[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

"Today/Gallup poll released Thursday indicated fewer than half of Americans believe the United States will win the Iraq war, and 55 percent of those surveyed said it should speed up withdrawal plans."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...oll/index.html

[Dakar]

I thought the war is over. Do they mean, "Will they succeed in establishing a democracy and repel the insurgence?"

[sminch]

yeah, i'd love to hear the responses to a follow up question of "what would you define as 'win'"?

sminch

[Spliffdaddy]

That's still roughly 95% more people than those who think Canada could have defeated Iraq.

[von Wrangell]

The US can't win in Iraq. And it can't win in the ME. The sooner they realise that the sooner we will have peace and stability in the ME. Which will in turn reduce terrorism to just being mentioned in the history books instead on the daily news.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by sminch

yeah, i'd love to hear the responses to a follow up question of "what would you define as 'win'"?

sminch

Well, apparently whatever people think the winning condition is, over half of those polled don't think we're going to get there. That kind of shocks me.

I think that the true costs of the war are finally becoming apparent to people. Some of the true conservatives I work with -- the ones who you can work into a froth just my mentioning the name "Hillary" -- are starting to say that Bush should never have started the war, because it's turning out to be too expensive. These are people who took Bush seriously when he said that the profits from Iraqi reconstruction would pay most of the cost for the war. Notice how he's not saying the same thing about the Gulf Coast reconstruction? The Fiscal Conservatives won't buy it this time around. They're going to insist that the money for Gulf Coast rebuilding come from somewhere in the budget, and that is likely to be the war. These are people who normally buy "supply-side economics" hook, line, and sinker, but even they realize that all the money spent in Iraq is not necessarily going to improve the economy in the U.S. enough to pay it back.

I think there's a sea change happening right now (pun unintentional). The massive potential cost of the Gulf Coast reconstruction is making people realize how much money Bush is spending, and how the country can't keep its economic supremacy by running up such huge deficits. It makes you wonder how different things would be if a big Gulf Coast hurricane hit in the summer of 2004 instead of 2005. Maybe it's proof that God isn't a Democrat....

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The US can't win in Iraq. And it can't win in the ME. The sooner they realise that the sooner we will have peace and stability in the ME. Which will in turn reduce terrorism to just being mentioned in the history books instead on the daily news.

Because the Middle East was an island of stability before we poked our noses into it, of course.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

Because the Middle East was an island of stability before we poked our noses into it, of course.

If by "we" you mean the West then it was as stable (if not more) as most of the world. Or do you believe it's impossible for the ME to be stable?

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If by "we" you mean the West then it was as stable (if not more) as most of the world. Or do you believe it's impossible for the ME to be stable?

My understanding of the history of the region is that there was a fair amount of fighting between the Turks, Arabs, Persians, and others through the years. The Arabs in particular didn't always get along with each other, either. I'm no expert, though. Westerners haven't exactly gotten along with each other, either, so your assessment that the ME was as stable as the West could be true. But I don't think the ME has been a picnic for the last 1,000 years, only to see George Bush (Or perhaps the British after WWI) screw it all up.

I know from reading your posts in the past, though, that your second question is a trap, so I'll ignore it.

[sminch]

Or do you believe it's impossible for the ME to be stable?

trap, eh? i'm there with bells on.

i don't know much about the middle east but with so much historical bad blood, such a huge gulf (pardon the pun) between rich and poor, so much $$$ under a few pieces of dirt, so little able to be done with most of the other pieces of dirt, only a few sources of potable water, religious fanaticism on all sides...

is stability impossible? maybe not. damn near impossible? i reckon so.

sminch

[James L]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

That's still roughly 95% more people than those who think Canada could have defeated Iraq.

yeah, but Canadians have no need to invade countries, under bad intel and lies, to prove our might.

That is like the guy in the gym who thinks big muscles and strength make him powerful and tough. Meanwhile, all the other people in the gym are laughing at the muscle bound fool behind his back.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally Posted by James L

yeah, but Canadians have no need to invade countries, under bad intel and lies, to prove our might.

