Test War in Iraq Test

Rural Issues

Tools

War in Iraq

Test
Mar 22, 2003 | 08:00 1 I am surprised this topic is not coming up at this site.

I am not writing this to get in arguements over whether the U.S.A. should be in Iraq or not but rather to see what we all feel on how it will effect us.

I am worried that as Canadians we are not supporting the Americains enough. Forget what Chretien says. What about things like booing the Americain anthem at the NHL game the other night. If you watch some of these demonstrations around the world they are getting violent and distrupting.

I think some people only look at the horror of war at this moment not the realization that the United States and other countries are trying to rid the world of a evil dictator. Yes innocent people will die, and that is a shame. It was not that many years ago a certain dictator tried to control the world. What would this country and much of Europe be today had countries like ours and the U.S. not gotten involved.

By now you will have gotten the idea that I support action against Iraq. You are right! We must do what ever it takes to rid the world of Suddam. I do not believe at all that he does not have weapons of mass distruction. And even if he does not have them now, if we leave him alone he will someday have them again.

Try telling the relatives of the dead from 9/11 not to have fear. If we wait he and others like him will be on our doorstep. Then we as Canadians and Americains will be fighting the battles on our ground. It will be our innocent dead. Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2003 | 12:53 2 Muttley: I agree with you on this war. But I'll bet my friend henbent is far to the left on this one. Protesters love to see the continued tyrany in Iraq and the suffering of its people at the hand of Saddam. The do gooders don't know what it is like to live under the threat of terrorism. Terrorism is a real threat to you and me daily and it looks like we have run out of any alternative ways to stop it. Go Bush Go Ralgh go for freedom, peace and democracy for all. Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2003 | 16:23 3 muttley, kernel, Saddam, is a bad guy and has got to go there's no doubt about it. But the method of getting rid of him is what people question. War is the last resort. There is no doubt about the outcome, the US will prevail. But at what cost? Iraq will be wrecked and lots of people dead on both sides. I guess the US wins, if the good ole boys can get their hands on some of that sweet crude. Maybe the UN will cease to exist and America can become the world's policeman, boy that would Su-k big time. Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2003 | 22:21 4 Why do people assume President Bush only wants the oil. He is a wealthy man who is president of the worlds super power. He has what ever he wants.

Have you ever thought that just maybe he is sick of this thorn in the worlds butt. A man who is using children as shields. He is a evil dictator.

Should we wait till he uses some sort of weapon on us in the future before we do something about it. Maybe people like him need to blow up more towers before it's O.K. to kill him, and do not think for a second he did not have knowledge of 9/11 before it happened.

I keep hearing "there must be a better way". What would that be? I see he didn't leave Iraq with 48 hours notice. Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2003 | 23:16 5 I think if 911 happened only 6 months ago, the general attitudes would be somewhat different. We don't have to agree with the way things unfolded, but booing the American Anthem at a hockey game I find very discussing and rude. And our politicians choose of words was/is terrible. There is a very difference of opinion country wide. It was reported that the US does a Million dollars worth of trade every MINUTE of every day with Canada. If we get too ingorant and the US decides to trade elsewhere, We will indeed feel major effects. They are our next door neighbours,whether we like it or not We hold a beebee gun while they have radar guided missels. France had millions of dollars worth of contracts in place for the Iracy oil. Oil is not the issue. A man who viciously tortures,and kills his own people by the thousands, uses Women and child for his army to hide behind, is a huge threat to human life. Its just to bad the Americans didn't completely finish the job in 1991. My heart goes out to all the soldiers and their families, because I'm sure no one really wants to be engaged in war. Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2003 | 07:30 6 Very good points Junebug. War is the last resort, and I believe we have gotten there!!!!! Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2003 | 11:33 7 Junebug, War seems to be the only vision that Bus- has. Look at their economy and social structure. The rich get richer the poor get poorer. A trickle down economy. What next? We don't even know if Bus- is really the President, didn't bother to count the ballots, yet he leads them into war. I'll bet the vast majority of Yanks don't even know or care where Iraq is, lots of them don't know where Canada is. War kills, innocent, men, women and children it wrecks countries. Now I agree that Saddam is BAD man. Bus- is now the bully on the block, Iraq today. Who is next on the agenda, N Korea, Cuba, France, or maybe Canada with its evil CWB or bad forestry policy? George Bus- is a weasel and a dangerous one, he is taking advice from his pals in Texass, where they have a, he needed killing law for gosh sakes! Weapons of mass destruction. The US is the only nation on the planet to date, that has ever nuked anybody, twice. Where does this leave the UN? Now let's see, we have a WAR ON DRUGS, (US biggest consumer)a WAR ON TERROR, now a REAL WAR, yeah the Bus- agenda is right on course! God Help America. Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2003 | 19:10 8 I wonder how many Canadians know what actually exists at the other end of Canada ( so don't blame Americans for not knowing what exists in Canada sometimes. ) As for the U.S being a bully... face it, its the land of the free. You want to give up some freedom ?

