BS: See you in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 06:22 PM

Ooops.... I said... "... the question is, are they a willing adversary as portrayed on CNN or do we know Saddam spirtited WMD to this nation of terrorist advocats (as was accused of the Sudan)?"... but should have added, ", and therefore are baiting (provoking) them into the fight. Or is it just that the US doesn't like Quadaffi (sp'g please ?). He HAS been awfully likeable since he got his ass strafed a while back.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 06:05 PM

Well, the Russsians are definitely out. Wouldn't even let them participate if they volunteered to send Putin hisself now. Selling Saddy high tech stuff... how dare they be capitalists !!! The rest, save the French, are providing support, and have, at least, special forces in country.

Now, to the real breaking news... aired moments ago on CBC. Canucks are in country. Of course, they are on an "exchange program" (seriously, that's what they called it) with the Brits. Not allowed to engage unless fired upon. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Go Leafs.

And, apparently, I may have screwed up on the "next offensive", well, kind of. It has become apparent that Syria may be drwan into the present conflict. Things are so fluid. We may be into Syria within a matter of days... the question is, are they a willing adversary as portrayed on CNN or do we know Saddam spirtited WMD to this nation of terrorist advocats (as was accused of the Sudan)?

Anyway, as far as any of you Yanks that think Canada is not supporting you, we are not, officially.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: gnu
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 05:49 AM

Well, what I said in another thread, as others have, is just what began to unfold immediately after Garge's speech. Jack said that if Saddy uses WMD against the Yanks/Brits/Aussies or it's neighbours, France would immediately send special units to aid clean up and reassess it's position on regular forces. I recall that the gist of what I, and others said, was that the Yanks and Brits would have to go in alone first because they were the suppliers of the deadly stuff that Saddy is hiding.

As far as Canuckistan is concerned, we still have troops, equipment and ships (of the most advanced class in the world) in the region. Should any of those fall under attack, especially if WMD were involved, Canada's position could change in a heartbeat.

The Turks' new vote is coming soon. I believe the French, Germans, Italians, and Russians are poised to hit Iraq with aircraft using Turkish airspace. And subsequent ground forces could be in place within hours.

Saddam is screwed. If he doesn't use WMD, which some say he can't because he spirited them out of Iraq, he will be overpowered by the existing force. If he uses WMD, he will eventually be overpowered by an increased force, and may even lose the respect of his own people, thereby possibly allowing the existing force to be sufficient, depending on casualties from WMD.

See you in the Sudan.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 12:48 PM

gnu, have you thought about setting up a Think Tank? You called it...

Frankly, I'm glad that Canada so clearly stated its position. It doesn't mean at all that they/you don't support the fight against terrorism; it just means that there's a different view on where the struggle against terror is, at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: gnu
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 06:49 AM

Well, not exactly. Jean said yesterday that Canada will not participate without the OK of the UN. It will take a dramatic event to draw Canada in without the full support of the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 04:21 AM

one year on, looks like gnu was right.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 07:12 PM

Metchosin - Theres a book you would enjoy reading..."The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann. It details precisely how a whole series of dominant civizations have destroyed their environment and themselves by...cutting down virtually all their trees! It then points out what is happening worldwide now, regarding that same disastrous trend. One difference...This time it's a worldwide civilization that is doing it and there is no huge unspoiled continent or region left to migrate to and start over...this is the endgame.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: gnu
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 01:39 PM

....eliminating or limiting logging in old growth forests... We had a big spat over this in the Christmas Mountains of New Brunswick. Logging was halted. A few years ago, a single wind storm knocked down well over two billion cubic feet of timber in this area. The photos of the devastation were awesome. I used to travel those mountains every chance I got. It was truly beautiful and pristine. Loggers worked feverishly to salvage what they could, but, last I heard, rot destroyed a great amount of the timber.

It's like anything else. A good management plan is key. And the point blank elimination of a tool such as logging in favour of old Mom Nature just isn't part of a good plan.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 01:16 PM

Further to those who like the idea of sustainable forests and eliminating or limiting logging in old growth forests and believe this tarrif is an answer to their prayers, Canada is fast loosing it's customer base because of this dispute and Russia is standing in the wings, ready to take up the slack and ultimately flush the activist dream down the toilet.