That is like the guy in the gym who thinks big muscles and strength make him powerful and tough. Meanwhile, all the other people in the gym are laughing at the muscle bound fool behind his back.

Exactly. Not to mention that muscle fool is compensating for something else.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The US can't win in Iraq.

But, we CAN help the freedom loving Iraqi's win!

[mojo2]

THREAD TOPIC: Fewer than half think U.S. will win in Iraq

mojo2's reply: Fewer than half think.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

My understanding of the history of the region is that there was a fair amount of fighting between the Turks, Arabs, Persians, and others through the years. The Arabs in particular didn't always get along with each other, either. I'm no expert, though. Westerners haven't exactly gotten along with each other, either, so your assessment that the ME was as stable as the West could be true. But I don't think the ME has been a picnic for the last 1,000 years, only to see George Bush (Or perhaps the British after WWI) screw it all up.

I know from reading your posts in the past, though, that your second question is a trap, so I'll ignore it.

Name ONE instance of two democracies waging war against each other.

Then look at all the wars and disputes in the world (including in the ME).

A democratic Iraq will be a bastion of freedom and stability.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sminch

trap, eh? i'm there with bells on.

i don't know much about the middle east but with so much historical bad blood, such a huge gulf (pardon the pun) between rich and poor, so much $$$ under a few pieces of dirt, so little able to be done with most of the other pieces of dirt, only a few sources of potable water, religious fanaticism on all sides...

is stability impossible? maybe not. damn near impossible? i reckon so.

sminch

The US was pretty content to leave the dirty little business of tribal in-fighting and centuries old feuds and border raids and disputes and hostilities and the poverty and deprivations and the religious beliefs and practices and all that to those who found it to be important.

But, when the US began building up our military bases and installations in Saudi Arabia, OBL and other muslims got angry saying we were defiling the sacred lands of Islam.

We said we were there at the invitation and with the permission of the ruling Royal Family.

OBL began mounting attacks on the US and US installations and citizens since then, from the 1993 WTC attack to the attacks on 9/11 and afterwards.

When the 9/11 attacks came we knew the time had come when we could no longer allow the business as usual mindset and activities to continue in the M.E. The issue of OBL having a disagreement with the Royal Family spread to OBL having a beef with us. We were going to meet terrorism with force.

The only way to win against the tyranny of terror is politically. But, the politics of the bombs and bullets can not be allowed tosway the minds and actions of freedom loving peoples.

So, the US fights terror and the forces of al Qaeda in Iraq. And the US is training the men and women of Iraq to fight the terrorists themselves. And the time will come when the government of a free Iraq will be able to defend itself against the evil forces of terrorism and religious tyranny.

But, until that day the people who stand side by side with our American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, who risk their OWN lives for THEIR OWN COUNTRY'S FREEDOM need our help.

In addition to establishing an island of democracy and freedom and stability in the ME, we are also there in Iraq to safeguard the world's majority source of oil.

50% of the world's oil supplies come from five countries.

Whoever controls this strategic region controls the world.

The US, effectively controls the region by virtue of our military commitment of men and equipment there. Yet, we do not TAKE the oil for ourselves. We BUY the oil we get from the ME, just as we always have. Yet, we protect more than just OUR supplies.

We protect ALL THE OIL going to the western world or wherever. We do not discriminate. We do not use oil as a weapon.

There are others who wish to kick us out of the ME. They want to control the oil. But they would not be like we are. They would restrict the oil going to the US and to our allies. They would use oil as a weapon and their stated goal is to kill America.

Those are the people who we are fighting in Iraq. Those are the people who are killing our finest young men and women who are there to protect our way of life here and to provide others an opportunity for freedom that they wouldn't otherwise have.

The people who want to control the oil are the same ones who brought down the Twin Towers. The people who want to control the oil are the same ones who are killing our fighting men, men like Casey Sheehan.

Casey Sheehan died for a good reason. His mother doesn't understand the reason. All she understands is the loss of her son.

The people who killed her son are hoping Cindy Sheehan's protest gets larger and they hope Cindy Sheehan's protest becomes more and more effective.