I feel its unfortunate that history is so easily forgotten at times but without the United States of America, just what kind of life do you think you would have today ? Seriously !!

Oh sure , there are the economic problems of dealing with them at times, but I would feel bad to point fingers at them because without them... I would probably have to fight. Like it or not, this is the world we live in... there are no do - overs . And does anyone realistically think the world will all hold hands and kiss any time soon ?

Its freedom that allows each of us to have the opportunity to be heard in a forum like this. Thanks for listening. Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2003 | 21:36 9 Hats off to the Americans.They figured out what needed doing and got their butts over there and are doing it.Maybe this brown nosing country can look to the south and take a few lessons.

Actually....


I'm hoping Canada is next in line for a good ole' U S of A enforced regime change... Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2003 | 00:11 10 I am very interested in this discussion and don't intend to have all the answers or even pretend to be that smart but I have one point to add to the discussion. If you watch the ongoing coverage of the war at times it almost seems to be a big game that is being played to entertain everybody. In fact if it wasn't real people fighting and dying you would almost think it was a saga created for tv. Darn I got off the subject,sorry, I set out to remind everybody how in the original gulf war that Bush senior didn't finish the job and stopped before he finished the dictator off. This caused untold suffering to a bunch of the Iraquis that rose up to fight Suddam Hussan then, in fact there was almost a whole generation of people that were exterminated for their opposition. That one fact is causing the americans nothing but trouble in southern Iraq right now. The next thing because the job wasn't finished off that time by the americans the arabs as a whole seem to think that is a sign of weakness on their part and I think that is costing them dearly as well. I support them in what they are doing but they are going to have nothing but trouble finishing this thing off. Hope I am wrong but I just have this feeling. Hope that you all will be able to remind me soon how wrong I was. Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003 | 15:43 11 From an American: Read with interest the thread of discussions relating to the U.S. role in Iraq. Some protesting may lose sight of these facts1)chem or bio weapons are probably going to be discovered;(2)some have probably already been passed on to terrorist groups ("any enemy of mine...");(3)one independent terrorist group tied to alQaida has been blasted out of northern Iraq;(4)Saddam's oil revenues have gone to purchase Russian/French/Chinese items prohibited by the UN for 12 years (so much for the "just use sanctions and keep him in check..." arguement).If sanctions and inspections had worked, why are Russian military items/French parts being found almost daily on the ground?(4)Upon request, our President (and most all Americans, including this one)would (I'm sure) provide any assistance that might be necessary, if asked, by the Canadian peoples/government, should any type of disaster occur on Canadian soil (which we seriously would not want to occur);(5)the only soil kept by Americans in previous wars, was the soil used to bury American, Canadian, Australian, British, etc. troops who had fallen in those countries during times of oppression.(6)the U.S. didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, the Japanese did.Question for the anti-war protestors:would you go hunting a predator bear with a willow switch? (7)The American farmers and ranchers that I know would not publicly embarass a Canadian or "boo" at your National Anthem.We might sit in a kitchen, and argue politics/war/etc.But then,that's the American (and Canadian) way, isn't it? Peace to Canada. Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2003 | 19:44 12 Someone above called Bush a weasel. Let's go through a little exercise here. Who would you rather have as the leader of your nation? Saddam? Cretien? That guy in France? The Russian President? Sounds like a lot of BAD people, or in the case of some, people who DON'T stand up for what they believe in. I, personally, wish Bush et. all the very best. Too bad our own leader tells us what to think and how to act all the time and then blames it on us when repercussions occur, as I am sure they will this time also. Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003 | 01:12 13 Couple of points I'd like to make...
#1. If this really was about oil, the yanks have a large supply of oil just north of them that also is desparately in need of a regime change.
#2. Keep in mind the same idiots in Montreal that booed the American national anthem are the very same ones that did the same for the Canadian anthem not so long ago.

