BS: 'a totally needless war'

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 03 - 06:05 PM

Okay, if people are "drug" in Texas it's all right with me, Strick. :-) We've got slang here too, eh?

Of the governmenst which did willingly assist in the recent war against Iraq only ONE of them had majority support from its populace...the USA. The majority of people were opposed in the others. Spain is a spectacular example of that, where a huge majority opposed assisting in that war, but the government went ahead anyway. That's not democracy, that's a payoff is what it is... The same thing almost happened in Turkey, but the populace was so heavily opposed to joining the war that the Turkish government didn't dare to, despite being under tremendous pressure from the USA to do so. They were between what you call a rock and a hard place.

Therefore, I submit that the situation in Canada was similar to that in the rest of the world, and our government had the guts to say "no" to active participation in an illegal war of aggression which was supported by neither the UN or Canada.

Yes, I am well aware that the Soviet Union was for some time an even more dangerous "ravening tiger" for its nearer neighbours than the USA. China was another, from Vietnam's and India's point of view. Israel is another, from certain people's point of view...but it all depends what side of the fence one is born on, doesn't it?

If you had been born Palestinian or Chinese or whatever, you'd probably see it differently.

As would I. In any case, I still think virtually all wars are needless, but once they start they keep rolling on their own momentum and there's not much people can do until the shooting stops.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 03 - 09:13 PM

Yo, Strick;

Would you mind listing the 30 nations and possibly on just how involved they were in the invasion of Iraq?

Ahhh, speaking of Texas. Is that the same joint that President Polk snet troops to, ahhhh, when it was Mexico, and when the Mexicans resisted, used it as an excuse to go to war with Mexico saying that the US troops had been attacked?

Ahhhh, and no, Iraq wasn't just about oil. It was:

1. A distraction to takes folks attention away from the failed "War on Trrorism" in Afganistan where now 90% plus of the country is under Taloiban and warlord rule...

2. Part of a big plan by Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz that goes back to at least 1992 where the US occupies Iraq for stategic reasons.

3. Payback to the corporations that have pumped millions of bucks into the Bush campaigne who profit from war.

4. A logical extension of a joke of an energy policy that was secretly crafted by Dick Cheney and 42 oil men.

5. Business as usual for the Republican Party in keeping a boogie man de joir' on folks minds to keep nationalism and superpatriotism alive and well. Incidently, this is a carry over from stategies of the former Nazis that were broght into the Republican Party in the late 40's. Hitler profected it and it is still alive and well and living right here in the US, along with the likes of his buddy Laszlo Pasztor.

6..........

7...........

8..................

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 12:18 AM

Yes, Hermann Goering said at the Nuremberg trials that although no population is ever eager to go to war, it is the job of their leaders to make such decisions for them, and then to persuade the populace to support the war by convincing them that:

1. their country is already under dire threat or actual attack by the supposed enemy

2. the enemy is irredeemably evil and is committing atrocities on humanity

3. the defeat of this enemy will be beneficial to freedom, justice, and mankind generally...

Ho hum. Same old BS used by every aggressor.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 04:56 AM

Hmmm Bobert,

That doco I mentioned on the CIA above demonstrated that many Nazi war criminals were protected and brought to the USA to help foound the CIA... No wonder ideas leaked...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 09:02 AM

Yup, and we all should keep in mind Laszlo Pasztor. Thie former Nazi founded the imfamous right wing Hertiage Council of the Republican Party... Hmmmm...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 11:15 AM

Oh it's clear that the thing about the US never starting a war is a myth we built up after Pearl Harbor to vilify the Japanese. We've been the aggressor or resorted to trumpted up provocations in numerous wars, mostly in the Western Hemisphere. That doesn't change the fact that the US lacks that central characteristic necessary to make it a real tiger: the urge to make any territorial gains permanent. Central Europe's seen some real tigers, the USSR certainly, but also Nazi Germany, Austria/Hungary, Turkey, France, heck even Poland and Sweden. The US just doesn't have what it takes. We'd mostly rather sort things out and go home.

