The Constable Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by arcane: QUOTE]Point of fact: They did. Canada entered the war in September 1939, but the US was doggedly and frustratingly neutral until Japan attacked Pearl Harbour more than two years later, effectively forcing them into a two-year-old war immediately.[/QB]True. But my original point still remains. Had the US not entered the war, however prompted they may have been by the events of December 7th at Pearl Harbor, the outcome of the war would have been very much different. How's your German, Arcane??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constable Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by c-towns: Don't you think killing Saddam's son's is only going to furiate Saddam into doing something seriously irrational? Fuel on the fire man... peace in the middle eastMore pie-in-the-sky liberal sentiment!!! Peace is an idealistic principle that exists in fairy tales and in the bible. It's got no credibility in the real world of geopolitical realities. Your reasoning seems to go a little like this --Let's not piss Saddam off for fear that he may retaliate against western nations with some plot to get back at the US and its allies. It's far better to sit back with our thumbs up our asses and 'hope' that he isn't bold enough to launch some major offensive into neighbouring countries or hold Iraq's impoverished citizens hostage for another generation. He'll eventually realize that his dictatorial ways are wrong and bring about the political and economic changes that are required for the betterment of his people. This obviously wasn't going to happen. The US and allied forces did a great thing in liberating the people of Iraq and quite frankly I'm ashamed that our apethetic government in Ottawa choose to do exactly what was outlined about -- sit with their thumbs up their asses while the 'Coalition of the Willing' took a stand aginst this tyrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constable Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote: Originally posted by MarcO: No, constable, to say in retrospect that the US did the right thing regardless of whether they find WMDs or not both invalidates the justification for the war and further undermines the level of trust we should otherwise be expected to place in Bush and Blair, as leaders of major Western nations. Bleeding heart cry-babies? Now, now, constable, best not to be calling names.... Sometime you have to sell the lemmings a bill of goods in order to sway public opinion to where you need it to be. Sad but true ... I meant nothing derogatory by the liberal panty waste references, it just helps when trying to get my point across. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether it agrees with mine or whether it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badams Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 History has shown us that all the great empires come to an end. The US will be no different. It's just a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Constable: This obviously wasn't going to happen. The US and allied forces did a great thing in liberating the people of Iraq and quite frankly I'm ashamed that our apethetic government in Ottawa choose to do exactly what was outlined about -- sit with their thumbs up their asses while the 'Coalition of the Willing' took a stand aginst this tyrant. I agree with you; unfortunately things are not black and white (no matter how either side wishes it to be) and the US is partially accountable for allowing Iraq to get in the state it was before they finally took action. I wonder what the next step will be... generally, whenever the US has exerted influence over a region/country/affair, it generally goes bad in the long run. Canada could certainly have done better with this whole affair. I doubt very much we had anything we could have offered to the main offensive effort, but we could have done more to provide secondary support (or to free up primary US combat troops from other regions). We did that to some degree in Afganistan, but failed to drive home the point publicly and poltically (to our discredit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Constable: True. But my original point still remains. Had the US not entered the war, however prompted they may have been by the events of December 7th at Pearl Harbor, the outcome of the war would have been very much different.Straw man argument. Your point was about the US intolerance for terrorist regimes, to the point of initiating military action. The US did not initiate World War II on 07 Dec 1941, nor did they participate of their own initiative despite Canadian participation and the German bombing raids on friendly nations. They were, in fact, forced into it by the Japanese, and as I understand it, their participation was primarily against the Japanese. With respect to your question, the only valid parallel between 07 Dec 1941 and 09 Sep 2001 is that on both occasions, the US was caught with its pants around its ankles. The circumstances and approaches to action were quite different. quote:How's your German, Arcane??? I'm afraid I'm not very bright--can you please explain the point of your question so I can answer it appropriately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constable Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by