For those of you who may not agree with the idiotic comments of our "leader", you may wish to visit a web site ( www.wesupporttheusa.ca ) petition which will be forwarded to the PM's office and the Whitehouse.

Give `em hell, yanks! And safe return soon! Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003 | 01:39 14 Good points flatbroke and nice to see you back.
Although I think many Canadians, myself included, were uneasy about the USA proceeding without the backing of the UN, that does not mean that the American forces do not have our support and sympathy. Unfortunately that isn't a lot of tangible help when they need it. Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003 | 10:33 15 Guess what, Vice President Dick Cheney's company Haliburton just got a HUGE contract to reconstruct Iraq's oil fields and pipelines. US weapon of mass destruction GREED!! Wild weasels at work. Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003 | 15:24 16 Ok, Here's the Plan.....

1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference " in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini and the rest of them good old boys'. We will never "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with
Germany, South Korea and the Philippines.
They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No
more sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and
leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where
they are. France would welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90
days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself. Don't hide here. Asylum would not ever be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers.

5) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home, baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else.

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we
will not "interfere". They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain,
cement or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if any anyway.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here.
Besides, it would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan!!! Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2003 | 19:37 17 We, our family, are presently reading "The Diary of Anne Frank", and I can't help but think of how many Iraqi girls or boys from the past, or present could have the same type of basic story about their life. It is a very sobering reminder of the regime of someone else who had similar ideas to the leader of Iraq - Adolf Hitler. It also makes me "angry" thinking of those "weasels" of that time, FDR, Churchill and others.
Good Luck, our U.S. neighbors, and may God Bless you for your humanitarian efforts, even though they may also have some other motives as well. Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2003 | 16:12 18 I'll go for your plan any old time. It makes the most scense of all. I wonder what the do gooders would bitch about then. Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2003 | 21:40 19 Blessed indeed are the peacemakers, Blessed enjoying enviable happiness, spirtually prosperous that is , with life joy and satisfaction in God's favour and salvation, regardless of their outward conditions are the makers and maintainers of peace, for they shall be called the sons of God (Mathew 5:9).
US Airborne motto; Kill them all, let God sort them out. Yeah go gettem boys, just like Vet nam same guys at the helm! Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2003 | 14:15 20 Maybe some of you against the war should just phone up Saddam and have a little talk with him. I'm sure he will listen. I mean he is a fair man, he is very supportive of his army. Just look at the way he puts civilians in front of them to protect them. Look at the nice way in which he dresses his men in civilian clothes so that they can blend in with the general population (and kill more of us). His support of the car demolotion program speaks for itself(park close and blow up your enemy)

We can only protect the innocent people of Iraq so long. When his tatics are terrorism we will have no other choice but to destroy the country. Better to have 100 of them die neadlessly than 1 of ours!!! Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2003 | 14:57 21 Now, before you start dissing me, let me say that I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot have people like Saddam ruling countries or able to have power over anyone. Let's look beyond the short term for the moment, and just to play devil's advocate, ponder on the following:

What happens if the coalition does not get Saddam?

