they did do. But at the same time it can't be seen as Europe's finest hour. [/B]

Nor can it be seen as the US's finest hour either, IMHO. personally once Bush started talking military action last year there was no stopping it. colin powell new that going to war without any diplomacy or attempt to gain support from the international community was crazy so he suggested the UN. But the US went in, in my view, with the intent to get a rubber stamp for war which was not the way to do it.

ultimately it would have done no harm to the US to hold back for a few weeks. I think the Canadians made a valiant effort to bring both sides together on this front by appeasing france and germany's request for a bit more diplomacy to take place while drawing a timeline in the sand to iraq to do something by such period of time or face war.

Or would all this have even been necessary if bush sr. had supported the rebels after the first war.

Iraq was a very hard situation to deal with and ultimately it was dealt with poorly. By all sides. while the coalition may free the iraqis people i fear that they have destabilized the entire middle east and opened the door to those countries who would rather deal with external turmoil with hostility rather than diplomacy.

[clarkgoble]

Sarah: Imagine being a aboriginal in Canada in let say the thirties or forties...

I unfortunately don't have time to write much.

But please explain how the actions people took before my parents were even born ought to apply to judgments of my generation's thoughts on international relations?

To make a parallel, ought we judge Germany's actions in the UN by the acts of Hitler and the Nazi's?

Your argument seems to amount to "all human ancestors violated what we consider human rights. Therefore no one can discuss human rights without being a hypocrit or a liar."

If you want to discuss things that have happened in my lifetime, fine. Hell, even add in a decade. But beyond that is basically history, not current events. Hell - all those involved are long dead now.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Sarah: Imagine being a aboriginal in Canada in let say the thirties or forties...

I unfortunately don't have time to write much.

But please explain how the actions people took before my parents were even born ought to apply to judgments of my generation's thoughts on international relations?

To make a parallel, ought we judge Germany's actions in the UN by the acts of Hitler and the Nazi's?

Your argument seems to amount to "all human ancestors violated what we consider human rights. Therefore no one can discuss human rights without being a hypocrit or a liar."

If you want to discuss things that have happened in my lifetime, fine. Hell, even add in a decade. But beyond that is basically history, not current events. Hell - all those involved are long dead now.

That depends entirely on how history is being dealt with. Germany has made a concerted effort to break with national socialism. If a country doesn't learn from past mistakes or actions then it is indeed fair to quote from that country's history.

[mikerally]

That's why I said more persuasive (than Bush). It's a matter of degree or comparison, not an endorsement

Blair has "stayed on message" better than Bush, whose rhetoric has ranged from open advocacy of CIA assassination, need for UN solidariy, every minute we wait another 9/11 is closer to happening, God wants us to do it, won't somone please think of the children, etc

Sure, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Sarah: Imagine being a aboriginal in Canada in let say the thirties or forties...

I unfortunately don't have time to write much.

But please explain how the actions people took before my parents were even born ought to apply to judgments of my generation's thoughts on international relations?

To make a parallel, ought we judge Germany's actions in the UN by the acts of Hitler and the Nazi's?

Your argument seems to amount to "all human ancestors violated what we consider human rights. Therefore no one can discuss human rights without being a hypocrit or a liar."

If you want to discuss things that have happened in my lifetime, fine. Hell, even add in a decade. But beyond that is basically history, not current events. Hell - all those involved are long dead now.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!! Clarkgoble, I would suggest to take a few minutes of your precious time to get familiar again with the title of this thread which is YOUR thread, and then look at what your just wrote (see, the stuff that i quote just above for your convenience and because i dont want to take any time away from you). 'cause that's just funny.

villa

[Sarah31]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Sarah: Imagine being a aboriginal in Canada in let say the thirties or forties...

I unfortunately don't have time to write much.

But please explain how the actions people took before my parents were even born ought to apply to judgments of my generation's thoughts on international relations?

To make a parallel, ought we judge Germany's actions in the UN by the acts of Hitler and the Nazi's?