The people who killed Casey Sheehan want the US to leave Iraq. They want to gain control of Iraq so they can make use of Iraq's oil to fund their terror and tyranny. They want to gain control of Iraq to force more people to believe and worship as they do. The want to gain control of Iraq so they can build up their funding and forces such that they will be able to bring America down just as they brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11.

They know better than the average American just how small an oil disruption is necessary to cause total economic and social chaos in America and once that occurs, the whole thing can crash before our eyes.

The architect who: said the Royal Family couldn't give permission for the US to have bases in Saudi Arabia, who was behind the Embassy bombings, who was behind Blackhawk Down, who was responsible for the USS Cole attack, who was responsible for the 93 WTC attack, who was behind the 9/11 attacks, the one who was instrumental in motivating and inspiring the terrorist suicide attackers in Iraq and the insurgency there, the man who wants to control the oil and the people and the resources in Iraq to use to bring down the free world...the man responsible for killing Casey Sheehan and 1900 other American servicemen and women...

He will have won.

The ONLY thing stopping him from winning is our resolve to stay strong as long as it takes for the Iraqi government to grow and train it's military to do the job that we are doing for them.

If the noble sacrifices of our servicepeople mean nothing to you...
If the freedom of the hopeful Iraqi people means nothing to you...
If victory over the 9/11 attackers means nothing to you...
If keeping America free and strong from the military, economic or wmd terrorist attack means nothing to you...
If creating stability once and for all in that continual troublespot means nothing to you...

Then here's the reason we should stay until the Iraqis are able to defend themselves from the terrorists...

A 10% disruption in our nation's oil supply will kill the USA. It would raise the price of crude to the $200/bbl level.

In 1998 Osama bin Laden announced his intention to drive oil prices up to $200/bbl so it would bring down America.

He has vowed to do everything he can to kill every one of us. He has not failed to make good on his threats in the past.

If we give up before we win we may as well ask him to behead us.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

But, we CAN help the freedom loving Iraqi's win!

The same freedom loving Iraqi's who want there country back, want the USA to leave and are blowing themselves up to drive you out? Those freedom loving Iraqi's?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

My understanding of the history of the region is that there was a fair amount of fighting between the Turks, Arabs, Persians, and others through the years. The Arabs in particular didn't always get along with each other, either. I'm no expert, though. Westerners haven't exactly gotten along with each other, either, so your assessment that the ME was as stable as the West could be true. But I don't think the ME has been a picnic for the last 1,000 years, only to see George Bush (Or perhaps the British after WWI) screw it all up.

I know from reading your posts in the past, though, that your second question is a trap, so I'll ignore it.

I never claimed it was "a picnic". I simply stated that it had been just as stable (if not more) as the rest of the world. Something that is not the case today. So therefor we have to ask what the possible reason for that is. Some members (whom I won't mention by name) of this forum will blame it on Islam/Arabs. Do you think that's true? Or could it be that after countless crusades in the past, with the installing of Western friendly despots and the list goes on could have anything to do with it? Bush didn't cause it but he has made it worse.

As for my second question: I take it you didn't like your own possible answer to the question so you "ignored" it in the post. That question is the most important question of all when it comes to "exporting" democracy and peace to the ME. If that isn't your goal or you don't believe it can become stable then what is your government doing in the ME? Is it damage control or neo-imperialism?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

But, we CAN help the freedom loving Iraqi's win!

You can? Is that why you installed a former hitman and terrorist as the temporary PM of Iraq? If you want freedom loving Iraqis to "win" (whatever that means) then leave the country. The freedom loving Iraqis are ironically the majority of those fighting you at the moment.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

As for my second question: I take it you didn't like your own possible answer to the question so you "ignored" it in the post. That question is the most important question of all when it comes to "exporting" democracy and peace to the ME. If that isn't your goal or you don't believe it can become stable then what is your government doing in the ME? Is it damage control or neo-imperialism?