But I have to admit you guys are clever. Citing Nazi propaganda techniques and then using them to vilify the people you disagree with all in a couple of posts. It's nice to have a boogey man even if you have to create one. So much simplier than looking into the deeper issues. :D

BTW, this report which seems to contradict what you say was published in Slate last week. Maybe those corporations who contributed to Bush aren't getting what they paid for.

Fables of the Reconstruction

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 11:45 AM

Territorial gains aren't in themselves that significant. For the USSR the main thing was having countries under control. There was no need to incorporate the satellite states intomthe Soviet Union. And that was how the USA has always preferred to arrange things also, in Latin America especially.

Strictly speaking, of course, the entire USA is in itself a relatively recent "permanent territoral gain".

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 12:13 PM

As are Canada and Australia who were founded and grew in essentially the same fashion at approximately the same time. Wonder what we three countries have in common?

Yes, the US has traditionally managed South America and the Caribbean as US territories. The Monroe Doctrine had the silent "except for us" tacked on the end. And Lord knows we kept the Shah in power in a most immoral way and no need to speak of the Saudis quite independent of the party in power or the British setting them up in power in the first place. Isn't "Sphere of Influence" a British term? Churchill, right? He certainly knew what Stalin was up to. The US tried to reject the idea in our idealism after WW II, but we weren't very successful at it.

Still, the US is earnest in wanting stability in the region and a quick trip home. No one, domestic or international, would tolerate Iraq as the 51st state. And we're quite happy to pay for the oil we get even if we have to compete with the French and Russians to get it. That's just ordinary business as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 12:32 PM

Strick,

In my mind, the USA is one of the greatest all-time countries that ever existed. Period. I see much to admire about its geography, people and definitely music. However, I do think your present political leaders are being hijacked by BIG business and a power elite. I think you should be concerned about that, too. We all know that shit happens. But it's happening more and more lately, and that worries me. The 'business as usual' thing you mentioned isn't so. That is being orchestrated by multi-nationals and their friends. Don't you see that?

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 02:32 PM

it isnt Goering that came up with propaganda,
since the beginnings of civilization there have been a number
of ways of controlling a population - through armed power and codified laws, but also through 'educating' the population - which was done by both the ruling political and religious elite.

the US had to 'sell' the war to its population and a number of
factors were needed to convince the people- 1. that there was an imminent threat (ie. wmds), 2. that it could be quickly won with low US casualties (which was one of the main reasons the Vietnam war was lost) as well as minimal Iraqi civilian casualties (we dont actually know how many Iraqi civilians died since the US has deliberately chosen not to publicize the numbers, but so-called smart weapons made it possible to minimize bombing damage)
and finally, 3. that there was an evil ruler who tortured and slaughtered his own people - and built palaces while his own people starved.

plus there was still the residual effect of the 911 terrorist strike - even though there have been no proven links between Saddam and AlQaeda it was the perfect time to go after Saddam.

those were the 'public reasons' but what were the real reasons?
if it wasnt really necessary? Obviously it has been a stated policy that control/influence in the oil producing region of the Middle East is key to continuing US hegemony, plus the fact the US was keen to distance itself from Saudi Arabia, and remove one of the key reasons
that Osama Bin laden gave for attacking the US, that foreign troops, including women, were on holy Saudi soil. Not to mention the fact that distancing itself from the Saudi Police state, and establishing
a new base (ie. Iraq) in the area - were also key reasons..
lets face it if the principal export of Iraq was figs we wouldnt have this discussion (much less this war).
But another possible real reason is to establish some kind of democracy in the middle east to serve as an example. Now this may just be an infantile fantasy on the part of the US administration, but it does seem to be one of the most plausible reasons for the war.

they certainly havent succeeded in proving the wmds, and alqaeda link,
nor captured Saddam. But they did quickly win with few casualties,
and not to belittle the deaths of the occupation troops - when you think about the number of casualties in previous wars - a million Russian soldiers died in liberating Czechoslovakia in WWII, a couple hundred casualties is incredibly small number.
and though US troops are being attacked and killed on a daily basis
there really isnt a huge or well organized opposition.

Kalashnikovs are like toasters over there, everybody has one, there are over 5million people in Baghdad, and yet when there was supposedly a call from the former Baathist resistance for an uprising
nothing happened.

