[Kory Yamashita]

And if we went into Iraq (assuming.. you know.. that we had troops to spare and we could actually afford to clothe them) and cleaned up after the US, wouldn't that just be giving the US a license to do the same thing again? Imagine the implications... they can invade a country, bomb the sh*t out of that country's civilians, commandeer the resources, and then walk away. And guess what? The rest of the world will step in and clean up the whole mess. <br /> <br />Whalen, before you get all defensive, this is hypothetical. I know you're not advocating that the US should just wipe its hands and walk away now. But the reality is that one of the implications of what you suggest (that the rest of the world go to Iraq to aid the Americans establish peace) would effectively lead to other unnecessary US invasions. <br /> <br />But more to the point, you've sort of skipped over the fact that the US has no real will to establish stability in the middle east. Or anywhere for that matter. The US has spent pretty much every minute since WW2 profiting from the instability of foreign countries. At first in the form of ideological battles with the USSR (never direct, mind you... as you know, they always fought in other countries and got the locals to do the actual fighting), then in the form of pure monetary gains. <br /> <br />We can hypothesize about the US's motives all we want. The reality is that there is one unifying fact about American foreign policy in this century: at every turn, the US has sided with whoever was more profitable. The World Wars were self-servient because they were about protecting national sovereignty. The Cold War was about protecting the ideals of capitalism. And all the US interference since then (notably in the Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia) has been an extension of the cold war, or in most cases, an anti-democratic money-grab. <br /> <br />Whalen, I agree with you: if the US suddenly did a 180 in foreign policy and began to actually value people over profit, all would benefit. But I think it's very ignorant of you to blindly assume that the US has any plans to change their foreign policy. Who's going to make that change? Bush certainly won't. And it's looking more and more like Kerry is going to be just as useless in this regard. <br /> <br />So yes, if the US stayed in Iraq and started protecting people rather than oil, then it would be beneficial. And in that case, it WOULD be useful for other countries to help out. <br /> <br />Now, since the US isn't going to change their century of for-profit foreign policy, why should they keep those troops in Iraq? Why should Americans be dying to protect oil? And why should Iraqis be dying so that Americans can STEAL a bunch of oil? <br /> <br />The way I see it, the US is there to guarantee the instability that makes oil prices go up. So if they pulled out, yes there would be a lot of bloodshed. There would probably be civil war and worse. But eventually the Iraqi people would work something out. And it is my opinion that they could do that faster than they can with American troops stationed there to guarantee instability. The US presence in Iraq is nothing but a distraction while they syphon off oil.

[z_whalen]

I don't think every American who supported the war was either brainwashed or wanted only the oil. There were good reasons too, but in my mind the wrong outweighed the right. Just because some Americans want to make a profit doesn't mean that there aren't any who want to do some good. It's a case of a few making a bad name for the many. This is no reason to attack the country's entire history as being based on profit. Where would we be if they didn't help in World War II? Where would we be if they hadn't opposed the expansion of the Soviet Union? If it wasn't for the U.S. who would have the balls to take a stand against anything these days? They've done their share of good and bad, but this doesn't change the fact that I am happy and proud that we are allied with them. You are assuming that we will step in and allow America to leave as we clean up the mess. I'm saying that Americans should shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for rebuilding Iraq, but that we should help out to, in whatever way we can. I don't see how making Iraq an international effort improves American control of the country at all. Right now they are running the show, and anyone in America who wants to make a profit has ample opportunity. We can abandon the Iraqis to rebuild but as soon as another dictator like Saddam gains enough power, the process will come to hault and Iraq will end up hanging by slim thread again.