I ignored it because no matter what I say, you'll twist it into my saying that Muslims are incapable of having democracy unless it is bestowed upon them by the benevolent West -- you've already started down that path. But the more I discuss it, the more I'll get shoved into the same corner as Mr. Bush, so I refuse.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

I ignored it because no matter what I say, you'll twist it into my saying that Muslims are incapable of having democracy unless it is bestowed upon them by the benevolent West -- you've already started down that path. But the more I discuss it, the more I'll get shoved into the same corner as Mr. Bush, so I refuse.

So you don't think the ME can ever become stable? That was my only question.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

The same freedom loving Iraqi's who want there country back, want the USA to leave and are blowing themselves up to drive you out? Those freedom loving Iraqi's?

Alright, I'll play the game. Ahem. Are ALL Canadians French speaking poutine eating separatists?

By your logic there's only ONE group of people in a country. You are saying that NONE of the Iraqis want freedom. And that ALL of the Iraqis are blowing themselves up.

Well, if THAT is true, then ALL Canadians MUST speak French and want to break off from the main country and eat gravy covered cheese curds.

Right?



When you stop playing around (because I KNOW you are intelligent but you play dumb for fun, maybe?) you'll be kind enough to explain why so many people risked life and limb to vote and to work toward setting up a representative government.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You can? Is that why you installed a former hitman and terrorist as the temporary PM of Iraq? If you want freedom loving Iraqis to "win" (whatever that means) then leave the country. The freedom loving Iraqis are ironically the majority of those fighting you at the moment.

I challenge your numbers. Produce for me some numbers showing what you are saying is true. Ooops! The numbers already exist. THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION THAT WAS ELIGIBLE AND ABLE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM when they voted. They aren't fighting.

Once again, it seems I know more than YOU about Iraq and the M.E. hahaha!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So you don't think the ME can ever become stable? That was my only question.

I hope neither of you mind if I step in here.

I think the ME has just as much an opportunity to become stable as any other region in the world. If you take away the elements which breed discord and introduce those which encourage freedom, cooperation, prosperity and dignity.

If a people in a country or a culture in a geographic region have only known monarchs and despots and strongmen for generations how the hell can they be expected to understand and work toward freedom and stability?

You must remember the first European settlers landed and began colonizing the US a hundred years before the Declaration of Independence. Several generations had come and gone having lived in the half-way house of freedom and independence such as the 13 colonies were.

It was natural for the colonists to break free at some point. They had the desire, the know how, and they had the distance necessary. A suitably large military force to put down their revolution was an ocean and several months away.

The people of the ME have lived under the thumb of one guy or another for generations and have NEVER had that half-free experience our forefathers did.

You give the people of Iraq the same conditions our founding fathers enjoyed and the Iraqis would have reached the same point we are helping them achieve.

If it weren't for a pesky group of assholes who want the Iraqi people to remain in submission to a radically twisted view of Islam you'd not see any fighting over there at all.

Those jerks are fighting so doggedly because THEY understand what's at stake better than most Americans.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I never claimed it was "a picnic". I simply stated that it had been just as stable (if not more) as the rest of the world. Something that is not the case today. So therefor we have to ask what the possible reason for that is. Some members (whom I won't mention by name) of this forum will blame it on Islam/Arabs. Do you think that's true? Or could it be that after countless crusades in the past, with the installing of Western friendly despots and the list goes on could have anything to do with it? Bush didn't cause it but he has made it worse.

As for my second question: I take it you didn't like your own possible answer to the question so you "ignored" it in the post. That question is the most important question of all when it comes to "exporting" democracy and peace to the ME. If that isn't your goal or you don't believe it can become stable then what is your government doing in the ME? Is it damage control or neo-imperialism?

Umpteenth time. No particular order.

Stabilize region. Spread democracy. Island of freedom where it can take root and spread elsewhere. Liberate the Iraqis. Eliminate a possible haven for terrorism. Secure the oil supplies and oil flow to the world. Create new markets for US goods. Possibly other reasons, too.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by James L

yeah, but Canadians have no need to invade countries, under bad intel and lies, to prove our might.

Because you have no "might" to prove.


... unless you count the guys wearing skates and wielding curved sticks.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens

The same freedom loving Iraqi's who want there country back, want the USA to leave and are blowing themselves up to drive you out? Those freedom loving Iraqi's?