Your argument seems to amount to "all human ancestors violated what we consider human rights. Therefore no one can discuss human rights without being a hypocrit or a liar."

If you want to discuss things that have happened in my lifetime, fine. Hell, even add in a decade. But beyond that is basically history, not current events. Hell - all those involved are long dead now.

What a joke. There are thousands and thousands of aboriginals in canada that are still bearing the scars of what we did to them fourty and more years ago.

and why is it the when the pro war side argues they can use history but the anti war side cannot. we get wankers that say please refer to maodern history.

ok as i mentioned in my ditribe in the last two or three years the Sasatoon police have haul drunk aboriginals out of the city limits on the coldest of days and left them to find the own way back. unfortunately three of them did not they froze to death a few others got badly frozen body parts.

two or so years ago in winnipeg two native women called 911 when one of their ex boyfriends broke his restraining or and was lurking around the house. five hours later and many desparate calls to 911 later the two women were dead.

and those are just some examples pulled from the new and i can guarantee that there are hundreds more everyday. people may not die but they have to live with being treated like subhumans.

ten years ago as i mentioned before too iraqis did rise up against saddam, at bush sr's request. and he ditched them and LET THEM DIE OR BE HARSHLY PUNISHED. 300000 of them.

i could p[robably go through the paper today and find some more example of just how stupid your comment is.

when justice is not done and is passed to the next generation then it is the duty of that generation to try an fix the errors of history.

what your answer says is that history has no bearing on the present. that one is free to do as they please. what a joke. history is exactly why 9/11 happened. why world war II happened why...

man i give up if you want to go around and be the judge jury and executioner of the middle east and more then your nation is doomed.

oh before i go it seems that "ancient" history is fine for the us to use to condemn saddam so why can it not be used to condemn centuries of injustice by canada and the us?

what a joke.

[Spliffdaddy]

history is the reason 9/11 happened?


HAHAHAHAHA


bzzzt. wrong answer.


ENVY is the reason 9/11 happened.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
history is the reason 9/11 happened?


HAHAHAHAHA


bzzzt. wrong answer.


ENVY is the reason 9/11 happened.

no i dont think that's right either. Religious and nationalistic fanatism. Brainwashing if you prefer.
Regarding Ossama it is anyone guess what goes through his mind. Although i dont think envy is it.

villa

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by Sarah31:

when justice is not done and is passed to the next generation then it is the duty of that generation to try an fix the errors of history.

Which is exactly what we are doing in Iraq. The US made mistakes with Saddam, and now we are going to fix it.


I can't speak for Canada, (who if I remember, is not a member of the"coalition of the willing") but in the US, Native American affairs has been a hot button issue for the past 30 years, and the US is attempting to make corrections for the injustice done in the past centuries. There is a long way to go, but we have travelled down that road. As opposed to Saddam who continues to massacre his people to this day

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:


ENVY is the reason 9/11 happened.

Hate is the reason 9/11 happened. Blind, burning rage.Nothing to do with envy.

[Powerbook]

"France

There are more than 4,200 French military personnel currently operating in the CENTCOM AOR.

The French Air Force, deploying C-160 and C-130 aircraft to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, have provided humanitarian assistance as well as national and coalition airlift support. Two KC-135 aircraft have deployed to Manas, Kyrgyzstan to provide aerial refueling. Six Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft have also deployed to Manas to provide close air support (CAS) capability.
French engineers helped construct runways, a tent city and a munitions storage facility at Manas. France also provided airfield security (with dogs), a field mess unit, a deployable weather bureau, and a Civil Military Operations (CMO) team.
France deployed an infantry company to Mazar-e-Sharif to provide area security up to December 2001.
Two French officers are currently serving as air coordinators at the RAMCC.
Atlantique aircraft deployed in Djibouti under national control are participating daily in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions.
France provided its only Carrier Battle Group to support combat operations in the North Arabian Sea. Aircraft from this Battle Group have flown more than 2,000 hours for OEF to date, supporting the coalition with air reconnaissance, strike and AEW missions. France's naval contribution to OEF accounts for approximately 24 percent of their entire naval forces.
France is the only coalition country to be flying fighter aircraft from Manas airfield in Kyrgyzstan. Their Mirage and tanker aircraft actively supported the coalition during Operation Anaconda in March and are maintaining their full combat and support capabilities for further operations.
Kabul Medical Institute: The World Health Organization, French Embassy, Loma Linda (NGO) and French forces (500 personnel) inserted into ISAF are working to make major improvements to the Kabul Medical Institute - with equipment, books and a new curriculum. The student body of about 2,800 includes 544 women. "
http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/Co...ges/france.htm

