[whelan costen]

Yes but Kevin, as soon as Rwanda has something of interest, say oil or something else needing to be exploited...then you'll see the saviours heading out to battle!

[KevinGagnon]

That's just it Whelan. Why do people choose to put their heads in the sand, to the real truth about U.S wars. What will it take for these 'war supporters' to take their heads out of the sand and start talking based on what is true, and not based on what they 'don't know' cause they choose to keep their heads in the sand. Kevin

[Reverend Blair]

To criticise the US is to criticise our entire social and economic structure, Kevin. To say that the US only goes to war when it's economic interests are at stake is to reveal the falsehood of our consumer society. It is also to risk the much feared "economic reprisals."

So people want to defend the US. It's either that or start asking themselves whether they really need that Suburban in the driveway and even worse, who our real friends are.

[KevinGagnon]

Wow Rev. Not sure why I never looked at it that way. But it sure makes allot of sense. Kevin

[Reverend Blair]

I don't think people really think about it themselves. They just kind of refuse to ask the questions because someplace deep inside they know how uncomfortable the answers are.

Keep in mind that we live in place that elected Mulroney twice and hasn't booted Stephen Harper out of a moving car at the border, naked and bleeding. We'll deny anything, as a country, as long as they don't take away our TV sets.

Sorry...been talking to way many Conservatives lately...

[Milton]

It might be that people believe that there is not enough to go around anyway so why shouldn't I have what I want. If you hear it said often enough then you can generate a scenario where you are not the ogre.

The real shame is that there is enough to go around. In the 1970's, under the auspices of Buckminster Fuller, myself and a number of like minded individuals undertook to inventory the worlds resources. Bucky called our task "the World Game", it's the only game in town! The goal was to ascertain, in a scientific manner, if the Earth had enough resources to take care of the approximentally 4 billion Humans on the planet. We wanted to be able to do this without destroying the ecological balance of mother Earth in the process. What we found was that we could take care of everyone on the planet using regenerative energy sources and without massive chemical inputs into the food system.
Bucky thought we should get the plans together and keep updating them until the Human race was ready to accept new ideas. The plans were comprehensive in nature, if you knew Bucky you know how much attention to detail he demanded.

"At present 99% of humanity is misinformed in believing in the Malthusian concept of the fundamental inadequacy of life support, and so they have misused their minds to develop only personal and partisan advantages, intellectual cunning and selfishness. Intellectual cunning has concentrated on how to divorce money from true life support wealth; second, cunning has learned how to make money with money by making it scarce. As of the 1970's muscle, guns and intellectual cunning are ruling world affairs and keeping them competitive by continuing the false premise of universal inadequacy of life support." - R. Buckminster Fuller

[Stymiest]

ok while the US did go into Iraq for strategic reasons it was not for the purpose of acquiring Oil. It was an eays way to gain a strategic advantage in the middle eats and keep all the players in the region in check. Eever taken a look where Iraq is on the world map anyways smack in the middle of the Middle East. IT borders Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Turkey and is an easy accessway to the rest of the middle east if any conflict is too break out. This is so the US can play the role of policeman in the region and make sure nobody stays too far out of line. <br /> <br />IRaq offered them the perfect way to do this. Iraq has broken resolution after resolution for the past 12 years and this conflict was just waiting to flare up again. Finally someone had the balls to go in and remove that dictator from power. Sure their are some roadblocks in the way of a stabilized Iraq but in the end spreading the word of american democracy is a lot better then having facist arab nazis running the place. <br /> <br />I'd take an American puppet regime over some islamo facist wacko controlling our worlds most precious resource anyday. <br /> <br />America has only taken 1000 casualties in 18 months anyway not a huge loss considering what they are working with. As a matter of fact this was a major success for the US Army and shows their potency as a fighting force.

