Tony re-elected

[dirtydan]

It is my opinion that it is us that have the distorted view of what is happening in Iraq. All of our information comes from the media.

And what of the information from the White House? Iraq has WMD's, Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Oh my now that was accurate.

I believe most people serving in Iraq get a daily reminder of why they are there. Not why the politicians sent them, but why they are there and why they want to stay and finish their job. They see the good they are doing for the citizens of Iraq every day. By far the majority of Iraq is under control. Iraqiis are taking over their own security. It will take a while but they are headed in the right direction.

Sorry LD, I can't be that idealistic. IMHO the average grunt doesn't want to be in a largely unfriendly country risking death day in day out at the hands of the insurgents.

Regularly there are graves uncovered that contain the remains of Sadam's victims.

Indeed there are. And one of the big questions is when were those people killed? During the 1980's when the US was turning a blind eye to Saddam's brutality or during the 1990's when the same US suddenly decided those same crimes were now bad?

I mentioned in an earlier post, I had the privilege of talking with 2 solders returning to Iraq after their R&R. We met in the bar at an airport. These guys heard the media talking and they said it was distorted.

The fact is unless the media throws away their objectivity and buys into some one's story lock, stock and barrel then there will always be some one bitching the story is distorted.

All of the above is just my opinion. I have no great insight into what is going on. But when I have the opportunity to talk to 2 guys who are laying their life on the line, I find them more believable than a news reader sitting in Toronto or New York City.

Doesn't matter where one is, when an invasion is planned on the basis of two lies, conquering and occupying a country is the same: w-r-o-n-g.

There are many Americans who have a different opinion than mine. But we all share the same opinion when it comes to our troops. They deserve to come home with honor, they deserve a heroes welcome, and they deserve our best efforts to make them as whole as it is possible to do, given what they had to endure.

And if these heroes come home dead or wounded it is during the middle of the night. When was the last time President Bush attended a funeral for any of the service people he praises?

It is my uneducated guess that the majority of our troops will be home before W’s term of office is up. If for no other reason than the Republican presidential candidate will not have a hope in hell if they are not.

A good question is, will Iraq then fall in civil war?

 

[luckydog71]

DD - you and I obviously have a different opinion on the Iraq war.

If the US and Britain had taken the course of action you favor then Sadam would still be in power.

The course of action taken by the US and Britain removed Sadam and has resulted in the caputure of a a number of terrorist leaders.

Does the ends justify the means? In my opinion it does.

After reading all of your posts I am still not sure of your opinion. I know you are opposed to the tactics and decisions made by the US and Britain, but what is your opinion on the end result. Do you think the end results of the war justify the logic used to start the war in the first place?

 

[dirtydan]

DD - you and I obviously have a different opinion on the Iraq war.

If the US and Britain had taken the course of action you favor then Sadam would still be in power.

Perhaps so, and a lot of Iraqi civilians would still be alive. It is strange that their liberators will release the numbers of their own troops killed and those of the fledgling Iraqi security forces, however these great liberators hardly say a peep of the civilians killed. Especially those during the conflict. Of course these great liberators do cite the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the insurgents.

The course of action taken by the US and Britain removed Sadam and has resulted in the caputure of a a number of terrorist leaders.

Does the ends justify the means? In my opinion it does.

You are comfortable with being told to a far reaching extent that the reasons for war were Iraq still had WMD's and Saddam was behind 9/11 when in fact these were lies from the beginning? Just how willing are you to accept such boldfaced lies from your president and his administration?

After reading all of your posts I am still not sure of your opinion. I know you are opposed to the tactics and decisions made by the US and Britain, but what is your opinion on the end result. Do you think the end results of the war justify the logic used to start the war in the first place?

The ends does not in any way justify the means. I was and still am against the US invasion and conquering of Iraq and its occupation. It was completely unnecessary. If getting rid of evil dictators is so paramount, then why isn't the US going around world elsewhere getting of them? In many instances the US is cozying up to dictators. There is very much a duplicity hard at work in the foreign policy of Dubyah.

It will always be mind boggling that the same bloodthirsty sonaofbitch was allied with the US during the Reagan-Bush era with the US constantly looking the other way when it came to Saddam's terror. Yet now the very same crimes that the US once looked away became the latest reason for the conquering and occupation of Iraq.

This shows the unaccountable power the US wields on the international scene. To invade a country for no good reason is illegal under international law. Saddam posed no legitimate threat to the US or the Middle East region. After the Gulf War the Iraqi military was a shadow of its former self and geared towards keeping down internal rebellion.

Even before the war its ability to project power outward was questionable at best as seen in the Iran-Iraq war. Kuwait was defeated on sheer overwhelming numbers.