If Greenpeace and others think they sometimes have an uphill battle carrying out their agenda in this country and in the National Forest Reserves in the US, where US and Canadian forest practices and adherence to laws are relatively transparent, good luck in Russia! You haven't a snowball's chance in hell.

Also regarding forest industry subsidies in the US, the cost of road building and maintenance in NFRs is subsidized by funds provided by Congress to the US Forest Service. In Canada, roadbuilding and maintenance is a cost totally industry borne. Come on guys, lets truly level the playing field on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 08:26 PM

Well try this

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 08:24 PM

Regarding Cananda's seeming pending involvement in Iraq, I found this article in the NewStatesmaninteresting.

And to think I said Brits didn't seem to have balls anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 08:06 PM

On the button with that last post George/LH, and thanks for all the info Metchosin.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 07:57 PM

Dan its not just Canadians that are ticked or are finding fault with the unfair subsidy accusations regarding stumpage rates, even sections of your own industry are crying foul.

The following from the US National Association of Home Builders.

"Independent trade panels have reviewed Canada's timber pricing on three separate occasions," said Rayburn. "In each case that was taken to a final decision, it was ultimately determined that the Canadian government did not provide unfair subsidies. While Canadian appeals of the Commerce ruling to the World Trade Organization and NAFTA will almost certainly be successful, the legal process could drag on for years, and in the meantime U.S. home buyers and renters will have to pay the price."

"We don't want artificially low or high lumber prices. What we want is for prices to be determined by supply and demand. Slapping a 19.34 percent countervailing duty and 9.67 percent anti-dumping duty on Canadian softwood lumber imports runs contrary to free market principles, makes the lumber supply less responsive to market demand and harms consumers by increasing volatility in the marketplace," Rayburn added.

For the full article click here

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 07:00 PM

Sorry to hear of your affliction Dan, but I thought colour blindness usually only affected the blue/green spectrum.

I have been directly or peripherally involved with the forest industry in this province for over 50 years, including heading social activism which brought a halt to Canadian Pacific Forest Products' clear-cut operations on their privately owned land, in my local municipality. (I think, at that time, a first, for this Province).

I also provided the research that resulted in a ban on untreated BC softwood lumber export to Europe, (not a very popular bit work here, I might add), so my perceptions aren't exactly an uninformed academic exercise. Canada does some pretty stupid, unconscionable things, but I am not in the habit of knowingly skewing my observations, or defending my country right or wrong.

The US does have a penchant for disregarding world court rulings that don't go in its favour. It also has respect for others' national sovereignty and political systems, only when it entirely serves its own interests, and only when there is no sniff of what might be perceived as that "dreaded socialism" in the mix.

The US shouldn't sign free trade deals with other nations if it won't abide by the terms of the agreement. It gives the appearance that the US word or signature on stuff means jack-shit. The Canadian people have been taking a hammering on this ill conceived, piece of crap document (NAFTA) since day one, its your turn this time.

It is interesting too, that the US always conveniently forgets about it's grants, subsidies and tax exemptions to its forestry companies and then attempts to see if it can dig up something that it might deem comparable in this country, when things aren't going its way.

Also Dan, trying to deflect the criticism by pointing out perceived problems in BC's management of old growth forests, is sort of like the school bully smashing some kids wagon and when called on it, argues that it was no big deal 'cause it already had a flat tire. The point here is unfair trade practices.

This is a major crisis here, this is the biggest industry in this province and affects thousands and thousands of people and is not just a fluctuation in lumber prices affecting a few non-competitive mills.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 01:12 PM

Considering that past US policy toward Iraq has consistently helped Saddam Hussein at the expense of the ordinary people of Iraq, I can only wonder what in the world they have in mind to do this time? Whatever it is, it will not be good, and whatever it is, the American media will say very little, if anything, about the real reasons behind it. They've got public support now in the USA, and they don't aim to lose it through anything as downright foolish and dangerous as telling the truth.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: GUEST, Dan Kelly
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 11:21 AM

Metchosin: I don't dispute the power politics involved in imposing tariffs. I don't dispute the fact that the US should pay attention to the severity of the hardship fostered on BC and others. However, as you noted, this has been argued for decades. This is not a new dispute. The current actions just have drastic consequences that are very sad.