[Brianne]

Whalen: I think the point is is that the decisions being made right now are not in the hands of people who do want to do good, but are being made by people who want money. Therefore, the concerns of the Iraqi people, stability, freedom, are secondary, and are not registering. <br /> <br />Moreover, where would we be without the American help in the Second World War and Cold War? Well, there wouldn't have been a Cold War... but more importantly, why are you naturally assuming that we would have gone up in fascist flames? That's a incomplete assumption, and one without any proper analysis put in to it. I do not accept the idea that America came to our rescue when the Germans were... trying desperately to control guerrilla movements in Europe and fight the Russians (we all know how that turned out). <br /> <br />Maybe without the US stepping up to the plate, every single time and being terribly aggressive, we would have more diplomacy that was not superceded by a military. <br /> <br />How would we keep the American government involved in paying the tab for the clean-up? We couldn't. What voice would we have in decisions? None. International relations don't turn on good intentions about what should happen, they turn on what one country can force or coerce another to accept. Can we force the Americans to stay in Iraq if we step in and say we'll help? No, we can't. They didn't need our help to get in the mess, they shouldn't need us to get out of it. <br />

[Stymiest]

[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] And if we went into Iraq (assuming.. you know.. that we had troops to spare and we could actually afford to clothe them) and cleaned up after the US, wouldn't that just be giving the US a license to do the same thing again? Imagine the implications... they can invade a country, bomb the sh*t out of that country's civilians, commandeer the resources, and then walk away. And guess what? The rest of the world will step in and clean up the whole mess. <br /> <br />Whalen, before you get all defensive, this is hypothetical. I know you're not advocating that the US should just wipe its hands and walk away now. But the reality is that one of the implications of what you suggest (that the rest of the world go to Iraq to aid the Americans establish peace) would effectively lead to other unnecessary US invasions. <br /> <br />But more to the point, you've sort of skipped over the fact that the US has no real will to establish stability in the middle east. Or anywhere for that matter. The US has spent pretty much every minute since WW2 profiting from the instability of foreign countries. At first in the form of ideological battles with the USSR (never direct, mind you... as you know, they always fought in other countries and got the locals to do the actual fighting), then in the form of pure monetary gains. <br /> <br />We can hypothesize about the US's motives all we want. The reality is that there is one unifying fact about American foreign policy in this century: at every turn, the US has sided with whoever was more profitable. The World Wars were self-servient because they were about protecting national sovereignty. The Cold War was about protecting the ideals of capitalism. And all the US interference since then (notably in the Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia) has been an extension of the cold war, or in most cases, an anti-democratic money-grab. <br /> <br />Whalen, I agree with you: if the US suddenly did a 180 in foreign policy and began to actually value people over profit, all would benefit. But I think it's very ignorant of you to blindly assume that the US has any plans to change their foreign policy. Who's going to make that change? Bush certainly won't. And it's looking more and more like Kerry is going to be just as useless in this regard. <br /> <br />So yes, if the US stayed in Iraq and started protecting people rather than oil, then it would be beneficial. And in that case, it WOULD be useful for other countries to help out. <br /> <br />Now, since the US isn't going to change their century of for-profit foreign policy, why should they keep those troops in Iraq? Why should Americans be dying to protect oil? And why should Iraqis be dying so that Americans can STEAL a bunch of oil? <br /> <br />The way I see it, the US is there to guarantee the instability that makes oil prices go up. So if they pulled out, yes there would be a lot of bloodshed. There would probably be civil war and worse. But eventually the Iraqi people would work something out. And it is my opinion that they could do that faster than they can with American troops stationed there to guarantee instability. The US presence in Iraq is nothing but a distraction while they syphon off oil.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />In a way I am happy Canada backed away from the war in iraq. Saddam was a bad man and deserved to be put out but as always politics get in the way of the common good. <br /> <br />The problem in riaq is the US government is trying to make everyone happy and they isolated the international community which they should not have done. Firstly they are trying to keep casualties to a minimum within their own armed forces which is meant to please the american public but ina ll reality what theya re doing is hiding from the inevidable. <br /> <br />Now I have spoken to some recent returnees from Iraq one of which has served in four wars (Desert Storm, Somalia, Afghanistan, and now iraq). He has told me that the insurgency is not large and is constricted to a certain portion of the country (around 40,000 to 50,000 in his opinion). He has said that a lot of iraqis want the US their but many of them are not able to speak out because of fear from their neighbors. he also told me the US does not have enough soldiers on the ground. The borders are not secure and a lot of foreign fighters are getting in because of it. He blames this partly on politics which I think is a reasonable analysis. The army is trying to fight a war while keeping casualties to a minimum and its causing more harm in his opinion. <br /> <br />His thinking was nearly 500,000 troops participated in desert storm to secure a small portion of Iraq. He believes such a force is needed now to truly secure Iraq. <br /> <br />In other words the US does not need a reduction in troops but more troops. He also says the Iraqi Army is not being trained fats enough so in the meantime US forces will be needed to do most of the fighting. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