I doubt the US will pull out quickly McGrath, I think they will stick around to make sure the job is done. The low level insurgency right now will be more difficult over time, when the leaders are captured
and a larger trained IRaqi military and police is in place.
lets face it the reporters like a story, but with a 100,000+ US occupation force a few attacks arent much. The more effective attacks are on the international aid organizations, and attempts to draw the shiite majority into a civil war (which so far has failed even with the assassination of a major religious leader).

I think by next year things will have stabilized, mainly because the Iraqi people dont want to go back to the former regime. I also think
Bush will lose the next election to Clark, as the US public is starting to question some of the reasons for the war, and its hard for Bush to attack CLarks patriotism, having been seriously injured in Vietname while Bush sat out the war in a scout camp.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 03:56 PM

Strick: Of course the USA wouldn't want Iraq as a 51st state, any more than it wants Mexico or Cuba. Or any more than the USSR wanted Poland or Hungary inside the Soviet Union. Annexation and amalgamation involves all kinds of complications, and just isn't necessary.

And yes, of course Canada and Australia are made up of "permanent territorial gains" in the same way as the United States is, and in the same way as Russia very largely is. And of course the very term "sphere of influence" is the heart of what Empires are all about, and who else but the English would coin a phrase like that? (Unless it was the French, maybe.)

The thing is, there are all sorts of different types of empires, and quite often they don't actually involve direct annexation. Most of the British Empire was made up of protectorates, an analogous term to satellite and more or less what I imagine has been envisaged for Iraq in what might not call itself the American Empire, but pretty clearly bids fair to be one, it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 04:07 PM

The purpose of a military is to defend and aggress. (I don't know if aggress is a word, but even if it wasn't, it is now.) As McG of H so aptly pointed out, economic warfare supported by a military presence is a mighty powerful reminder to everyone that the Golden Rule is at work in our world. He who has the gold makes the rules. Clauswitz was clear that a purpose of the military is to both protect and project a country's foreign policy. The days of Gunboat Diplomacy are not over.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 04:19 PM

I see your point McGrath. You think that Iraq could wind up as US pawns like Germany or Japan after the US occupation post WW II? No, that's not right. More like Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I? No, wait, the US has pulled out of there and we're back to the old "I'll scratch your back..." arrangement we've had for years there.

What exactly did you have in mind?

brucie, I do see it differently. The multinationals are only one part of a political puzzle, and not always the strongest or most influential part. Of course, that's partially because I world for a large international company and realize that nothing's as monolithic or effective as conspiracy theories make them out to be. Then too, I voted against Dubya in 1978, so I've known him longer than most. He really is a boy scout and believes most of this stuff. Big business is a factor, but so are a lot of other countervaling influences.

I do agree with you on one thing entirely. Gunboat Diplomacy will be with us always, at least until boats are no longer militarily significant and we use something else (F16s?). On the other hand, intimidating a country is not the same thing as annexing them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 05:04 PM

The USA has not been much after literal territorial gains since the end of World War II...nor have most other developed countries, because offical colonization is no longer politically acceptable in the post World War II world. Its unacceptability was one of the things that eventually brought down the Warsaw Pact. What the USA seeks is economic control of key geographical areas, client governments that do what they are told (unlike Castro, for example), and military bases in handy places (like Guantanamo Bay or the Middle East or Japan or etc...).

Imperialism is different now than it was in the colonial times. It is generally accomplished behind the outer political facade instead of out in the open...by controlling the purse strings and the firepower. Those who do not cooperate are gotten out of power by bribery, economic pressure, murder, military coup, or outright full scale invasion...whatever works. Vietnam was a case where some or all those tactics finally failed. Cuba was another. Castro went to the USA following his successful revolution in 1959, expecting friendhip, support, and assistance from the "land of the free" (whose own war of independence from Britain he deeply admired). He got a big surprise. The US government wouldn't even talk to him. Then he went to the Russians, who were the only other game in town at the time.

Now Canada, for example, is technically independent but is an economic colony of the USA. Every Canadian knows that, and we can do nothing about it.