Those types in the ME were already blowing themselves up over other matters, nothing's changed. It's an old cultural pastime.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So you don't think the ME can ever become stable? That was my only question.

By themselves? No.

Too many tribal and cultural feuds. The Arabs hate the Turks and Jews, the Jews hate the Arabs, and the Turks hate everybody. They haven't cleaned it up for >3K years.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Because you have no "might" to prove.


... unless you count the guys wearing skates and wielding curved sticks.

Nice to see ya drop in Mac!

Thought your post could use a visual!

[James L]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Because you have no "might" to prove.

Sigh....

we have no need FOR might.

Countries, and or empires, based on military might have never survived history in any significant way. The Roman Empire fell. The British Empire fell. Hitler fell. The USSR disolved. Japan fell. I could go on, but you get the point. If the US builds an empire based on military might (not saying that is what they are doing), one day it will fall too.

A country is not, and will never be, significant and superior in the long run because of its military might.

I think this is where there is a philosophical difference between many Americans, and many other people from America and the rest of the world. When I look at American covert, and military, involvement in many regions over the last 50 years or so what I see is a non stop series of missions, engagements, wars, etc that have simply turned many parts of the world against the US. The US is now locked into a war, with enemies they themselves helped train and arm, BECAUSE of their actions in years gone by. There are many people who feel had the US not stuck their noses in the affairs of many other countries over the years, that people from those countries would not now be attacking the US.

To go back to my original analogy, I was attacked at work by a big muscle bound arrogant dude last week. I am not a big guy. I took him down in about 20 seconds and held him for the cops to arrest for assault against me and a couple of other people. It isn't that hard when you know how.

There is a lot of validity to the statement "the bigger they are the harder they fall".

[James L]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Those types in the ME were already blowing themselves up over other matters, nothing's changed. It's an old cultural pastime.

Actually, in Iraq a lot has changed. You do realize that there weren't any suicide attacks in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

Actually, in Iraq a lot has changed. You do realize that there weren't any suicide attacks in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion?

You do realize why al Qaeda is fighting so doggedly for Iraq?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by James L

Sigh....

we have no need FOR might.

Of course not, your neighbor to the south will protect you if you get in trouble, otherwise you'd need a much larger military.

Bitch all you want, but we don't know whether the world is a better place or not because of the US' intervention in certain matters. For all we know, the world could have ended if not for US policies, and WW3 could have brought on an end to human life on this planet (given the US' stance in the Cold War, keeping the USSR at bay, it's possible). It's just as likely a scenario as any other.

FWIW, I've never been attacked, except a few light altercations in HS, most people would be too scared to try. (OMG, is that a .45 inside his jacket???)

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

FWIW, I've never been attacked, except a few light altercations in HS, most people would be too scared to try. (OMG, is that a .45 inside his jacket???)

You need people to think you have a weapon to prevent being attacked?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by James L

Actually, in Iraq a lot has changed. You do realize that there weren't any suicide attacks in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion?

Because the same sh*t-stirring, Islamo-terrorist idiots have went to Iraq to cause trouble? The same scum who have been setting off bombs in the name of Allah for the last 50+ years? For the most part, those aren't Iraqis doing those things, they're imports.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Because the same sh*t-stirring, Islamo-terrorist idiots have went to Iraq to cause trouble? The same scum who have been setting off bombs in the name of Allah for the last 50+ years? For the most part, those aren't Iraqis doing those things, they're imports.

Those attacking the Iraqis, yes.

Those attacking US troops, no.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You need people to think you have a weapon to prevent being attacked?

The few times I've been in difficult situations, they've noticed the sidearm and backed down quickly... but that was when I was doing part-time work serving warrants. I'm just used to carrying one, and have done so for many years.

Lately, my work in the academic community hasn't required me to draw down on anyone. Though I am prepared, just in case of such an emergency.

[James L]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Of course not, your neighbor to the south will protect you if you get in trouble, otherwise you'd need a much larger military.