[whelan costen]

Stymiest you are really into the American nightmare aren't you; why do you believe that the U.S. needs to be the world's policeman? I suspect that something has given you a different perspective on human life, it isn't youth because many other young people post on here and seem to value it more than you express; 'only 1000 casualties??' My God, what are you saying, that is the U.S. casualties, that does not account for the loss of Iraqi's lives, the innocent children, men and women who lived in Iraq! That doesn't account for the depleted Uranium which will be causing death and health issues for generations to come, nor does it account for the wmd being used by the U.S. ....please think about what you are saying. One life is worth more than the oil or the strategic placement of military bases! If you are representing the youth and the dreams for tomorrow, you are really scaring me! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'>

[Stymiest]

[QUOTE BY= whelan costen] Stymiest you are really into the American nightmare aren't you; why do you believe that the U.S. needs to be the world's policeman? I suspect that something has given you a different perspective on human life, it isn't youth because many other young people post on here and seem to value it more than you express; 'only 1000 casualties??' My God, what are you saying, that is the U.S. casualties, that does not account for the loss of Iraqi's lives, the innocent children, men and women who lived in Iraq! That doesn't account for the depleted Uranium which will be causing death and health issues for generations to come, nor does it account for the wmd being used by the U.S. ....please think about what you are saying. One life is worth more than the oil or the strategic placement of military bases! If you are representing the youth and the dreams for tomorrow, you are really scaring me! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'> [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />yeah just like those millions of iraqis sent to their death in the iran vs iraq war. I am for the removal of an evil dictator Sadaam needed to go and thats that I just wish the West would do it more to little thorns in our side.

[Jordan Bell]

There is no way the US army can pull out of Iraq now. They are in to deep and if the pulled out all those lives would be lost for nothing because the country would go back to being lead by a bunch of facists. Many presidents have tried to get rid of Sudamn but never suceeded. Bush has and they need to keep striving to input a working democratic government for the people of Iraq. Yes there has been inocent cassualties but it is all for a better cause. Yes their is chance of civil war and their will be more casualties but the new democracy must be established or the loss of lives would have been for nothing.

[whelan costen]

Here is another thought, democracy is something that people decide for themselves, it cannot be enforced, did you ever consider that; as long as something is forced on people they will never accept it. The whole premise of democracy is the will of the people, so how do you equate an occupying force, that just destroyed their country, killed many innocents, with democracy? Many presidents supported Saddam, funded him, set him up in his presidency which required the killing of many innocents to get it started. I'm not sure that sitting over here you can say that the cost of human life over there, was for a better cause. The new democracy enforced by another country and the loss of lives, in your opinion will be for something. <br /> <br />I guess that theory helps people sleep at night, rather than admit that the pre-emptive strike on a nation to take out the leader, that was put in power by the same one doing the invading, misleading the world in order to facilitate such a war,destroying the infrastructure of the country, bombing their hospitals and attempting to make the public believe they were actually chasing terrorists, all the while allowing the real terrorist to hide in caves. I guess the people of the U.S. sleep better knowing that their education and healthcare needs were sacrificed to fund this war, and the patriot act which denies their freedoms was implemented in the name of bringing freedom and democracy to another country. <br /> <br />Gee sounds great.

[z_whalen]

America pulled out too soon in the Gulf War 1. If they had stayed a few more weeks and finished off the rest of the Republican Guard and if they hadn't given them permission to fly their choppers, this would probably all be over with. No soldier would have ever needed to go to Baghdad; Saddam could have been overthrown by a military and civilian uprising after being defeated in the Gulf War. However, they did pull out too soon and Saddam remained in power. There are a number of things that were wrong with going to Iraq a second time, and I would say the number one problem was timing. By initiating such a controversial invasion, America lost a lot of momentum in the war on terror. After this "sidetrack," America will find it difficult to continue the war against terrorism due to increased anti-Americanism around the world. With hate of America inflamed in many of it's allies, America will probably have to act unilaterally again, even if the cause is just. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. I disagree with the invasion of Iraq, but it is something that would have had to dealt with at some point, and it's unlikely Iraq could be dealt with without the use of military force. As for American and civilian casualties, it is one of the awful but unavoidable aspects of war. Jordan is right, they cannot pull out now, they are in much too deep. If they were to pull out, it is likely Iraq would be engulfed in chaos and end up worse off than it was under Hussein or the U.S. occupation.