Fortunately, life has remained pretty nice in Canada anyway. Other places have not been so fortunate. As for Castro, he has survived, and that is a veritable miracle! Talk about having nine lives... I've been to Cuba, and I admire their spirit of independence very very much, though being under siege for 40+ years has cost them a great deal.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 05:27 PM

Strick,

You make some good points. I do understand that it ain't all that simple. However, I do not underplay the role of business interests in the present American political structure. Groups like MJ 12 do concern me. Power elites concern me. And as to Gunboat Diplomacy, maybe the HAARP Project will replace both boats and guns. You have yourself a good day, Strick. I do enjoy the way you write, even if I don't always agree with your content. You argue well from your view of things.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 06:02 PM

Little Hawk, Canada may be an economic pawn of the US, but you've more than made up for it by exporting Canadians to dominate the US entertainment media. I don't think either situation is intentional. Just a natural byproduct of living next to the world's largest economy. That's not the cause in the Caribbean where the US uses those islands as cover for the soft underbelly of the Gulf coast. There we don't tolerate much trouble (we've invade Canada what, three times and Haiti 7, for instance).

The US has a long tradition of not seeking territorial gains outside the continental US (even there we bought large chunks of land). We didn't keep part of China after the Boxer Rebellion. We tried to give the Philipines back a couple of times, but they weren't ready for it until after WW II. We'd free Puerto Rico (despite the Caribbean thing) if they'd make up their minds which way to go. I must point out that, while the US can be a diplomatic bully, it doesn't often use the kind of power, economic or military, it could. Japan had no compunction about shredding our economy in the 80s, Germany stood up to us this year on Iraq (and will suffer very little if anything for it) and France is, well, France. As far as evil empires go, we're a little too soft to be taken too seriously. What exactly are folks afraid of?

I do regret the damage the Iraq war's done to the Anglo Alliance, I admit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 06:38 PM

"What exactly are folks afraid of?"

As you say, Strick, America has tended to keep the heavy-handed stuff for places that it has decided are within its sphere of influence. However it seems very posssible, to say the least, that with modern speed of communication and so forth that sphere of influence, which it sees iitself as needing to control for its own safteyty is going to be a great deal larger, to include places of strategic importance for raw materials, and places which could conceivably imply a threat.

And that historically is how extended empires have grown - not so much through calculated expansionism (leaving aside cases like the USA expanding across America, or Russia expanding across Asia), but rather through a need to extend "defensively". Defending trade routes, preemptive attacks on potential enemies, establishing secure forward bases and so forth.

And unfortunately that "Project for a New American Cenbtury" was not a forgery, and the people who are most closely associated with it appear to be in the driving seat.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 07:03 PM

The difference with US-Canada relations is this: You are our largest trading 'partner'. The NAFTA agreement was a sellout by the then Conservative government (Canadian Conservatives are somewhat like American Republicans). When we declined to go fight along side troops in the present Iraq war, our economy was damaged. By the US. It was punitive.

It made no nevermind to Bush and the crew that we had troops in Afghanistan, that we took losses as well. (Hell, loyalty. One American general did a book on the Gulf War. He listed the countries that were part of the coalition forces. Didn't mention Canada.) What mattered was that we weren't dancing to his tune. It has damaged the relationship between the countries, and I think it will be a difficult 'rent in the fabric of our friendship' to repair.

I understand that trade is trade. This time, a sovereign country's refusal to participate in a non-UN sanctioned war resulted in some serious slaps on the old economic peepee. Don't think your neighbours to the north are not aware of what happened and why. One friggin' cow that likely came from the US to begin with caused a massive retaliation to the Canadian beef industry. You don't really think that was about meat, do you? No sir. We have been friendly in the past, and we have usually had very good relations with the US. Those days is gone from my perspective. It may be something fundamental to the Canadian character: we don't like being told what to do! Hell, we don't even like it when OUR government tries to tell us what to do. And when they do, half of us don't listen, anyway (and the other half's too cold to hear).