Trouble from whom? People that are upset we invented peacekeeping? People who are upset we discovered insulin treatment for Diabetics, and that we are currently pioneering the transplanting of pancreatic cells to attempt to cure diabetes once and for all? People who are upset we invented zippers, participated in the invention of the telephone, or that a Canadian invented Basketball? That we mapped out the gene that causes cystic fibrosis? People who are pissed that our Urban Search and Rescue teams were on the ground a few weeks ago before US resources could be?

Who is going to be attacking us anytime soon?

The fact that our troops are in Afghanistan, and that our JTF troops and our snipers attacked Taliban soldiers.... THAT might make us terrorist targets I guess. But, that is cause and effect, which only strengthens my theory.

FWIW, I've never been attacked, except a few light altercations in HS, most people would be too scared to try. (OMG, is that a .45 inside his jacket???)

I will assume from your comment here that you are bigger, or scarier looking, or something like that, and that your point was your size, or scary look, or something intimidates people from attacking you.

I could see your point, except for I watch cops take bigger people down daily with no fear. I know Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and Osama hasn't been intimidated by the US's military size.

Some would argue that it is better to be proactive than reactive, and that by flexing its military might right now the US is being proactive against further terrorist attacks. One could easily argue that the US could have been proactive years ago by not participating in activities that made them targets in the first place.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Those attacking the Iraqis, yes.

Those attacking US troops, no.

same people, though I can imagine why you would like to think so.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The few times I've been in difficult situations, they've noticed the sidearm and backed down quickly... but that was when I was doing part-time work serving warrants. I'm just used to carrying one, and have done so for many years.

Lately, my work in the academic community hasn't required me to draw down on anyone. Though I am prepared, just in case of such an emergency.

I'd think some students would make you want to draw your weapon though. At least that's the way I feel at times.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

same people, though I can imagine why you would like to think so.

Facts don't back you up. And no, I won't provide the links for it as it has been done so unbelievably often.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Facts don't back you up. And no, I won't provide the links for it as it has been done so unbelievably often.

HEY! That's my answer! Do I get to give the reply that you use when I've said that in the past?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by James L

Trouble from whom? People that are upset we invented peacekeeping? People who are upset we discovered insulin treatment for Diabetics, and that we are currently pioneering the transplanting of pancreatic cells to attempt to cure diabetes once and for all? People who are upset we invented zippers, participated in the invention of the telephone, or that a Canadian invented Basketball? That we mapped out the gene that causes cystic fibrosis? People who are pissed that our Urban Search and Rescue teams were on the ground a few weeks ago before US resources could be?

Who is going to be attacking us anytime soon?

The fact that our troops are in Afghanistan, and that our JTF troops and our snipers attacked Taliban soldiers.... THAT might make us terrorist targets I guess. But, that is cause and effect, which only strengthens my theory.

I will assume from your comment here that you are bigger, or scarier looking, or something like that, and that your point was your size, or scary look, or something intimidates people from attacking you.

I could see your point, except for I watch cops take bigger people down daily with no fear. I know Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and Osama hasn't been intimidated by the US's military size.

Some would argue that it is better to be proactive than reactive, and that by flexing its military might right now the US is being proactive against further terrorist attacks. One could easily argue that the US could have been proactive years ago by not participating in activities that made them targets in the first place.

That's my point, no one will be attacking you in the near future, because we've protected you. You can keep a tiny military and spend more money on other things, be thankful that you don't have this job. Otherwise, you'd have to take crap from ungrateful people like yourself.

For every person that takes up arms against US "imperialism", 100 more are enjoying their NEW rights; voting, int'l commerce, the potential for real freedom. They have the opportunity to establish their OWN country, with their OWN voices, not suffer under some dictatorial theocracy that still stones a person for adultery (or just eating pork for that matter). Not that I blame the mullahs, if someone were "stealing my cattle", I'd be pissed too.

What we're doing IS working, some people are simply too impatient to realize that it will take time to cool down the 3K y/o "cauldron of hate" brewing down there.


As for being scary looking, no, not really. Except for maybe when I first get up in the morning, and before I've had my coffee.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

HEY! That's my answer! Do I get to give the reply that you use when I've said that in the past?