In the end Dubyah and his cohorts whipped up the image of the boogie-man to carry out an illegal war. It is too bad the rest of the world community is sitting by letting the US get away with it.

 

[timec98]

If the US and Britain had taken the course of action you favor then Sadam would still be in power.

The course of action taken by the US and Britain removed Sadam and has resulted in the caputure of a a number of terrorist leaders.

Does the ends justify the means? In my opinion it does.

luckydog, aren’t you getting tired of the taste of Shrub cool-aid?

Just what is the “end” you project in your callous “end justifies the means” comment? Lay it out, luckydog, tell us what that end will be and when it will occur?

When all other fabricated U.S. justifications have been discounted what’s left? Oh ya, without missing a self-righteous exaggerated beat you justify it all by pulling out the “great liberator of the Iraqi people card”. In spite of the fact Hussein was powerless and being held in check, in spite of the fact Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. or the world at large, your country felt obliged, unilaterally and without UN sanction, to invade and occupy a sovereign country. To smugly discount your “faulty intelligence” and fall back to some end justifying the means summation is, if nothing else, a self serving false vindication of an act that has caused overwhelming death and destruction to the Iraqi people. But I guess when that’s all you have left ---

Why liberate the Iraqi people now? Why not way back when Reagan gave Hussein the means to consolidate his power? Why not way back when Rumsfeld established the Iraqi military-to-U.S. intelligence sharing? Somehow luckydog, you feel obligated to re-write history and overlook the complicity your country has in the Iraqi recent past.

dittman, don’t worry yourself with what percentage of Canadians support the U.S. war of aggression against the Iraqi people --- just look at your own numbers from the latest national poll – 57% dittman – remind you of anything? Does it bring you back to your Vietnam days when the groundswell of public opinion began to rally against that war?

.

 

[timec98]

The smartest politician in Canada is John Chretien. Because he said fuck you America and your self-serving goverment. The UN can't even support what you want to do, why should we?

Abso-fucking-lutely yes!

Steven Harper said it:We (the Conservative Party) support the (Iraq) war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war - outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive.

.

 

[dirtydan]

Abso-fucking-lutely yes!

Steven Harper said it:We (the Conservative Party) support the (Iraq) war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war - outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive.

.

Never put it past Stephen "Firewall" Harper to say something grossly stupid. Today is an excellent day to remind Canadians that a great many Quebecois did enlist during WW2. Yes conscription was hugely unpopular in Quebec in WW2 as well as WW1. Not because the Quebecois were pacifists, but rather because of a feeling of not being welcome in Canada. Why fight for a country that oppresses you?

 

[timec98]

luckydog, the "British memo" has been talked around the blogs and in the British press for a while --- good to see the "mainstream U.S. papers" are finally picking up on it:

The MI-6 chief's account of his U.S. visit was paraphrased by the memo: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Shame luckydog, shame

.

 

[luckydog71]

Yes conscription was hugely unpopular in Quebec in WW2 as well as WW1. Not because the Quebecois were pacifists, but rather because of a feeling of not being welcome in Canada. Why fight for a country that oppresses you?

Sorry, DD I disagree. The French Canadians have maintained their ties to France and the French culture. I am sure their heritage still has a strong influence on them to this day.

Remember the cheers with De Gaulle’s – “Long live free Quebec”. Then they came within a fraction of a percentage point of breaking away from Canada, but all they did was piss and moan about as you put it “a feeling of not being welcome in Canada”. For Christ sakes why doesn’t somebody tell them to shut up? Doesn’t anyone ever get tired of hearing them snivel?

To generalize (always a dangerous thing to do, but it never stops anyone) the French are lovers not fighters. They are pacifists. The Germans had very little opposition when they conquered France. Even when it came time to kick some German butt and remove the Nazis from France, virtually none of the heavy lifting was done by the French.

My low opinion of the France preceded the Iraq war. They have never been an ally of the US, but due to their pacifists nature they have never really opposed us either. I think who ever said it was correct, France is part of “Old Europe” and they are sitting on the sidelines watching (and moaning) while there influence even in their region slips away.

But they do make good wine, the one and only product I will buy with a “Made in France” label on it.

 

[eljudo]

Now.. normally I do not say outloud the word " ouch " more than once in the same sentence.. but in this case.. i must say it three times! OUCH, OUCH, OUCH!

luckydog, go ahead, continue to reach --- why not ask yourself how many U.S. citizens currently support the U.S. occupation of Iraq?

As it stands the U.K. has, what, 8000 troops in Iraq - I'd call that symbolic, at best.