I don't think the the USA is the evil empire, Strick. I do think it has some evil people hijacking its government. Wish it wasn't so.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 07:07 PM

Perhaps, McGrath, but there are two important counterweights to those bozos. First, the US is really not as invincible as some would like to believe. There are armies that are as technologically advanced, if not more so (Britain, Germany, potentially China) if not as large or equiped for air warfare.   Second, our forces are sincerely not structured to do what that plan asked for. Our professional army is too small for the plan. Heck, we're calling up reserves again just for a 3rd world country like Iraq.

That's what's called a non-repeatable event in US political terms. Call up reserves, ordinary citizens, once too often and this democracy will turn on you no matter how popular you started out to be. It would take a Pearl Harbor-9/11 scale event WITH a clear smoking gun for the American people to tolerate another war and the calling up of even more reserves under Bush. Bush would never get another authorization under the Wars Powers Act from Congress without that. You only get one unprovoked war like Iraq.

So mark my words. News that the carriers are moving toward yet another target without clear political consensus would start whispers of impeachment even amoung Republicans. Cold comfort for you since I doubt you believe it, but it's true.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 07:22 PM

I'm still waiting for any reasonable answer to the basic question of why, if Saddam's removal was so important, then why didn't the US remove him rather than kill tens upons thousands of *non-Saddams* and ended up entrenched in a terribly destabilzed Iraq pushing, of all things, ahhhh, democracy...

And with democracy, at best a joke in the US, how can it be taught to people by people who don't have a clue about it? Totally unrealistic. And the sad thing? Everyone knows it....

And, Strick, I didn't mean to play the "N" (as in Nazi) card as a way of shifting the discussion away from the focus of this thread. But looking around at what is going down in America, it is valuable to refresh our perspectives of the facsist movement of the 30's and compare things that were going on then to things going on in the US today...

And yeah, the US would rather not be seen as occupiers in countries that it clearly controls...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 07:34 PM

In fact, our government passed a law making the use of imperial measure verboten in Canada. It was the Metric Conversion Act passed in 1976 or 1977. Thirty years later, common folks still use imperial--that is, inches, feet, yards, and miles. I meant it when I said we don't like being told what to do. We're lots like Americans in that regard. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. Feel much better now, thank you all.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 07:35 PM

One way empires have dealt with that kind of problen is to employ other people to do the fighting. The number of British troops in India was only a fraction of the Indian Army. The proportion of actual Romans in the legions kept on reducing till they ceased to be Roman in any sense except the crucial ones of armaments and tactics

I hope you're right, Strick, and that it won't pan out the Imperial America route. The trouble is, the situation we're in now is radically different from any that's existed previously. The whole world is in a sense in the palm of a single superpower, and the superpower appears to be in the hands of some dangerously deluded people with a remarkably effective privatised propaganda machine acting on their behalf.

And against that hope has to rest on the possibility that enough ordonary Americans will see through the propaganda, and effect regime change in their own country.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 08:17 PM

Funny, NAFTA was considered a sellout here in the US, too. We're not aware of any punitive actions being taken against Canada. The way the dollar has declined in value, I'm not surprise that we're not importing as much as we did (the trade deficit improved last month along with other economic numbers). What's being reported in Canada?

Hell, Bobert, let us know where Saddam is and most of the the Iraqis would gladly do him in. He isn't still alive because of a lack of trying.

I don't think that NATO or the Anglo Alliance constitute fighting through client states or replacing the legions with barbarians, do you McGrath? Be patient and glad nothing else can happen while we're tied down in Iraq. As for regime change, who knows. You should be aware that Americans tend to vote for incumbents when the economy's good and the US economy appears to have turned the corner. What's most likely to happen is that Bush will win again in a squeaker and spend most of his second term too politically weak to do much of anything.

Not that I know anything, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 08:39 PM

Well, other than the continuing soft wood lumber dispute, not a heckuva lot. The American government refusal to import Canadian beef, even after testing to prove it wasn't infected with mad cow disease didn't prevent the US from refusing to import it. It came so close on the heels of the Canadian refusal to participate in the Iraq war that lots of people put two and twelve together. I might add here that not all Canadians were happy with our government's decision not to go to war. Chretien took some heat over that. I think Hussein should have been given a $.25 headache. Too bad that so many kids are being killed because of the neglect of that option. I am not of the opinion that the US is a country run amuk. I do hold the opinion that all is not right in Washington. Of course, it is not all right in Ottawa, either.