What if there is someone as bad, if not worse, than Saddam that steps up next?

How do you suppose getting rid of Saddam is going to fix all the problems of the Iraqi people, much less the turmoil and problems that there have been in the Middle East for as far back as we can remember?

How sincere are we in supporting the Americans, if and only if we are doing it to avoid economic sanctions or boycotts in the future?

If the coalition is going after terrorism and/or evil people, what about what has happened in the Sudan for the past several years? That is just as horrible as there is genocide going on there every day. The problems there stem somewhat from sanctions that were placed against the Sudan for not supporting the gulf war.

Part of what is happening to the Iraqi people - starvation, lack of food and water, derives from sanctions that have been placed on them.

What about the fact that this may not be the end, but the beginning for people who have long memories, hatred of the West and no conscience at all about doing what they feel they need to in order to make their point?

What about the fact that Canada has stood alongside the U.S. in many battles, most recently Afghanistan? To quote a phrase that my mother used many times.... if so and so jumped off a bridge - would you jump too? Again I ask, if we are just doing it to avoid getting penalized by the U.S. somehow, then how sincere are we about getting into the war?

What about the fact that Canada could still play a role in this - perhaps one that is along the lines of helping the people to adjust to life without Saddam?

I'm not sure how to feel about all of this. All I know is that we have to look beyond the next few weeks. Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2003 | 17:43 22 I wonder how much of the difference in opinions amoung Canadians, and American for that matter, is purely philosophical, and how much is the result making decisions based on differing information.
Anyone who didn't see the March 26th edition of The Fift Estate, might like to have a look here.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/index.html
Also, to better understand the real motivation of the current US administration it is worth doing a little reading here.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2003 | 15:42 23 There is certainly propaganda from all sides in this war and I just hope the powers that be got it right.
I think Iraq was chosen not because of any oil weapons or civil rights atrocities but because it was seen as a war that could be WON!
Shock and awe was not for Iraq but N.Korea Iran etc.
I just hope 6months messing about with UN has not given Saddam too much time to prepare Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2003 | 17:25 24 I guess the other thing that really gets my head scratching is are those who feel that if you aren't behind this "war" then you have to be for Saddam. Nothing is ever that black and white and I think that it is safe to say that one can be against war but not for the other, in this case for Saddam. There aren't too many that would want to see him stay in power and I'm sure that goes for those that do not think we should be in this war.

Can someone explain this logic to me - if you aren't for one, then you're automatically for the other? Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2003 | 02:25 25 I'd say that there are 2 things that all of us, regardless of our stance on this issue, can agree on 100%

#1. Nobody is on Hussein's side.
#2. Nobody WANTS to be fighting a war.
However...
This clown had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions following the Gulf war, and showed no interest in doing so. He is known to have funded terrorists worldwide (including el-quaida)and sold food traded for oil meant for Iraqi citizens to fund his military. If we could have gone back to 1938 and Removed Hitler BEFORE his attempted genocide on the Jews, as well as the hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers killed in the war, would we have been justified? I mean, sure he was violating the terms of the armistice by building up Germany's military, but he hadn't invaded anybody yet, right? At any rate, it's safe to say he'd have stopped once Britain had fallen, so maybe we had no business over there...
You see where I'm going with this. It was a noble cause then, and I really do believe it is a noble cause this time.Neither PM Blair nor Pres. Bush will gain any popularity by this action, in fact I guarantee it will decrease with every coalition casualty, a fact both men are very aware of. The irony is that if a pre-emptive strike is successful, we'll never know just how neccessary it really was. Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2003 | 21:10 26 henbent,

Quote "Guess what, Vice President Dick Cheney's company Haliburton just got a HUGE contract to reconstruct Iraq's oil fields and pipelines. US weapon of mass destruction GREED!! Wild weasels at work. "

You erred. You should have stated "Former company". VP Dick Cheney sold his Haliburton shares in August 2000. Want to retract your statement? Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2003 | 22:32 27 So what if a few high profile American politicians get some contracts to help build Iraq.