To say, however, that BC lumber is not subsidized is to say that up is down or black is white. The talk about the WTO twice declaring no subsidies is an argument reflecting linguistic legerdemain. I hope you don't believe it. What they basically mean is that the US has no legally available remedies to date. In 1982, there was a technical finding of "no subsidy." I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. I also don't say change the stumpage system. Neither do I suggest that raw logs be exported. But I cannot agree that black is white. The best anyone can hope to show is that stumpage rates artificially approximate what would happen in free markets. (I don't believe they do, do you?)

One other point: with lumber rates down so sharply, US mills are closing too. Those guys don't make up such a huge percentage of the population, but they're still out of work.

Besides, we've ravaged the old growth about enough, don't you think? Canadian employment development policies would be better focused on regeneration, rather than unnecessary harvesting.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 02 - 04:57 AM

last year's high school seniors are enlisting by the droves.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: gnu
Date: 26 Mar 02 - 11:53 AM

Just caught the tail end of it on the news last night, but I guess both the PM and the Defense Minister (who doesn't open his big mouth too ofter or loud these days - gun shy is not just a poor pun, it's an understatement) have indicated that we will go to Iraq with the US.

Apologies for sketchy details, but it's crunch time for accounting and taxes here in the office and not much time for keeping up. Any others with more of handle on what Jean actually said ? Hmmmm, no, I didn't mean that as a joke, but it does strike me funny when I think about what I just asked.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Mar 02 - 01:00 AM

Disputes aside, an aspect I truly love about individual Americans, is that unlike the Brits and Canadians, who usually just bitch about it all, Americans, for all of the ills in their society, have not become cynical and resigned.

It may be sterotyping of the worst order, but usually when I think of truly American ideals, I see Bruce Dern in Silent Running and think, thank God for "boyscouts" and sometimes the boyscouts wear short skirts and high heels alá Erin Brochovich.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: poor lonesome boy
Date: 26 Mar 02 - 12:47 AM

this is getting mighty political here in the 'Cat. Just for the record, I've talked on the sly to some of our Canadian armed forces and they've told me – keep this to yourself – if they go into Iraq, they'll drag their asses and refuse to work overtime. They'll also keep their cooking fires burning high with good 'ol Canadian softwood lumber just to piss of the Yanks. Oh, we're full of baffling protest ideas, let me tell you. But you didn't hear it from me.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Mar 02 - 12:34 AM

LEJ, corporate tactics aside, this is not merely the agenda of Bush and his ilk, this crap was going on during the Clinton administation as well and before.

What really rots my socks is that, even by standards of their own game, when the WTO determines, on two occasions, that the US complaints are bull shit and Canada is not dumping or subsidising it's forest industry, we end up going through the same crap again.

The US has still not refunded previous "illegally" collected countervailing duties from the last couple of go rounds, after the international court's rulings in Canada's favour. That is criminal. No suprise that some usually polite Canadians are really ticked and sometimes "bystanders" get spattered. Ya can't have it both ways. Then again, you can and do.

Seems to me the ultimate goal of (big) capitalism is to destroy capitalism and create an oligarchy, remeniscent of the old Soviet Socialist Republic. Free enterprise?....hmmmm...what a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 25 Mar 02 - 06:46 PM

Metchosin said What better way than to bankrupt local small operators and then have Weyerhauser and the like, which can withstand the tariffs, scoop up the the small devestated mills and their timber leases . This tactic is typical of corporate market dominators in general, and not specifically American corps. The strategy in the American Midwest has been much the same : the huge corps that own the feedlots also own the packing companies and the grocery stores. Imagine you are a farmer or rancher competing for the purchase of your produce against a farm owned by Connagra, when the feedlot who does the purchasing is also owned by Connagra. Connagra names the price and you take it or plow your harvest under. Either way, the farmer gets squeezed toward bankruptcy, and Connagra is standing there at the Farm Auction.