I know you are aware of economics, but in this case, I don't really think that's a help. We seem to be dealing with perceptions, and economic indicators will not be much help with that. Back to you, my friend.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Cluin
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 08:48 PM

The report I heard was that it was mainly Japan that was taking a hard line stance, refusing to have anything to do with Canadian beef and that the US were not importing it so as not to endanger their beef export contracts to Japan.

The whole thing reminded me of a few years ago, when Canada refused any imports of British beef during that "Mad Cow" scare. I'm not saying any of it was fair or unfair.... just that shit happens.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 08:58 PM

That it does, Cluin. We went through similar stuff with anthrax (destroyed a number of herds in Alberta) a few years back. I'm aware that countries protect their industries, and I understand that. I was just talking about Canadian perceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Cluin
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 09:09 PM

That WAS my Canadian perception, brucie.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 09:12 PM

Touchee.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 11:22 PM

I believe the personal option for Saddam was explored in great detail and he was just too slippery. Remember he had his own son-in-laws executed and there's the little tape they showed of him having a list of names read out in the Iraqi parliment and causing his closest supporters to "disappear". He was not an easy target.

Sorry, but my recollection of the soft wood lumber situation was that it began long before the Iraq war issue. And being from cattle country, dude, you don't take any chances with any contagious cattle diseases. We quarantine fast and put herds down down even faster and we're not even mad at anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 11:31 PM

I hear that! I spent 9 years in cattle country.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 11:36 PM

Yo, Strick:

Saddam is alive an well and livin' in Donnie Rumsfeld's basement, along with Osama bin Lsden...

Hey, boogie-men are hard to come by...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 10 Nov 03 - 11:50 PM

It's certainly good to have easily recognizable ones. Wag the Dog can take to long if you have to make new ones.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 12:49 AM

Who was that big mouth US Idiot claiming that Saddam & his henchman who boasted to the Iraquis "Bring it on!" US casualities have increased markedly since then...

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 06:13 AM

Yes, I think at present England is pretty close to being a client state.

When France and Germany actually declined to follow orders and collude in cutting short the inspection process and moving on to war, the reaction by the USA indicated that this was seen as a kind of mutiny by people who ought to have known their place. "How dare these French threaten to obstruct our will by using their veto?" - and that from a country which uses its own veto at the drop of a a hat.

As I said, I very much hope that Strick's optimistic feelings about all this are born out in practice.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 07:59 AM

yes McG, and cuts funding to UN programs at the drop of a hat, such as family planning, when it deigns to pay its dues at all...

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 11:14 AM

Foolestroupe:

I guess you could say that the Iraqi resistence movement is followin' orders by doing jus' what Bush has suggested they do: Bring it on...

Bush thinks its like a college football game... Maybe that's why in all of his fund raising he hasn't found time to attend one funeral of memorial service of a fallen US service man or woman... Oh yeah, he don't like hanging with the working class... Silly me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 12:32 PM

No, be fair, that's because it'd be the wrong type of photo opportunity. As opposed to making a political spech at a Remembrance Day (Veterans' Day) parade, which symbolically links this war to more readily justifiable conflicts, such as the war against the Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 01:14 PM

Your viewpoint is interesting, Strick, and I'm enjoying reading it.

Canadians also tend to vote in incumbents when the economy is good and kick them out when it's bad. I don't know if the Bush administration decided to pull some strings and drive down the value of the US dollar...or if they just got lucky...but it has been a big help to them that the dollar fell.

It's been hard on Canada, because people are now tending to buy American goods if they can, since our money has gone up 15% against the American dollar in the last few months. It's hurt out balance of trade and taken a big chunk out of, for instance, my profits, because I sell to American customers. I am philosophical about it, and not worried, that's just the way it goes...and there's still enough money coming in okay anyway.

From the point of view of balance of trade, there is nothing better for a country than if their currency gets weaker on the foreign exchange...a weak dollar means lots of happy customers overseas, while domestically it doesn't make a whole lot of difference unless you are purchasing imported goods.

