The Wars Of Our World.

[Daemia]

thx for the info chzrles.  i dont hear much recent info on this usa vs iraq war on my local news in buttfuck bc,  just the shortest headlines :/  which is frustrating. If i want info i have to do online searches for recent news events which can be time consuming which is one reason why i started this thread... i want to hear others perspectives. 

jagermonsta's  was very informational and helpful. wow he's one informative opinionated guy huh?   

[X'tyfe]

* X'tyfe yawns

to the OP...

canada has lost its way in this regard
that is all ill say

[Daemia]

im not sure if you mean the news coverage (which i'd agree with) or if you mean the soldiers that are peace keeping in iraq 

[X'tyfe]

peacekeeping is one thing

but supporting a war with no other purpose then to increase the bush family worth is sickening
people are dieing to make him rich, and Canadians too

supporting a leader that murdered over 3000+ of his own people before all that as an excuse to get to that point

who are the real criminals? the "terrorists" defending there land? or the army invading to defend someones investments?
would you want your country apart of that? i certainly would not

[jägermonsta]

peacekeeping is one thing

but supporting a war with no other purpose then to increase the bush family worth is sickening
people are dieing to make him rich, and Canadians too

supporting a leader that murdered over 3000+ of his own people before all that as an excuse to get to that point

who are the real criminals? the "terrorists" defending there land? or the army invading to defend someones investments?
would you want your country apart of that? i certainly would not

lol you're so ignorant. why bother to talk about this topic when you're going to spit out shit like that.

[{TNP}Dukie]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=college-know-it-all-hippie

heh heh 

[jägermonsta]

 

Yes, those dirty bitches driving VW Bugs with Bush Sucks bumper stickers commuting to college causing all the traffic I have to sit in every morning cause they can't drive for shit since their pussies.

[quadz]

that formula should include shoving democracy down the throats of every strategically unimportant nation, using force..

that'll help!

 

[|iR|Focalor]

CAN SOME ONE CLEAREFY THIS FOR ME?  AND CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO SPELL CLEARIFY FOR FUCKS SAKES?   

Do you mean to say clarify?

OK SO i'M GOING TO ADMIT i STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE WAR WENT FROM BEING IN AFGHANISTAN TO IRAQ    WAS IT THE WHOLE 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION' CLAIM THAT BROUGHT USA INTO IRAQ?

i'M KIND OF LOST WHEN IT COMES TO THIS WAR ON IRAQ...  i'VE HEARD RUMORS ABOUT HOW BUSH IS ONLY IN IRAQ FINISHING WHAT HIS FATHER STARTED AND HOW DOMINATION/THE COUNTRY'S OIL IS ALL HE WANTS.

You're just as lost as the rest of us. Afghanistan was supposedly where a number of Al-Qaeda terrorist operatives such as Osama Bin Laden were reportedly hiding. Apparently it was found that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had been supporting Al-Qaeda's terrorist efforts in addition to producing nuclear weapons, aka weapons of mass destruction. Hussein repeatedly dodged the UN's efforts to inspect facilities believed to contain their WMD production. And so after a while, we invaded. Never found any WMD's, of course. And now they have been bestowed with the blessing of a democratic government, one that will undoubtedly be pro-US. The given reasons for invading were nothing more than smoke and mirrors employed by the US government as far as I'm concerned. I don't neccessarily agree with the fact that we barged in and took over, but given the alternative of having to deal with a more deadly and dangerous Iraq at a later date, I believe it was the lesser of two evils. Controlling oil? Not completely. It's not like the US owns the oil now. But when the Iraqi government doesn't hate the western society, we will be more likely to be able to purchase it at a more reasonable cost. If the west ran out of oil, would Saddam sell us any? Maybe... at a very high price... or maybe not at all.

BTW regarding ww1 and ww2 my dad tells me that america stayed out of the world wars for a LONG time refusing to choose sides. he said that america waited until there was one side winning until they decided to join in. like america wanted to only join in once it was clear they were joining the winning side      i have no idea how credible this is that he claims, or if its just the crazy ramblings of an old man who dislikes americans lol!!  but i do plan on doing research on dates and such of both wars and having this debate with him.  ( i love to prove the old man wrong )

Your father is very wrong. True, the US did stay out of WW2 for a while. The US stood by watching as Hitler's war machine rolled through Europe on it's conquest. We were completely unaware at the time of Hitler's "final solution" and his concentration camps. It was completely unknown that these camps even existed until the alliance forces discovered them during their efforts to force the Nazi army back into Berlin. The unprovoked attack on the US naval and air base at Pearl Harbor by axis forces from Japan was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak, and propelled the US into the war along side Britain and Russia.

[lidz]

I am not going to debate any particular war, or stupid assumptions about things *cough x'tyfe* which I have limited knowledge about.  But I do think the 'we must provide freedom' to other people or nations chant is rather over used in politics.  In an ideal world,  where religious freedom is allowed and people become somewhat educated, then they deserve the freedom the West enjoys.  I do realize the word freedom is rather ambiguous, but I think there are some rather simple standards of freedom which people deserve.

Let's face it there are nations and people alike, which are not ready to be handed the level of freedom which the West enjoys.  Trying to force freedom upon a nation or people, before the wounds of time have healed, is a useless process.  I don't blame Sadam or any dictator for ruling in the way they did, using brutal force to keep the people somewhat straight is needed.  For humanity is frighteningly savage.  America alone has history of using brutal force upon it's own people to end problems.  I am not justifying either, just stating the fact.