What percentage of Canadians do you think support your countries self serving interests in Iraq?

.

 

[eljudo]

[/QUOTE]


You could tell them it was rid a country of an evil dictator. But what if the soldier asks you then why didn't our government say that in the first place instead of months AFTER the president declared "mission accomplished". But the catch is LD, the soldier will be left wondering why did the war come first and the "reason" for it long after? [/QUOTE]


What about the shitload of other evil dictators that are far more dangerous than sadam ever was?

North Korea?

African Dictators? etc..........

 

[HankQuinlan]

They have never been an ally of the US, but due to their pacifists nature they have never really opposed us either.

The name "Lafayette" ring a bell?

 

[luckydog71]

What about the shitload of other evil dictators that are far more dangerous than sadam ever was?

North Korea?

African Dictators? etc..........

I do not think African dictators were a threat to the US. I am sure they were a threat to their own people.

North Korea is a different story. I think because of the screw up of WMD in Iraq the US will be a little slower to react to reports of nuclear weapons in N.K. and the last thing we want to do is stir up China.

So again I support Bush's approach. Insist on 6 way negotiations and watch N.K. very closely with satellites.

We can always go to the U.N. they are so effective with their resolutions. We could pass 10 of them criticizing N.K. for nuclear weapons and threat to pass number 11 if they don't change.

However, you will really see some fireworks, if N.K. launches a missile in the direction of Alaska or Hawaii.

There are some news reports I heard that there was a possibility N.K. could reach the west coast of North America. But do worry; Vancouver is a nuclear free zone so you are safe.

 

[rickoshadows]

They have never been an ally of the US, but due to their pacifists nature they have never really opposed us either.

I think you will find that the French were quite helpful during the American Revolution. France kept the British Empire occupied while one of their colonies gained their independance.

rickoshadows

 

[luckydog71]

The name "Lafayette" ring a bell?

Hank, I must admit, I have heard the name, but I have no idea who he is. I will look it up on the internet and find out.

Thanks Hank.

LD

 

[eljudo]

I do not think African dictators were a threat to the US. I am sure they were a threat to their own people.

North Korea is a different story. I think because of the screw up of WMD in Iraq the US will be a little slower to react to reports of nuclear weapons in N.K. and the last thing we want to do is stir up China.

So again I support Bush's approach. Insist on 6 way negotiations and watch N.K. very closely with satellites.

We can always go to the U.N. they are so effective with their resolutions. We could pass 10 of them criticizing N.K. for nuclear weapons and threat to pass number 11 if they don't change.

However, you will really see some fireworks, if N.K. launches a missile in the direction of Alaska or Hawaii.

There are some news reports I heard that there was a possibility N.K. could reach the west coast of North America. But do worry; Vancouver is a nuclear free zone so you are safe.

I think you mis understood me. The americans soldiers dying in iraq are not doing so for sheer goodwill. Its OIL. that simple. If the american government was so inclined to get rid of evil doers around the world, they would have gone after the koreans, iranians , the african dictators etc.


Didnt the U.N tell the US to back off, that they couldnt find WMD? of course they did. What did the arrogant fool you call president do? invade a soverign nation. Has he done any good? are the americans any better off now? Are the iraqis any better off? How many innocent civilians has died just because some dumb ass ignorant fuck decided its time to invade and kick ass for no reason whatsover?

 

[dirtydan]

I do not think African dictators were a threat to the US. I am sure they were a threat to their own people.

So what you are saying is as long as a dictator does not threaten the US, they will be left alone? But I thought the reason for the conquering and occupation of Iraq was to remove a dictator.

This dictator didn't have any WMD's. This dictator wasn't behind 9/11. Yet the country was invaded and the dictator was toppled.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship (well an absolute monarchy to be techinical). Saudi Arabia DOES have WMD's. And several Saudi nationals were involved in 9/11. Yet Saudi Arabia was not conquered and occupied by the US.

North Korea is a different story. I think because of the screw up of WMD in Iraq the US will be a little slower to react to reports of nuclear weapons in N.K. and the last thing we want to do is stir up China.

Interesting though, It's alright for one country to have WMD's, but not another. Who decides who can have what?

So again I support Bush's approach. Insist on 6 way negotiations and watch N.K. very closely with satellites.

Yet just as many people if not more are suffering at the hands of the NK government. If freeing people from the shackles of one evil dictator was just, then why isn't it just when it comes to another evil dictator?

I We can always go to the U.N. they are so effective with their resolutions.

How many is the US ignoring? When will the US finally pay its membership dues? It is remarkable that a member far behind in its dues doesn't want to be part of the organization but is always spouting off about how it should be run.