Wow! How ungrateful!
PB.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Powerbook:

Pssst.

Zim's, Spacefreak's, finboy's and Spliffy's collective heads will explode next. And who's the guy who's publishing conservativefrontline.com again? He's up for detonation too. These facts don't mix with their personal view on things.

[mikerally]

ENVY is the reason 9/11 happened.

I'm curious, just how did you come to that conclusion?

You're also stating that as if it was a fact and not your own personal opinion.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Hate is the reason 9/11 happened. Blind, burning rage.Nothing to do with envy.

Or bad foreign policy... unless Bin Laden is telling us that for no reason.

Hate is the reaction to hate.

Our foreign policy was recieved as hate by that region... hence they reciprocated it.

The US failed to respond to the warning signs (which were infinately numerous over the course of 30 some years, intensifying as time went on)... until 9/11/01.


Your right though, nothing to do with envy. Bush keeps saying they are jelous of our freedoms... he's playing the game (read my other posts for a detailed description of "the game") but they couldn't care about our freedoms. They are fighting our foreign policy of the past.

Sad thing is, most of whom made that foreign policy, are either dead now, or close to it. It's the generations after that need to mend the problem. It goes as far back as WWI, intensified after WWII... royally ****ed by the Baby Boomers... now Gen X and later have to clean up the mess.

Sad.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by mikerally:
I'm curious, just how did you come to that conclusion?

You're also stating that as if it was a fact and not your own personal opinion.

Spliffdaddy has stated on numerous occasions that the only reason people criticize and/or dislike the USA or people from that country is because everybody's just jealous (in line with his "#1 for a reason" assertion).

That is funny on so many levels, it's not funny.

-s*

[Sarah31]

i can tell you for a fact that i don't envy the US or its people.

envy, hate, or whatever the reasons given above. they all have their basis in history. hate or envy don't just fall upon you there are/were reasons bin laden and others do the act they do. be them very misguided they saw what they interpretted as injustice done by the US (and other countries). so their hate grew out what was done in the past.

like one of the previous posters mentioned the US is trying to mke peace withe native groups. they are here too but the fact remains there is still systemic prejudice in both systems.

true too that the US is trying to rectify its transgressions in iraq. but imho the manner in hich they went about it was not ideal or warranted. the us may feel it does not need the Germans, French, Russians or Canadians permission to go to war and that is fine. however, the damage done maybe a great inconvenience down the road when they do need these countries help for whatever. If the US thinks it can stand alone against the world then darker days may be ahead.

I hope the world can recover from this war but it will be tough.

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by Sarah31:
[B]
If the US thinks it can stand alone against the world then darker days may be ahead.

/B]

That would be true I think if the US is standing alone, but it is not. at last count there were more then 45 countries in the "coalition of the willing" Thats more then were involved in the First gulf war.

Just because France Germany Russia and Canada doesn't back the us, does not mean we are in it ourselves. Last time I checked those 4 countries do not make up the entire rest of the world.

[Spheric Harlot]

Neither do those 45.

[shmerek]

Countries that have actually signed on:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Here is a link that shows what each country in the coalition is contributing.

[BkueKanoodle]

Thanks for the link, my information was incorrect.

I see we're now up to 47.

The fact that countries are not sending troops is irrelevant in this discussion. Sarah31 said we are doing this alone. We are not we have the support of 47 countries, even if it is just a political backing.

Nor did I ever say that these 45, err, 47 were the entire rest ofthe world. My point is to say that the US is acting unilaterally is anti war rhetoric that ignores the facts.