An American Administration that sees "what's good for Big Business is good for America" will tend to turn their heads when Monopoly or Tariff threatens smaller business concerns, foreign and domestic. The near-term result is heartbreak, the long term outlook is disastrous, and actually fosters elimination of the capitalist competition the "trickle-downers" tout.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: InOBU
Date: 25 Mar 02 - 05:11 AM

FOR a disterbing note on US and British war plans... see the piece sent to me which I posted in the Thatcher Speaks no more post... kinda worrisome... harks to the "I may be crazy but I'm not stupid" joke, maybe our governments are both... Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 02 - 10:46 PM

Hey Soph, what would you like t0 know about geography? That was one of my favorite subjects in school.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: alanabit
Date: 24 Mar 02 - 09:40 AM

That's right LH. From now on I'm going to fight against justice, for slavery and for a hate filled world. Shit. Someone's got to do it...

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 10:04 PM

Now, Soph, don't go blaming God for the USA... :-) God is on everybody's side...just ask 'em!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: sophocleese
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 09:58 PM

And here I heard that it was God that invented wars so that Americans could learn Geography....Stupid Bastard!

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 07:28 PM

Well, yeah, but the Iranians were the "bad guys" back then...right? It's okay to commit war crimes on bad people isn't it? The mistake Saddam made was not finishing the job and wiping Iran right off the map. Matter of fact, we should've given him a couple of short range/high yield nukes, and then he could've done it. Damn shame about that. It would've been a whole New World Order in the Middle East, and we would've had a direct route to the Caspian oil reserves once the radiation eased off.

Anyway, we've armed the Turks to the teeth for years so they could exterminate their ethnic minorities, so what's wrong with doing the same for Saddam?

(extreme sarcasm, I hope y' understand...)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 07:11 PM

On the subject of inventing Saddam...

You'll often hear it said by western leaders that he was prepared to use chemical weapons "on his own people." This phrase carefully draws a veil over the fact that he was also willing to use such weapons against Iran - in which course of action the US and UK backed him to the hilt.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 05:28 PM

As Lao-Tse said, when some of his students said he should be made Emperor of China...I do not wish to become a sacrificial lamb prepared for the slaughter! I would sooner remain a spiritual searcher, and a free man living a quiet life, than ever consider becoming PM in this country or any other. :-) (And I'd probably be lousy at it anyway...not my kind of thing at all...)

As to how we do it...well, by stages. A bit at a time. We have to establish an international system of law that is enforced not by superpowers, but by collective and equal representation from all nations. To do that, we have to gradually disarm the superpowers...and the smaller powers as well...otherwise they will simply defy that law and rule by strength, as is presently being done. The USA has defied the World Court, and blocked the UN by using its veto, whenever they did not rule as the USA desired them to...in other words, when the trained dog does not do its tricks properly on command, kick it or withhold its food until it gets back into line. (Check Chomsky's article for specific examples of that.)

Rule by terror is the rule of a despot, not a democrat. Saddam Hussein rules inside Iraq by terror...the USA rules (unofficially) in most areas of the world by a combination of terror, economic blackmail, and bribery. Americans don't see it that way, but the Third World does. Talk to them about it and see.

Some things may happen soon, on a worldwide basis, which will render all this theorizing inconsequential and change everything...but, then again, they may not happen ...so I would consider it irresponsible to make any definite predictions at this point. We shall see.

I do know that the way the system is set up right now, anyone who really tries to change it and has the ghost of a chance of actually doing so will end up either dead or discredited and removed from his position of power in short order.

This democracy people boast of is only skin deep...but it's still better than no democracy at all, and don't think I don't know it!

The fact is, we are all in the same boat, whether we are Canadians or Americans, and it's getting pretty leaky at this point. I'd keep a life preserver handy if I were you.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: gnu
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 04:25 PM

Okay then, LH for PM !