Don't need to ask my permission for that.

[James L]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

That's my point, no one will be attacking you in the near future, because we've protected you.

Who has the US protected us from?

And I mean that as an honest, and not antagonistic, question. If you have read my posts before you know I try to not paint all people with a wide, sweeping brush, and that I spend a lot of time in the US and enjoy it there. My question is not meant to be challenging, but who has threatened to attack Canada that the US has defended us from?

As for being scary looking, no, not really. Except for maybe when I first get up in the morning, and before I've had my coffee.

Understandable, and a trait that transcends gender, race, and nationality.

Mind you, I'm pretty sure most people who know me think I am scary looking all the time.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by James L

Who has the US protected us from?

And I mean that as an honest, and not antagonistic, question. If you have read my posts before you know I try to not paint all people with a wide, sweeping brush, and that I spend a lot of time in the US and enjoy it there. My question is not meant to be challenging, but who has threatened to attack Canada that the US has defended us from?

A large dog on your porch averts prowlers, and most are people you wouldn't suspect.

[James L]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

A large dog on your porch averts prowlers, and most are people you wouldn't suspect.

Holy politician type answer batman!!!!



Now, without riddles, who has the US protected Canada from?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The few times I've been in difficult situations, they've noticed the sidearm and backed down quickly... but that was when I was doing part-time work serving warrants. I'm just used to carrying one, and have done so for many years.

Lately, my work in the academic community hasn't required me to draw down on anyone. Though I am prepared, just in case of such an emergency.

Not to get gushy or anything, but there are just too many reasons to like you, Mac! lololol!

1 M
2 W
3 S
4 A
5 F
6 S

Just the abbreviations for my recollecting.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

Trouble from whom? People that are upset we invented peacekeeping? People who are upset we discovered insulin treatment for Diabetics, and that we are currently pioneering the transplanting of pancreatic cells to attempt to cure diabetes once and for all? People who are upset we invented zippers, participated in the invention of the telephone, or that a Canadian invented Basketball? That we mapped out the gene that causes cystic fibrosis? People who are pissed that our Urban Search and Rescue teams were on the ground a few weeks ago before US resources could be?

Who is going to be attacking us anytime soon?

The fact that our troops are in Afghanistan, and that our JTF troops and our snipers attacked Taliban soldiers.... THAT might make us terrorist targets I guess. But, that is cause and effect, which only strengthens my theory.

I will assume from your comment here that you are bigger, or scarier looking, or something like that, and that your point was your size, or scary look, or something intimidates people from attacking you.

I could see your point, except for I watch cops take bigger people down daily with no fear. I know Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and Osama hasn't been intimidated by the US's military size.

Some would argue that it is better to be proactive than reactive, and that by flexing its military might right now the US is being proactive against further terrorist attacks. One could easily argue that the US could have been proactive years ago by not participating in activities that made them targets in the first place.

If you had half as much brain power as attitude you would realize that the stuff you guys sell is worth some nation trying to get for free.

China just bought into your tar sands. You guys have minerals. Forestland and timber.

Beavers.

Hell, you should know your own industries without asking US to remind you.

Aren't you forgetting the little island dispute with the Dutch or the Swedes or something???

Doesn't your Coast Guard equivalent shoo away fishing boats from other nations who would steal you guy's fishing spots?

Hell, just the land itself is worth something to a nation that needs more agriculture.

See, THAT underscores Mac's point. If the USA wasn't shielding you from bad things and peoples you would KNOW exactly what kinds of trouble there would be from other countries wanting your goodies.

You are spoiled and take US for granted.

Hmmm, nah, you're not spoiled, because you don't gripe much. But you DO take your own security somewhat for granted and you are able to enjoy that luxury precisely because of the giant US safety zone.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

Some would argue that it is better to be proactive than reactive, and that by flexing its military might right now the US is being proactive against further terrorist attacks. One could easily argue that the US could have been proactive years ago by not participating in activities that made them targets in the first place.

And let's put an end to the nonsense about Iraq now also.

The Carter Doctrine.

There. That says it all.

Now sit down and find something else to mouth off about.