Of course the anti war crowd would say, big deal you've got Slovakia. What they are saying is that "insert your favorite small country here" does not matter as much because they are not as "big" as france, germany, france, and russia. Who is to say they do not have just as much say as the rest of the countries.

I know that we will never get the whole world to agree on anything. But to say the US is going it alone is a misrepresentation of the truth. Nor do I think that the whole world is with us against france, germany, etc,etc

Nowhere in our Constitution does it say the US president has to agree with the rest of the world before acting. You can disagree with his stance all you want, you can even oppose him, but ultimately, when it comes to the safety security and interests of the US in the World. it is our goverments decision on what America does. Is this an oversimplification? Perhaps. But then, do I care? No.

In many americans minds, the US has been lollycoddling terorists and other countries for too long. There is a strong contigent that feels the US has let the world step on us and use us since World War II, and are happy to see the US standing up for itselves. Everyone wants to worry about how the Arab world will react to this event or that event, but has anybody in other countries cared how the American "street" would react. Well they are finding out now. There's a reason over 70% of americans support Bush on this war.

The world asks us to be the world's policemen, and then complain when we take up that mantle.

[theolein]

The Coallition of the willing

[BkueKanoodle]

This article proves the point of Moral support. Of course many of these countries took great offense at the article you posted questioning their support. But they support us nonetheless, which says we are not acting alone.

[theolein]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
This article proves the point of Moral support. Of course many of these countries took great offense at the article you posted questioning their support. But they support us nonetheless, which says we are not acting alone.

The article was mainly just very funny. I was amazed that both Eritrea and Ethiopia are included, two nations that recently fought a fairly nasty border war and between whom it looks like they're ready to get going at one another again, since Ethiopia is very unhappy that they will have one village less in the peace settlement. The bits about Palau and the Marshall Islands donating Coconuts and Scuba diving courses was hilarious and I almost pissed myself at the mixup between Slovenia and Slovakia.

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by theolein:
The article was mainly just very funny. I was amazed that both Eritrea and Ethiopia are included, two nations that recently fought a fairly nasty border war and between whom it looks like they're ready to get going at one another again, since Ethiopia is very unhappy that they will have one village less in the peace settlement. The bits about Palau and the Marshall Islands donating Coconuts and Scuba diving courses was hilarious and I almost pissed myself at the mixup between Slovenia and Slovakia.

Palau was quite indignat, because while they have no Army of their own, they do have many citizens that are in the US Military.

http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/mar/28/brkafp_14-1.htm

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
Palau was quite indignat, because while they have no Army of their own, they do have many citizens that are in the US Military.

http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/mar/28/brkafp_14-1.htm

I served with a guy not from Palau but from from American Samoa. The guy was HUGE. Definitely the guy you want with you in combat.

The whole "lets make fun of the coalition of the willing" argument is just dumb. Most of those countries are capable of providing as much military assistance as many European countries are capable of giving - i.e. very little. But that doesn't matter because the US doesn't need the assistance of places like Belgium anyway - any more than it needs Latvia's help.

But the point is the US is criticized for not listening to smaller countries. It is therefore rather hypocritical to make fun of smaller countries for siding with the US. And of course, some of those smaller countries really aren't that small - Japan, for example.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
Thanks for the link, my information was incorrect.

I see we're now up to 47.

Huh? I count forty but the Solomon Islands don't count, they didn't even know they were on the list