We could pass 10 of them criticizing N.K. for nuclear weapons and threat to pass number 11 if they don't change.

Perhaps. However where were the Iraqi WMD's? Hans Blix told the world the WMD's were gone, but the US didn't listen.

However, you will really see some fireworks, if N.K. launches a missile in the direction of Alaska or Hawaii.

I found it repulsive that following 9/11 some Republican politicians were openly advocating nuclear strikes against Afghanistan. Got to wonder how safe the world is from WMD's in the hands of a very powerful country with little or regard for the rules. Well unless the rules just happen to coincide with US foreign policy.

There are some news reports I heard that there was a possibility N.K. could reach the west coast of North America. But do worry; Vancouver is a nuclear free zone so you are safe.

We do know that all of Canada is well within range of US nuclear arsenal.

 

[dirtydan]

Sorry, DD I disagree. The French Canadians have maintained their ties to France and the French culture. I am sure their heritage still has a strong influence on them to this day.

How does that translate to the paficism you claim is in Quebec culture?

Of course Quebec has maintained ties with France. Just where did the Quebecois ancestors come from? Mongolia?

I Remember the cheers with De Gaulle’s – “Long live free Quebec”. Then they came within a fraction of a percentage point of breaking away from Canada, but all they did was piss and moan about as you put it “a feeling of not being welcome in Canada”. For Christ sakes why doesn’t somebody tell them to shut up? Doesn’t anyone ever get tired of hearing them snivel?

How does that translate to this pacifism in Quebec you were talking about?

The comments made by French President Charles De Gualle in 1967 were, "...vive Montreal, vive, vive la Quebec libre!" To which the crowd roared its approval. It was the height of the Quiet Revolution in which Quebeckers were throwing off the shackles of oppression by English Canada and the Roman Catholic Church. Of course with being the targets of such oppression, it is unsurprising that a seperatist movement arose among the Quebecois.

I To generalize (always a dangerous thing to do, but it never stops anyone) the French are lovers not fighters. They are pacifists.

Now where did you learn that tripe? Ever here of a fellow called Napoleon? How about Charlamange (sp?)? Really LD, even from you such are statement is surprising, given the level of bigotry in it.

I The Germans had very little opposition when they conquered France. Even when it came time to kick some German butt and remove the Nazis from France, virtually none of the heavy lifting was done by the French.

And where did you learn that?

France had the world's second largest army at the start of WW2, with only that of the USSR being bigger. Indeed the French Army had more tanks than the German Wermacht and many more armed with guns rather than machine guns. Many of the top officers in the Germany Army were very worried about invading France.

France was lost in May-June, 1940 largely out of inadequate military tactics and strategy. Like so many other armies all over the world, the French were slow to adapt to the theories of armoured warfare. Tanks were still seen largely as fire support vehicles for the infantry. There was one voice for the armour, that being Colonel Charles De Gaulle, however he was soundly rebuked and not all that differently from other pro-armour officers in other armies.

On paper the British and French had around 17 divisions that were armoured or motorized. The Germans, about 15. The difference is the Germans since the 1920's, before Hitler, were practicing the theories of armoured warfare. The only other army also doing so was the Red Army, but they abandoned the theories in the late 30's.

And keep in mind LD, just who was the great power in WW1 in stemming the tide of the German army? It was the French. They paid a tremendous price, far more than that of the US.

I My low opinion of the France preceded the Iraq war. They have never been an ally of the US, but due to their pacifists nature they have never really opposed us either.

Like really my friend just who is teaching you this crap? Or are you just pulling my leg? Really LD you can't be that dumb?

To say that France has never been an ally of the US is bunk from the start. Do keep in mind the position of France during the Amerian Revolution. Without French assistance, I seriously doubt the American rebels would have won.

And what of WW1? What of WW2? Yes there were tensions, but such existed among all of the Allies. Afterall FDR didn't want a French government to run France after the liberation in the summer of 1944. He wanted an American military governor to run things. Quite insulting that was and wrongheaded.

More recently in the first Gulf War, where was France? Fighting along side the US and its UN endorsed coalition. The French Army was the left flank of the allied advance into Iraq. And let's not forget the contributions of the French air force and navy.

I think who ever said it was correct, France is part of “Old Europe” and they are sitting on the sidelines watching (and moaning) while there influence even in their region slips away.

It was either Cheney or Rumsfeld. The comment smacks more of propaganda than it does reality. Speaking of which, the French are very strong in their region. The EU largely works on the French-German axis. Study some history and politics AND FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE my friend.

I But they do make good wine, the one and only product I will buy with a “Made in France” label on it.

That's because so much of what is sold in the US has a "Made in China" label on it!