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: kendall
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 04:13 PM

You get involved in grass roots politics. That's how you change the system.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: gnu
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 03:59 PM

Two for two, for the most part, LH. I can't believe I said "right on" the last time. Still stuck in the sixties.

However, it would appear that such socialist, perhaps even communist (I give you the call on that one, LH), philosopies will never succeed. Is it because the rich won't allow it ? Or is it because it breeds laziness and incompetence ? If we actually did witness the final game of this round-robin tournament when the USSR collapsed finacially, was it because the ideals are not within our grasp because the rich block it or because the communist philosophy was inherently flawed under current "rules".

I am reminded of an engineering economics analogy regarding the two financial "philosphies" of building a railroad. The communist digs a tunnel through the mountain because the life cycle costs for the global village are less. The capitalist builds a railroad around the mountain in half the time, secures the market, contracts the distributors, buys the tunnel at thirty cents on the dollar upon finacial ruin and spends his retirement in Florida, after selling his first railroad for scrap and screwing all the people who worked on it out of their pension money. Laziness or business accumen. Depends on your philosophy... or your morality, perhaps.

So, if you want to change the rules, how do you do it ?

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 01:20 PM

Kendall - You're dead right about all the political parties being willing to say anything to get elected. Don't I know it! I have simply given up on ALL the mainstream parties in Canada. I expect nothing real from them. The reason I singled out the Liberal Party of Canada is because they are more pompous and complacent than the rest...given the fact that they have an unbreakable stranglehold on the political system here at present and cannot fail to win a majority government every time.

What will it take to get my support? Well, in a way you do have my support, but not my support to invade small countries, that's all. It's an infernally complicated situation in the world right now, and it will not be solved or alleviated by military campaigns as far as I'm concerned.

I entirely support your efforts to defend yourselves and protect your citizens. I do not support your efforts to extend financial and political control over most of the world, backed up by military supremacy and threats to use it at a moment's notice.

When I say it's a complicated situation...we have vast populations of people over much of the globe who are living in poverty-stricken, overcrowded, underfunded circumstances. We have a deteriorating ecological situation everywhere, which is increasing the pressure on all of us. We have way too much money going into military preparedness, which should be going into ecological efforts, education, farming, job creation, and other positive projects that would improve people's living conditions worldwide...NOT just in my country or yours.

This is too big a job for any one country. It demands a coalition of many countries to solve it. There should be a concerted effort by all the wealthier nations to assist the poorer ones and improve their living standards.

This requires a larger view of life than mere nationalism. My primary objection to the USA (and other nations too) is that they are not looking at the BIG PICTURE. They are playing the old narrow-minded games of nationalism and immediate gain.

My other major objection is that they are serving money, not humanity. Money rules when it should serve. The system is ass-backwards. Money was not originally created to rule us, it was created to assist us in making transactions...nothing more than that. It has become the God of this society. That's a disasterous situation.

I honestly think that the West has gone into Afghanistan not because of Osama Bin Laden, but because of vast oil and natural gas reserves in the former Soviet republics north of Afghanistan. The major corporations are looking to move that oil and gas via an occupied or pacified Afghanistan to the Indian ocean.

Further conflicts loom in the Middle East. They too, are not about human rights, they are about the control and shipping of oil, and they will not be fought to protect anyone in America, but to secure resources in a world where those resources are diminishing rapidly.

I do support individual Americans, as I support ordinary people everywhere.

If there were not terrible and unjustifiable inequities in this world, people like Osama Bin Laden would have a very hard time finding reasons to bomb anyone or people willing to do it for them. Their reason to exist would be gone. Religion is just an emotional excuse to whip people up and get them to go out and do idiotic things they normally would not do if allowed to live in peace and relative security.

I am not against Americans, I am against multi-national corporations and their religion of Money uber alles. The US government is in their pocket, and that is why I oppose so many of its policies. Canada's government is in their pocket too.

I do not believe the invasion of Afghanistan has made the lives of American citizens safer than it was before, nor will an invasion of Iraq do so. (At the same time, I'm not surprised it happened...it was inevitable, for psychological reasons, that the USA would attack someone after Sept 11th, and I don't think anything could have prevented it from happening.)