We can sit and judge the way these nations behave, but providing freedom before stability is brought to these areas is a waste.  Like building a house before the foundation is created, there is no point.  Look at certain African nations as well, when they are brought freedom before stability is gained, massive political problems ensue, along with people suffering.  People just deem the suffering in the name of freedom ok and suffering by the hand of the dictator not ok.

Again, I think all people deserve freedom, but due to history repeating, it needs to be customized to met the needs of the people at that particular time.

In generalities, the idea of invading another nation to provide freedom is a self defeating goal from the start.  Just like trying to bring Christianity to a group of people who live in the farthest reaches of a jungle - it is like trying to put a pig in a prom dress and convince it to dance on two legs, it just doesn't work.

But what do I know.

[reaper]

Let's face it there are nations and people alike, which are not ready to be handed the level of freedom which the West enjoys.  Trying to force freedom upon a nation or people, before the wounds of time have healed, is a useless process.  I don't blame Sadam or any dictator for ruling in the way they did, using brutal force to keep the people somewhat straight is needed.  For humanity is frighteningly savage.  America alone has history of using brutal force upon it's own people to end problems.  I am not justifying either, just stating the fact.

in my book, there is wrong and there is right, it's pretty clear.  the issue is deciding if someone else was wrong, and deserves punishment, where is the control, who decides this?  I think the world is in pretty unified agreement that Sadaam was wrong, and even his position as a leader of a nation, he did not have the right to do what he did.  I see you said "there are nations and people alike, which are not ready to be handed freedom".  I'm not sure what you're getting at.  So some girl can't ride a bike in Iran, or go to school in Afghanistan, because she is not ready for freedom?  Or do you mean we cannot win?

In my opinion we went to Iraq, because our leader perceived a direct relationship between Iraq's government (who has wealth and power), with terrorism (who needs wealth to complete it's mission).  This didn't appear to be the case, nevertheless I hope we can improve the nation, and it's freedoms.

[Daemia]

thanks [EoM]Focalor for all of that and everyone else its nice to see your POV's. 
Ya it kinda pisses me off that im so confused about this war

but supporting a war with no other purpose then to increase the bush family worth is sickening
people are dieing to make him rich, and Canadians too

The Canadians aren't dieing to 'make him rich' they died fighting for the safety of the innocent civilians who got caught in the middle of this nightmare.  We are peacekeeping and thats it. No other involvement in this.

And neither are the Americans, they are trying to take out the terrorist organizations before another 9/11 incident happens again to them or to ANY OTHER COUNTRY.  It seems like a lot to take on doesnt it?

And this is why i think we should be helping america BUT i want to make sure that that IS indeed the intentions of bush because we have all heard things like "its about the oil" or "he's just trying to finish what his dad couldn't"

Canadian Government Position on the War on Iraq

Dateline: 03/18/03

Canada Will Not Join the War in Iraq

Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister of Canada, has announced that Canada will not join the war on Iraq. The major reasons the Canadian Prime Minister has given are

    * there was no UN Security Council resolution on military action against Iraq

    * the diplomatic process of Iraqi disarmament was working, and might have been successful given a few more weeks

    * forcing a change in regime sets a dangerous precedent

"If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate."

it sounds to me like canada did want to join but wanted the full support of the Security Council which they never got.

[lidz]

in my book, there is wrong and there is right, it's pretty clear.  the issue is deciding if someone else was wrong, and deserves punishment, where is the control, who decides this?  I think the world is in pretty unified agreement that Sadaam was wrong, and even his position as a leader of a nation, he did not have the right to do what he did.  I see you said "there are nations and people alike, which are not ready to be handed freedom".  I'm not sure what you're getting at.  So some girl can't ride a bike in Iran, or go to school in Afghanistan, because she is not ready for freedom?  Or do you mean we cannot win?

In my opinion we went to Iraq, because our leader perceived a direct relationship between Iraq's government (who has wealth and power), with terrorism (who needs wealth to complete it's mission).  This didn't appear to be the case, nevertheless I hope we can improve the nation, and it's freedoms.

My complete comment was 'there are nations and people alike, which are not ready to be handed the level of freedom which the West enjoys.'  Which you took a bit out of context and used your girl riding a bike comment.  I stated mutliple times, that people deserve freedom, but it is more complicated than removing the current government and expecting freedom to reign.  When you are dealing with conflicts and beliefs that have been around forever, freedom isn't just something that happens, after a violent removal of the current government.

In my book there is wrong and right, but there is a shit load of grey, which shouldn't be ignored either.

[X'tyfe]

my efforts may be wasted saying anything on this subject now
but the truth will be known by all soon enough just you wait

if there needs to be a war to bring it about then so be it, i will fight
because that is something worth fighting for

[DWxchzrles]

peacekeeping is one thing

but supporting a war with no other purpose then to increase the bush family worth is sickening
people are dieing to make him rich, and Canadians too

supporting a leader that murdered over 3000+ of his own people before all that as an excuse to get to that point

who are the real criminals? the "terrorists" defending there land? or the army invading to defend someones investments?
would you want your country apart of that? i certainly would not

same old crap that you posted in my tread another terrorist attack

if the United States only wanted oil reserves then attack Saudi Arabia

I posted this in another terrorist attack

Poison gas and nerve agents are considered to be weapons of mass destruction

Iraqi troops, on orders from Saddam to stop a Kurdish uprising, attacked the Kurdish
town of Halabjah with a mix of poison gas and nerve agents killing 5,000 people,
mostly women and children

Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as
Lenin, Stalin and Hitler before them.

And the question is, will the people of the United States, Canada and Europe listen?