arcane: quote:How's your German, Arcane??? I'm afraid I'm not very bright--can you please explain the point of your question so I can answer it appropriately? [/QB]My point was that if the US had not entered the war when they did, a point at which the Allies were hopelessly outmatched against the Axis powers, that you and I and everyone else posting on this board would be wearing knee high boots with ugly beige shirts speaking a brand a garbled German right now. Perhaps a bit of an overstatement but I'm sure you know where I'm coming from. PS - Give yourself a little credit, you're doing just fine. It helps though when I keep throwing out the 'straw man' arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote: PS - Give yourself a little credit, you're doing just fine. It helps though when I keep throwing out the 'straw man' arguments. bwah! i haven't laughed this hard in a while... "your doing just fine"... hehehehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Yes... I've generally enjoyed the myth that the USA won WW2 for the allies. While I concede that the war was not going well, and any successes of the allies were more due to intestinal fortitude rather than leadership and planning on the part of their masters, the USA was not the awesome fighting machine that (US) historians would like you to believe. I suspect that huge tracks of Europe would be speaking German (more than there are today)... and we'd be well into a cold-war like environment that would make the previous cold-war look like a cake-walk. Likewise, we'd probably be concerned about the "new" German allies to our South... had the Axis powers not made it untennable for the USA to stand off to the side - and force them to join with the Brits, Canuks and other members of what is generally believed to have been the "forces of good". The USA shortened the war dramatically... and certainly helped secure the victory we saw today... but in the end, had they not come to play, I suspect the war would have ended in a very brutal stalemate. The Axis was too tough to just die-out/loose... but the Allies were certainly not going to just roll over either (if nothing else, the troops would just have shot the politicans and field marshals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constable Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Mercenary: Canada could certainly have done better with this whole affair. I doubt very much we had anything we could have offered to the main offensive effort, but we could have done more to provide secondary support (or to free up primary US combat troops from other regions). We did that to some degree in Afganistan, but failed to drive home the point publicly and poltically (to our discredit). [/QB]Does it really matter to what degree we would have been able to support??? Canadian involvement would have been symbolic at best but it still would have demonstrated our stand againt the kind of unwarranted aggression that has been a staple in that region of the world for as long as most of us have been alive. Who cares??? Send a thousand troops to aid in the logistical effort, a herd of moose to pull wagons up to the front lines or a pile of beavers to clear out some mine fields. Anything would have been better than the passive, standoffish approach that we did take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Constable: PS - Give yourself a little credit, you're doing just fine. It helps though when I keep throwing out the 'straw man' arguments. I like this guy... Here... put on this fur coat and flush out the bear for me... I'll stand here with my gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Constable: Does it really matter to what degree we would have been able to support??? Canadian involvement would have been symbolic at best but it still would have demonstrated our stand againt the kind of unwarranted aggression that has been a staple in that region of the world for as long as most of us have been alive. Who cares??? Send a thousand troops to aid in the logistical effort, a herd of moose to pull wagons up to the front lines or a pile of beavers to clear out some mine fields. Anything would have been better than the passive, standoffish approach that we did take. Exactly... it wouldn't have mattered what degree of support we provided... as long as whatever we did was clearly in support in some way. Fine... Canada chose not to engage in combat operations without UN support... but at least we supported our ally by taking on more "war on terrorism" tasks elsewhere so as to free of F-echelon forces with the US for Iraq operations. Unfortunately, as we never make a clear statement on anything, we neglected to drive home that point poltically and publicly - lest we offend someone. This half-assed approach to things works great in Canada... but its useless in international politics (too subtle for the international community)... hence we're on the USA shit-list... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Low Roller Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 This obviously is a topic that will be debated for years by historians. I definitely don't believe in good vs. evil in this situation. There is no more 'good' and its basically a matter of personal interest vs. personal interest. How would WW2 have ended if it wasn't for the American involvement? Who knows. Would the Pacific Campaign have ended so abruptly if the U.S. didn't drop two nuclear bombs on civilian Japanese towns? I'm not in a position to answer that. As far as the European Campaign, I know for fact that, with or without the American support, my countrymen in Poland would've fought until their very last breath before accepting Nazi rule. If you want to talk about symbolic gestures TC, I support Canada for following the U.N. lead in not going forth with the war resolution. That's a very symbolic gesture seeing as the U.N. is struggling to still be a relevant entity in today's geopolitics. How about that "tacky tie" in Uday's briefcase huh? How wacky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote: Originally posted by The Constable: My point was that if the US had not entered the war when they did, a point at which the Allies were hopelessly outmatched against the Axis powers, Were they, indeed? Again, the thrust of the American participation was against the Japanese. I'm not convinced that the US played as large a role in Europe as you're suggesting. quote: that you and I and everyone else posting on this board would be wearing knee high boots with ugly beige shirts speaking a brand a garbled German right now. If the Japanese hadn't forced the US into the war, there is a significant chance that the US would have sided with Germany, particularly given that Hitler was in favour with influential types in the US at the time. All things considered, I think that would have been enough to tip the scales in favour of the Axis powers, yes. Without US involvement, it's too convoluted to tell. History is generally written by the victors, and the war was long enough that the battle lines moved both ways. The atomic bomb--clearly an American thing--was not used in Europe (and its effect on ending the war with Japan is debatable). The earlier radars and the magnatron were very clearly British, and the magnatron was very important in detection technology (so much so that the US traded 20 warships for it). The Japanese were too far away to have done much in Europe. In any event, the decision for the US to become involved had nothing to do what Hitler was doing, except to say that the impact of his regime was likely the decisive factor in keeping the US out of the war for two years. That's not a compelling anti-terrorist argument, and that's what this is about. quote: Perhaps a bit of an overstatement but I'm sure you know where I'm coming from. Wait a minute, lemmee get out my magnatron ... I have a microwave oven--anyone got change for 20 warships? quote: PS - Give yourself a little credit, That's usually what I get quote: you're doing just fine. It helps though when I keep throwing out the 'straw man' arguments. Nice to know that my long-term memory hasn't completely kacked out on me ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 (Oh, and by the way, if the Nazis had been a dominant power at the end of the war, I likely wouldn't be here. At the very least, my grandfather's maternal grandmother was Jewish, making him Jewish in the eyes of the Nazi regime, and hence a speedbump for the Fatherland. However, I have no doubt that he would have been executed for crimes against the state before his ancestry ever came to light. Either that, or I could see him taking over a small island north of Scotland and digging in like a naked mole rat. He speaks German like a Rhinelander, if that answers your language question. A lot can happen in 58 years.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Stapes: What I do remember was hearing/reading that Bin Laddin hated Saddam and his regime almost as much as the US, and the Western media bending over backwards trying to spin the public opinion to link them.Say, whatever become of that Qaddafi fellow in Libya? You know, the one with the hair. Now there is a Grade-A cartoon character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Constable Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Stapes: I don't remember seeing any evidence that Iraq was even remotly connected to the attacks on 9/11. [/QB]There is, in fact, very damaging evidence that the Iraqi leadership was providing considerable funding to Bin Laden's terrorist network for a decade prior to 9/11. The link between the 2 goes far beyond this however. The commission of terrorist acts against afluent western states is a common premise that runs through many Middle Eastern nations and the terror networks that reside within them. The US administration recognized this fact (along with their own previously self-induced complacentcy) and knew that something had to be done, not only for their own security but for the overall security of the global community. The US started in Afganistan as a quick response to the 2001 attacks and they're simply going through the list. The situation in Iraq really isn't that much different from the state of affairs that currently exists in Syria or Saudi Arabia or North Korea for that matter. They picked the 'big boy on the block' and kicked his ass in the hope that other nations would take notice and clean up their acts before they get the old fashioned pounding they deserve as well. Remember, this is only the start of the US-led war on terrorism. I