I'm sure when they give out the contract for the "Saddam Memeorial Golf Course" that our very own Jean Crutchin will be at the top of the list!!!! Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2003 | 22:49 28 Hindsight is a great thing and I wonder what would have happened if there had been intervention prior to the second world war.

We have to put things into perspective though - we weren't right there in the tanks and on the battlefields the way we are today. We had to rely on military reports given to the media for our news about the war going on over in Europe. It wasn't until the Vietnam war that we were all subjected to the horros and atrocities of war on a somewhat more firsthand basis.

One also has to consider that the Americans didn't enter into the 2nd world war until AFTER the bombing at Pearl Harbor - up until that time, they too didn't get involved and I suppose that it may have been in part due to the fact that we had no idea of what was happening over there.

I have to wonder if all the coverage isn't having somewhat of a numbing effect on us?

I still don't really know how to feel about it and I've heard a lot of arguments both for and against.

One more thing to ponder, will getting Saddam out of the way really end the problems over there? What if there is someone worse waiting in the wings?

I heard an interesting argument the other day and it does leave one thinking about it. Over here, as a rule, we don't need all family members to contribute to the overall income in order to get by - we did many years ago, but that pretty much has become less of a factor. We all know of families who had the major bread winner, in those days dad, pass away and then the whole family had to pitch in just to put food on the table.

Think about many of these developing countries where that is still very much the norm. These suicide bombers get enticed into doing their missions because their families will be very well provided for. Now this person's argument was what would happen if you took away that incentive? I'm still trying to come to some sort of conclusion on that. What are your thoughts? Reply With Quote
Deb
Apr 5, 2003 | 01:14 29 George W. Bush was elected because he knew all along he was going to invade Iraq. He's an oil man and oil men get fed up with OPEC. Invading Iraq and gaining control of the second largest reserve of oil in the world would take the stress off having to deal with OPEC.

Anybody who thinks Bush, Cheney, Powell (who was reluctant at first), Rice, Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz have any humanitarian desire to "free" the Iraqi people and install a democracy, has forgotten the United States history in central and south america starting from back in the 60s.

Richard Perle (who is currently a consultant to the Secretary of Defense and Consultant to several U.S. and multinational companies and who once advised Binjamin Netanyahu to abandon the Oslo Peace Process and return to military repression of the Palestinians) and Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense who has longed to see the Middle East colonized by the United States, are scary people. Vice President Cheney was Bush Sr's defense secretary. In 1969 Cheney was special assistant to Donald Rumsfeld in the Nixon administration (remember that crook?)

This old boys club is thick as thieves, they hate dissent and free speech, they'll support the American arms manufacturing industry till their dying day, and they are bankrupting the United States. I support the U.S. troops because I don't think they should be in Iraq and they should come home. Right now they are unwitting mercenaries for the American oil corporations.

I suppose they have to finish the job now, though, so those 500 Iraqi men, women and children who have been killed, didn't die in vain. Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2003 | 11:00 30 Anybody that thinks that they will actually ever successfully institute a democratic government in Iraq has been smoking way to much wacky tabacky. The demographics of that country are not condusive to democracy. Fifty percent of the population is under the age of 18 and with that high of a percentage of the population that young the odds are against any lasting government as we know it. It will end up being some sort of a US backed dictatorship being the only kind of government that can keep some sort of order in the country amongst the various tribes(for want of a better or more appropriate word Linda would know the proper term to describe those different peoples) And maybe that isn't all bad because we saw how bad the last regime was. Reply With Quote