[Stymiest]

[QUOTE BY= Brianne] Whalen: I think the point is is that the decisions being made right now are not in the hands of people who do want to do good, but are being made by people who want money. Therefore, the concerns of the Iraqi people, stability, freedom, are secondary, and are not registering. <br /> <br />Moreover, where would we be without the American help in the Second World War and Cold War? Well, there wouldn't have been a Cold War... but more importantly, why are you naturally assuming that we would have gone up in fascist flames? That's a incomplete assumption, and one without any proper analysis put in to it. I do not accept the idea that America came to our rescue when the Germans were... trying desperately to control guerrilla movements in Europe and fight the Russians (we all know how that turned out). <br /> <br />Maybe without the US stepping up to the plate, every single time and being terribly aggressive, we would have more diplomacy that was not superceded by a military. <br /> <br />How would we keep the American government involved in paying the tab for the clean-up? We couldn't. What voice would we have in decisions? None. International relations don't turn on good intentions about what should happen, they turn on what one country can force or coerce another to accept. Can we force the Americans to stay in Iraq if we step in and say we'll help? No, we can't. They didn't need our help to get in the mess, they shouldn't need us to get out of it. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />As I said in one of my first posts here Canada needs to set an example as the leading middle power in the world and show the superpowers how things should be done. We need to take a lead on world issues and use our power to give some advice to the big boys. <br /> <br />As Romeo Dallaire put it - "We can no longer sit at the G7 table and when the bill comes along quietly head to the washroom"

[Kory Yamashita]

Stymiest... just a little aside here (I'll respond to your actual post later, when I've thought about it a bit more): whether the US eventually thwarts the insurgency or not, they've already killed a lot of Iraqis. And conveniently lost the numbers. But in about 15 or 20 years, don't you think there will be a lot of young, pissed-off Iraqis who grew up without parents and absolutely HATE everything American? It's sad, but I'm convinced the US has just created another enemy for a good 20 years or so.

[z_whalen]

[QUOTE]Moreover, where would we be without the American help in the Second World War and Cold War? Well, there wouldn't have been a Cold War... but more importantly, why are you naturally assuming that we would have gone up in fascist flames? That's a incomplete assumption, and one without any proper analysis put in to it. I do not accept the idea that America came to our rescue when the Germans were... trying desperately to control guerrilla movements in Europe and fight the Russians (we all know how that turned out). <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Ok Brianne why don't you ask any WW2 veteran whether or not they appreciated the help from the U.S. <br />

[whelan costen]

ZWhalen, I did have that conversation with a vet just the other day, and initially that is what he said, where would we be if not for the Americans help in WWII? So I asked him, how many lives could have been spared if the U.S. had entered before they were attacked, and how the war might have never got really rolling if the U.S., Ford and others hadn't been funding the entire mess in the first place? To that he was forced to wonder. I asked him how he felt about giving up his youth to fight for freedom and democracy, standing up for Canada, only to see the politicians selling us out today? Again he just shook his head, very sad, especially when I think about those guys and how they are glad they had the help, and yes the Americans then are not the same as those in the Whitehouse today! The soldiers who fought are the same as ours, but the administration had and has totally different values.

[whelan costen]

Sorry Brianne, wasn't trying to jump the queue but thought it relevant to the statement. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[4Canada]

My feeling about the Americans leaving Iraq is that, until they do, the rest of the world cannot help. Anyone that comes to help while the Americans are in control would never be seen as coming to aid the Iraqis, they'd be coming to help the Americans keep the occupation. Other UN countries have expressed that they would help with security issues if the Americans would leave. They refuse. So, in my opinion it would be in the world's best interest to let the Americans spend themselves into third world status and end up teaching themselves one very valuable lesson. If the rest of the world goes in and does the janitor work for the US military it would only serve as a thumbs up for further per-emptive wars. <br /> <br />If the American government truly cared one iota about the Iraqi people they would have given and still could give, all the young Iraqis that need jobs work on the reconstruction projects and they would have and still could utilized the Iraqi army that's familiar with the people, the language and know how to keep the country secure. The Americans don't want any interference from other countries because if they allow that to happen, they will lose control of the oil, the reconstruction, and a place to set up a huge military presense in the Middle East. And as far as I can tell until they give up this hopeless agenda nothing will improve. And furthermore, while the Americans are on this self destructive path I believe it would be more dangerous for anyone to support them. I think a good self-destruction may be just what they need.