I am dreaming of the day the Canadian dollar weakens again. :-) It used to be worth 66 cents American, now it's worth 75 cents American. On the other hand, it's great if I want to buy hobby kits from the USA...and I do.

Those who are wise put away extra cash when times are good, and are prepared to ride out the lean times.

I hope you are right that the USA cannot take on another war at this point, and I think you may be.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 02:23 PM

Back to the questions I was askin' Teribus, et al, before the invasion. If Saddam was (or is) such a bad man, why not just assasinate him, rather tham drop over 30,000 bombs and fire millions and millions of artillery, tank and small arm rounds at Iraqi's that, ahhhh, weren't Saddam????

Why is this such a difficult qiestion to get a straght answer to???... (Bobert)

I have tried hard but without success, Bobert, to find you asking that question before the invasion.

The only remotely similar remark from you on that theme before the invasion I have found was this response to 'Casual Observer' when he was proposing assassination:

As for the last assasination by the US, if I am not mistaken, was President Diem of South Vietmen and well, history does not bode well that assasination changes the events that follow.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 02:50 PM

I'm curious and would like to propose two questions to you Canadians: #1. If you could snap your fingers, just like that, which country of the world would you choose to have as your neighbor? And #2, Why?
What qualities would you like (and not like) in your neighbor?

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 03:45 PM

Denmark. They are friendly, harmless, and make great pastries.

Cuba. Nice beaches, cheap prices, friendly people, lovely weather.

Spain. Similar reasons to Cuba...sort of. Also lots of neat old architecture and historical sites.

Norway. See Denmark.

Iceland. Hot springs and good fishing.

Japan. Best hobby kits in the world.

Hawaii. Beautiful place to visit at any time.

Australia. Kangaroos and other neat animals.

France. Sophisticated cafe scene....on the other hand, it could lead to more French-English hassles and that would be a real pain!

Holland. Very liberal place and good-humoured too.

British Isles. Could visit Oakley with relative ease and maybe even get to meet Penelope Rutledge.

Ireland...as long as Belfast wasn't on the border.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 05:10 PM

I like the American people. We share : a language (mostly); the longest undefended border in the world; Joni Mitchell and Michael J Fox; some Great Lakes; Lake Champlain; weather; hockey and baseball leagues. The people are much like us in their cultures and dress. We are basically ignorant of each other's geography, and we're both disappointed that Shania Twain has decided to live in Switzerland. So, I'd say the United States of America.

My second choice would be Britain with Erin still attached. We are divided by a common language, but the music is great, as is the literature. I don't have a clue about British humour, and I would hope that they keep the Monarchy as a LOCAL curiousity. Someone on another thread told me that rugby has rules. I would then presume that cricket does, too. The fox hunting has to go and I'd insist that Scotland be given its freedom. (My name IS Bruce Murdoch!) So, I'd say Great Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 05:26 PM

I wouldn't really want to be next door to China. They can be worrisome at times. I wouldn't want to be on the borders of India and Pakistan. The USA is also worrisome at times, but in a different way, and it's convenient to be next door to for a great many reasons, too many to list here.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 05:30 PM

Atlantis, Lemuria, Mu, Pellucidar, Cimmeria, Oz... yeah, that's it, Australia!

Actually, I like living next to the States too, for all the reasons brucie touched on above. But I'm especially happy to live next to the people of Michigan. I like Yoopers.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 05:35 PM

Yo Wolfgang,

I'm not too sure why the timing of my question is of any real importance here. Prior to the invasion I was arguing strenulously aginst the invasion. I was offering Saudi Porpaosals (mitchell Proposals) with the hope that the US would not be stupid enough to acrually invade Iarq... Since you have been thumbing through my prewar posts, I think you will find that consistent...

Then comes the stupid invasion of Iraq!

And the present quagmire...

And like anyone else, the landscape has changed and we all know more and most are now second guessing the wisdom of the invasion.

With that said, I don't find it an unreasonable question to ask why Saddam wasn't just simple assasinated rather than killing so many Iraqis that we're Saddam and throwing the region into sinstability.