The reason the real problems are not being addressed, worldwide, is because they are so ENORMOUS...and because to address them would not be immediately profitable for the major financial players. It would, however, be very profitable in the long term (ten years...twenty years) for all of us...but who thinks about the long term in corporate America? No one. The bottom line is at the end of this fiscal year. They're like gamblers at a casino. They act like there is no tomorrow.

Noam Chomsky's speech (link given above in Amos's post) says all that needs to be said about the "War on Terrorism". Terrorism is generally a weapon of the strong...but only when the weak use it is it called "terrorism", because the strong own the international media.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 01:18 PM

the truth is gnu, the US does have a supply of western red cedar, particularly in Washington State. We are shingling the walls of a reno on our house right now, with supposedly Certigrade No 1s that we purchased last fall.

The first bundle we opened was garbage, with tons less than the 4" minimum. I checked the tag to make sure it really was # 1 Certigrade and was surprised to see this kindling was milled in the US. Weird because I had not even dreamed we were bringing coals to Newcastle.

The only way that would make economic sense for the company we purchased the shingles from in Canada, was if, they were picking the stuff up cheaper (even with our 1/2 priced dollar and the extra shipping costs) from the US, than we can get it milled locally. But that sort of blows the US's dumping theory to the waterline on that product. Too bad its too late and costly for us to send the stuff back to where we bought it.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: John Gray
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 12:14 PM

Yeah, us Ozzies will be there, no doubt about it.
We have been involved in every war that the US has been involved in, from WWI onwards, and then some. Except Grenada & Panama. Those wars were over too quick, plus we were having a barbeque on those weekends.

You only have to look at our track record to see we love a good blue(fight).Commencing with the Maori War of the late 1830's we have participated in the following conflicts;
Sudan-1885, Boer War-1899-1902, Boxer Uprising-1900-1901, WW1, WW2, Korea, Malayan Emergency 1950-60, Indonesian Confrontation 1964-66, Vietnam 1962-72 ( I went there twice )Gulf war-we still have warships there, East Timor and, currently, Afghanistan.
We've also sent peacekeepers to Cyprus, Sinai, Somalia & Cambodia.

So, get a good stoush going and we'll be there. I just hope we think we think through the motives a bit better than we did in WW1. Some years ago they interviewed a lot of the remaining old veterans as to why they volunteered in such large numbers to go and fight a war on the other side of the world. Was it for Queen an country-no, was it for the flag-no, was it to protect Australia from invasion-no ( we weren't under threat )was it to gain honour & accolades-no. The majority said it was for the "adventure" and for the chance of seeing parts of the world they would never be able to visit under normal circumstances. ( Very few working class people had the money to travel in those days and going to see the Pyramids or the Eifel Tower was a real big deal )

Give us a bit of notice on Iraq though, time to find the spears and load up the war canoes so we can get to the start line on time. We woudn't want to miss the first bang.

JG/FME

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: gnu
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 07:19 AM

Yup. It's just plain greed. That Mulrooney SOB sold Canada down the river. But, I wouldn't underestimate Jean just yet. He did a pretty good job with the potatoes and with Atlantic Canada softwood lumber. I just wish he'd get his ass in gear on the Crown Lands lumber issue.

Amergin... Canada for Oz ? Beavers and moose for crocs and snakes ? Besides, we are still your largest trading partner, if you don't count the drugs crossing the Mexican border.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: kendall
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 07:01 AM

L.H. I have news for you. ANY politician, left or right will say anything to get elected. Liberals have no monopoly on bullshit.

What will it take to get your support? how about some wackos diving a plane full of innocent people into the Parliament in Ottawa? The Taliban creeps hate us because we are friends of Israel, why not bomb you for being our friend?

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 05:37 AM

phew! I was so irate I said Iran instead of Iraq, that's what you happens when you get your shirt in a knot and forget to mind your N's and Q's......er.....P's and Q's.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 05:22 AM

gnu, the States don't need the piddling amount of help that the Canadian armed forces could provide in Iran. What they do need and want is our raw logs to be milled south of the border.