[Brianne]

whalen: I hope you're not seriously suggesting I've never spoken to a vet before? Shoot, child, I stood on parade squares in more than one country, praising their efforts in the Second World War. Have the picture of my Great-Uncle, Jean-Baptiste on my wall, with his medals he won trying to liberate Holland (he's buried there, naturally). I stood in rank with American soldiers during Rememberance Day (or whatever they call it) cerimonies, and I never felt they didn't belong. <br /> <br />But really, kid, they should have been there three years before they joined. They weren't; maybe if they had been more ready to join, the whole mess really would have been done by Christmas. Maybe, though, is what they call counter-factual history, something you were playing with in your post, and that was really what got me upset. "What If" history is fun, but you shouldn't throw it around in blanket statements. <br />And what does... <br />[QUOTE]Where would we be if they didn't help in World War II? Where would we be if they hadn't opposed the expansion of the Soviet Union? If it wasn't for the U.S. who would have the balls to take a stand against anything these days?[/QUOTE] <br />have to do with <br /> [QUOTE]Ok Brianne why don't you ask any WW2 veteran whether or not they appreciated the help from the U.S. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You went from a broad statement which you've now tried to back up with, well, no evidence, and any evidence I could find in those regards would be unreliable. Generally, you don't take the point-of-view of a participant to be fact. Most vets were foot-soldiers, and had a very narrow view of what was going on in the larger field of battle. <br /> <br />As much respect as I actually have for the veterans of World War II, I'm not going to stretch that into an assumption that each one was completely able to make a unbiased decision on the effectiveness of the US in the war (and, by the way, maybe you should ask around a bit more. There certainly isn't a concensus on exactly how wonderful the US was. If you walk up to any vet, you may or may not get a positive response. And the negative is likely to be more definite than a positive respone). But, you still haven't offered any proof that the Americans had much effect on the outcome. Maybe when it ended would be affected, but where's your proof that the overall outcome would have been different? Do you accept that without the Americans, the rest of the world would have been taken over by the Axis powers? <br />

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= 4Canada] The Americans don't want any interference from other countries because if they allow that to happen, they will lose control of the oil, the reconstruction, and a place to set up a huge military presense in the Middle East. And as far as I can tell until they give up this hopeless agenda nothing will improve. And furthermore, while the Americans are on this self destructive path I believe it would be more dangerous for anyone to support them. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />4Canada had an awesome post that sums it all. Kerry (once elected) somehow needs to handover to the UN controlling the oil tap and revenues and let the Iraqis rebuild themselves. Should the Iraqis decide to continue on killing each other, there will be nobody else to blame anymore other than themselves.

[z_whalen]

Brianne quit putting words in my mouth. And also very nice of you to spit on the American role in World War 2. You neglected to mention that in the years before they actually entered combat, the Americans were supplying the allied war effort. There were also many Americans who wanted to join the war, but the country was held back by an isolationist movement spouting them same crap as you hear today: that you shouldn't go to war unless you are attacked. You seem to be ignoring certain historical truths that do not support your argument. And there's no reason to ignore "what if" history when the answer is obvious. I'm sure it makes you feel better thinking we could have handled the war ourselves without their help, but the truth is if the Americans hadn't been there in WW2, Europe would have probably fallen to Hitler and Japan would likely end up with most of Asia. Get off your high horse it is taking you nowhere.

[z_whalen]

P.S. Down South, it's called Veteran's Day, oh knowledgeable one.

[Stymiest]

Brianne you definately have a thing for putting words in peoples mouths. Like Whalen said your taking everything out of context and twisting it to fit your agenda but hey thats what politics is <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'>