side note from here

A quick scan of opinion polls reveals that, while governments are supporting the US, the people are solidly opposed to unilateral and even UN action in all but a few countries. This can be explained by diplomatic pressure which has, for now, overcome a distinct lack of popular support in the following countries:
Britain: 86% say give weapons inspectors more time, 34% think that US and Britain have made a convincing case for invasion. �
Spain: 80% opposed to war, 91% against attack without UN resolution �
Italy: 72% opposed to war �
Portugal: 65% say there is no reason to attack now �
Hungary: 82% opposed to invasion under any circumstances �
Czech Republic: 67% opposed to invasion under any circumstances �
Poland: 63% against sending Polish troops, 52% support US "politically" �
Denmark: 79% oppose war without U.N. mandate �
Australia: 56 per cent only backed UN-sanctioned action, 12% support unilateral action. 76% oppose participation in a US-led war on Iraq. Australian Senate voted 33-31 to censure Howard for committing 2,000 soldiers to US action. �
The "Vilnius 10" is a group of 9 countries that are seeking membership in NATO and Croatia. In many cases, their future security depends on NATO membership. In Estonia, for example, there is a tangible fear that Russia will take over again, given a militaristic enough government and the right opportunity (the--thankfully past--popularity of the fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky was a good indication of this possibility. Zhirinovsky had a map in his office showing the borders of Russia expanded to include the former Soviet Union and Alaska). In any case, it's doubtful that these governments are supporting the US for any other reason than to get diplomatic points (or conversely, not piss away their chances of NATO membership).
Taking Estonia as an example again, we find that the government has supported war without any debate in Parliament, despite 70% of the people and major newspapers opposed to war in Iraq.
Latvia: 74% oppose taking out Hussein with military force �
Romania: 38% opposed, 45% in favour �
Macedonia: 10% support war on Iraq �
Bulgaria: 21% support war �
Estonia: 30% support war �
Slovakia: 60% oppose sending Slovak soldiers �
Information for Albania, Croatia, Slovenia and Lithuania was immediately available via Google news, but according to this report, Romania is the only country in the "Vilnius 10" that has a majority of the population supporting the war.
For comparison purposes:
France: 76% against war without UN support �
Germany: 55% against war with UN support, 90% against war without UN support. 57% hold the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers". �

another guy's take

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I served with a guy not from Palau but from from American Samoa. The guy was HUGE. Definitely the guy you want with you in combat.

The whole "lets make fun of the coalition of the willing" argument is just dumb. Most of those countries are capable of providing as much military assistance as many European countries are capable of giving - i.e. very little. But that doesn't matter because the US doesn't need the assistance of places like Belgium anyway - any more than it needs Latvia's help.

But the point is the US is criticized for not listening to smaller countries. It is therefore rather hypocritical to make fun of smaller countries for siding with the US. And of course, some of those smaller countries really aren't that small - Japan, for example.

I second that on the Samoa guys. Every one I knew in the army was mammoth, and I'm not talking fat

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I served with a guy not from Palau but from from American Samoa. The guy was HUGE. Definitely the guy you want with you in combat.

The whole "lets make fun of the coalition of the willing" argument is just dumb. Most of those countries are capable of providing as much military assistance as many European countries are capable of giving - i.e. very little. But that doesn't matter because the US doesn't need the assistance of places like Belgium anyway - any more than it needs Latvia's help.

But the point is the US is criticized for not listening to smaller countries. It is therefore rather hypocritical to make fun of smaller countries for siding with the US. And of course, some of those smaller countries really aren't that small - Japan, for example.

I think the whole argument about the coallition of the willing, unwilling, anonymous etc is a waste of time anyway. In countries that I know of, particularly, Spain, Italy, Poland, Turkey and Japan, the majority of the populations are against the war. The support of the populations isn't there.

I don't know why these all these governments (with the exception of Turkey) went against the will of their populations. Perhaps some were wanting financial slices of the pie, perhaps some were wanting handouts, perhaps some were dependant on US military aid, perhaps some were genuinely for the war.

Does it really matter. Thing is, some wanted war and others didn't. I think the US would have gone to war even if it had been completely alone.

And the war has already been on for 2 weeks so it's useless arguing about that now.

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by theolein:
I think the whole argument about the coallition of the willing, unwilling, anonymous etc is a waste of time anyway...

...some wanted war and others didn't. I think the US would have gone to war even if it had been completely alone.

And the war has already been on for 2 weeks so it's useless arguing about that now.

On this, Theolein, I think we can agree. I brought it up simply as a rebuttal to Sarah31's claim that the US was going it alone.