What better way than to bankrupt local small operators and then have Weyhauser and the like, which can withstand the tariffs, scoop up the the small devestated mills and their timber leases (or bully Canada into changing our system so they can buy our forests outright) or demand that, if we want the tarriffs lifted, to rethink our raw log export policy. Free trade my f***ing ass! Only this time when the international court again finds that their claims are bull shit, its going to be too late for our industry.

Pretty grim here on the Island, 5,600 layed off and more on the way as of today and an estimated 120,000 layed off when the full effect hits the rest of the Province.

All our company's customers are American right now and I'm going to have a hard time being a good girl and acting civilly at the next social function. They like investing in Island real estate here, because of the already bargain basement prices and the fact that they consider Canada so much more stable and predictable than Mexico.

One of the American ladies was bemoaning the fact though, that we don't have a class of cheap labour here like they do in Arizona with their Mexican gardeners and housekeepers.

Looks like she'd going to get her wish sooner than expected and we won't even have to wade across a river at night to provide it for her.

Maybe Kissinger was right. The US doesn't have Friends, it has Interests.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: alanabit
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 04:51 AM

Little Hawk mentioned that if Saddam had not existed, the USA would have been forced to invent him. Let's face it, but for Western support during the Iraq/Iran war, how strong would Saddam have become?

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Hrothgar
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 03:56 AM

I might accept them. I'm blessed if I like them!

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: John Gray
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 02:59 AM

Hrothgar,

What's the "we'll" signify in your comment about John Howard?
Whilst he didn't get my vote he did get the majority of votes that enabled his party to easily form gov't.
You must be careful in this forum or our international folk may think we had a Bush/Gore type result or, probably closer to the point, that you don't accept decisions made by more than 50% of the participants.

JG/FME

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: GUEST,MerryBee
Date: 23 Mar 02 - 01:54 AM

Thanks Amos for passing on the Chomsky link .

Merry

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 10:20 PM

The "here instead' link above goes to:

http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm, which can be reached by clicking here instead. Maybe. :L>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 10:17 PM

For those interested in the United States' experiments in terrorism by redefinition of terms, I highly recommend a recent Noam Chomsky talk at MIT. If I'm lucky it can be found by by clicking here.

If I'm not, click here instead and go the Chomsky video page and from there to the talk transcript.

Regards,

A.

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: GUEST,MerryBee
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 09:15 PM

There's more of course with Bush's distinct taste for warmongering. What he's done in naming Iraq,China,Russia,North Korea,Iran,Lybia and Syria as priority potential nuclear targets is tantamount to indulging in the very thing he claims to be fighting in the free world-and that's terrorism.When Bush rode off into the sunset on the tail of Osama Bin Laden in all out retribution for the Sept11 World Trade towers atrocities he had general widespread approval for his actions.But the move was tinged with overriders that despite the fact that thousands died when the twin towers collapsed after being hit by hijacked jetliners , sanctioned retribution should not be seen as an excuse to the spilling of yet more innocent blood. Having rained down thousands of tonnes of bombs ,including the biggest explosive devices of America's arsenal outside the nuclear bomb it seems Bush has discovered an insatiable thirst for war games. There are cranks in all walks of life and society -even the White House has it's share.It would seem those aides who have long urged past presidents to reach for the code books,keys and nuclear buttons are starting to gain an upper hand around the conference table. That should be reason enough for us all to press the panic button!!

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Amergin
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 09:07 PM

you know...a thought just occurred to me....i think we ought to trade with britain...we can give them canada if they give us oz...

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 08:37 PM

If Saddam did not already exist, the USA would be forced to invent him.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: See you in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Mar 02 - 08:16 PM

Be assured of this, comrades: if the UK signs up to a US war on Iraq, it will be the end of Blair as well as Saddam.

Funny, but I thought the USA and the UK had both signed up to the UN as the appropriate organisation to take care of these things. And if (as has been claimed) Saddam has to be taken out because he is a threat to other Arab states, how come none of those states are lending support to the US-UK axis?