And I have asked the question before and I'm still not getting anwswers unless you think asking me questions about when I first posed the question is an answer. If so, please elaborate on your answer.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 05:46 PM

"First catch your hare" as Mrs Beeton put it. And how'd they'd ever know they'd got the real one?

No the simpler thing would have been to announce publicy, so that the Iraqi people could hear it "We can now asure you that the bastard hasn't got any poison gas. And if he puts any helicopters into the air, we'll promptly shoot them down." And then sit back, and get ready to make friends with a fairly radical, but popular regime, made up of Iraqis who hated Saddam, but didn't trust outsiders too much either.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 06:13 PM

Saddam Hussein should have been given a double tap 13 years ago. He gassed his own people. Why be nice with the sonuvabitch? I agree with Bobert. Fair-shmair.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 06:39 PM

Agreed. 13 years ago, they might have been able to find him too.

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 07:34 PM

Heck, Dan Rather of CBS sat 4 feet from Saddam just a month before the invasion....

And now that the US/UK has killed tens upomn thousands of *other Iraqis* we're hearing "Well, Saddam isn't in power anymore." Yeah, maybe and maybe not. Someone is organizing and funding the resistence movement in Iraq...

Meanwhile, back at the Texas ranch, the US has absolutley squndered it's best opportunity since WWII to come out as heros and now is viewed as a bunch of crooks and bullies...

I can't think of any *good* argument for what the US has done but would certainly welcome one of the prewar hawks to step to the podium and try, yet again, to explain their case.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'a totally needless war'
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 03 - 09:33 PM

Bobert,

I think you pose a tough thing for a prewar hawk to do. The Gulf War had UN sanction. The limits (objectives) of that war were clear: Free Kuwait. It's too bad that Stormin' Norman wasn't allowed to take Baghdad then. If he had been allowed to (and he could have), the US/Brits/etc wouldn't have to be doing it now. The problem, as I see it, is that the objectives of the Iraq War have never been clear. It has been a kinda 'we know you have WMDs and we are gonna look for them' kinda thing. There has been no 'moral' sense to this war. That should have been established prior to the invasion. Anyone who thinks Iraq didn't have WMD ain't thinking too clearly. Hussein had used them years earlier, and he certainly had the time to move them before the allies got into Iraq. Kinda like the police saying I know you have some grass in your house and I'm coming over in a few days to look for it. I strongly suspect it would be gone by the time the police got there. DOH!

The political and religious differences between the Shiites and Sunnis; the Kurds to the north who inhabit Turkey, Iraq and Iran--basically a people without a country; the interplay of alliances in the middle East have certainly given rise to a real hot potato. When the Romans asked, "Cui bono?", they really wanted to know. The allied powers that have got themselves embroiled in Iraq have yet to answer that old question. The recent spate of 'let's get in there and straighten this stuff out' is beginning to show its weakness. Afghanistan ate the Russians during their 7-8 (?) years there. It is doing the same to Yanks, Brits and Canucks. Yes, it's a good thing the Taliban has been ousted, but there should have been a new 'Caesar' waiting in the wings. Much the same can be said of Iraq.

(As a parenthetical statement, I am really pissed at the American reaction to Canada when we said we would not participate. We had a few ships of war stationed in the Persian Gulf, and about 2,000 troops in Afghanistan. We are not a war-like nation, despite having some of the better special warfare troops in the world, and some excellent light infantry. We are not rich enough to be all that powerful. Besides, we tend to be really good at peacekeeping--at least when there's some of that to keep.) Having said that, the Iraq 'incursion' has not had a clear objective. Taking down a despicable bastard is fairly easy; replacing that bastard with someone who ain't is another problem. And that's the problem in both Afghanistan AND Iraq.

I had written--e-mailed--your government when North Korea was making nasty noises with its nuclear arsenal. I suggested that maybe the US could lend about the same number of nuclear weapons to South Korea, and let North Korea know it intended to do so. For all its screwups, I trust the people of the United States to do the right thing more often than not. I have some serious doubts about extending that trust to the present government of the USA. Maybe the next election will get the remnants of MJ 12 out of Washington, and maybe then the world can rest somewhat easier. Some thoughts from your buddy in Alberta.