[Stymiest]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] America pulled out too soon in the Gulf War 1. If they had stayed a few more weeks and finished off the rest of the Republican Guard and if they hadn't given them permission to fly their choppers, this would probably all be over with. No soldier would have ever needed to go to Baghdad; Saddam could have been overthrown by a military and civilian uprising after being defeated in the Gulf War. However, they did pull out too soon and Saddam remained in power. There are a number of things that were wrong with going to Iraq a second time, and I would say the number one problem was timing. By initiating such a controversial invasion, America lost a lot of momentum in the war on terror. After this "sidetrack," America will find it difficult to continue the war against terrorism due to increased anti-Americanism around the world. With hate of America inflamed in many of it's allies, America will probably have to act unilaterally again, even if the cause is just. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. I disagree with the invasion of Iraq, but it is something that would have had to dealt with at some point, and it's unlikely Iraq could be dealt with without the use of military force. As for American and civilian casualties, it is one of the awful but unavoidable aspects of war. Jordan is right, they cannot pull out now, they are in much too deep. If they were to pull out, it is likely Iraq would be engulfed in chaos and end up worse off than it was under Hussein or the U.S. occupation.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Exasctly Whalen. Iraq would have eventually been dealt with. It was a military success but a political error on Dublyas part. It is too give the US the needed bases and permanent manpower it needs in the region to fight the future battles. You people seem to be taking the "I am the victim" stance to everything. <br /> <br />Big bad wolf to the south of us is always pushing us around. Get a grip and stop being such a little pushover personally your arguments are like all the typical arguments of the far left. (Whiners without any solutions to anything). I am laughing just reading some of this stuff now it makes me realize just how weak the average Canadian is <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> <br /> <br />You try to argue points in which you clearly have not done any research o and you try and argue your opinion in areas which you have no expertise. You try to argue energy policies with someone yet you have not the slightest idea how the energy market works. <br /> <br />You have no comprehension of how global politics work and you do not take into consideration the effect isolationist decisions will have on our country. <br /> <br />You also have not the slightest idea of how a military is meant too run. You talk about spreading peace and hapiness yet when push comes to shovew you'd rather just take a step back and let the real men do all the work. Go smoke some reefer and contemplate what our neighbours to the south are going to do next. You remind me of hte Quebecers of the 1900's and the 1940s hell Quebec thought WWII was a European conflict and Canada should stay out yeah nice job 6 million jews got massacred hypocrits. French representation was horrid in both wars. <br /> <br />The fact is you'd probably asll love too believe that their is some secret American Organization bent on global domination but lets get out of your little soap opera lives for a moment and get back to reality here. This isn;t hollywood people this is the real world. <br /> <br />With that I bid this forum adios

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] America pulled out too soon in the Gulf War 1. If they had stayed a few more weeks and finished off the rest of the Republican Guard .. .[/QUOTE]<p> <br />Hindsight; See: 20/20. Nope. We had a specific job to do, as mandated by the UN. The liberation of Kuwait. Anything that was done was to support that goal. Exceeding that goal was not in the playbook.<p> <br />That was a time when the US and the UK were still using supporting the UN, so they had to play by the UN's rules.<p>

[canuck]

[QUOTE]...and it's unlikely Iraq could be dealt with without the use of military force.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />What was the reason Iraq needed to be dealt with in the first place? I mean, it's not like Hussein wasn't an American ally... <br /> <br />So why should we not mind the fact that the US condoned use of chemical weapons during the eighties just to turn around fifteen years later when 12 years of harsh economic sanctions and aerial bombardment had left Iraq utterly defenseless?