think it's amazing how quickly the events of 9/11 faded from public consciousness. Rest assured that George W. and the boys in Washington have not forgotten what happened that day. They are committed and determined to get rid of any and all threats to world security and I think they've mounted a pretty decent start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Low Roller Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The Constable: The commission of terrorist acts against afluent western states is a common premise that runs through many Middle Eastern nations and the terror networks that reside within them.Please set my mind at ease and tell me you're not alluding that all arab countries are harbouring terrorists. I would consider this a gross generalization and worse, a racist statement. quote:The US started in Afganistan as a quick response to the 2001 attacks and they're simply going through the list.I'm sorry, I distinctly remember a White House representative (possible Rumsfeld) saying "there is no list". quote:They picked the 'big boy on the block' and kicked his ass in the hope that other nations would take notice and clean up their acts before they get the old fashioned pounding they deserve as well.'Big boy on the block'?! You're calling a country that had 10 years of trade sanctions imposed on them prior to the U.S. invasion 'big boy on the block'? It's more like the propaganda machine that is CNN that made them out to be enemy #1. There are far worse places in the world that the U.S. simply doesn't care about because they have no vested interest in them. Case in point is Liberia. Only under intense public pressure did they send three ships to the coast of Liberia. quote:I think it's amazing how quickly the events of 9/11 faded from public consciousness.I pray that never happens. The problem is that the American population has a very short attention span. Just flash some pretty Hollywood produced pictures of some fantastic war. It's all it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisley Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Stapes: I have had more trouble resting since GW and the boys got this party started. I feel sorry that you believe that they are ridding us all of threats to world security. IMHO they have done more to shake world security than anything else that has happened in my lifetime. couldn't agree more with that my original point that seemed to get all this started was actually concerning the US stepping above international and US law in acting as judge, jury and executioner... I don't deny that Saddam's sons were bad mofo's by all accounts... I believe it sets an extremely dangerous precedent though that when an informant says somebody is in a house or a car that it has become acceptable to blow it to hell and then search the rubble for DNA evidence that said persons were there... I think it would have been much better for the people of Iraq if Saddam's sons were captured and put on public trial where the tyrants were exposed for their crimes with proof and then sentenced accordingly (likely death) going out in a hail of bullets made them look courageous and defiant in the eyes of the people of Iraq... case closed, without any closure... the iraqi's were the ones wronged, they should have been the ones who got to off them if the US army had the place surrounded I'm sure they could've waited them out or used stun grenades or something to capture them... shooting the place up for 6 hours when you have them hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned comes off looking a little edgy and desperate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry jr. Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Quote from the Constable: "They picked the 'big boy on the block' and kicked his ass in the hope that other nations would take notice and clean up their acts before they get the old fashioned pounding they deserve as well." Oh yeah, Iraq's military was really fearsome, and you provided a whole lot of evidence of their links to terrorism. The only evidence to date is that Saddam funded suicide bombers in Israel. Even Mossad and the FBI discounted the Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague story. Laurie Mylroie has speculated about Saddam being behind the 93 WTC bombing, as well as the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, but it's just speculation. The only people in the world who were scared of Saddam were Americans. Not even Iranians or Kuwaitis, who were both subjected to Saddam's hostilities, were frightened of him. It's good he's gone, and I don't have any sympathy for his psychotic sons either (would have been better if they captured them alive), but to pretend that this was done for humanitarian reasons is delusional. These same neo-Reaganites in office today were supplying Saddam with all sorts of aid and comfort in the 80s, not to mention helping out Latin American death squads and the mass murderer Suharto in Indonesia. They're still propping up Mubarak in Egypt, giving comfort to the Saudis, giving money to torturer supremo Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, and who knows who else. They invaded Panama after supporting Noriega, invaded Afghanistan after supporting the Mujahideen, and invaded Iraq, twice, after supporting Saddam. The list of dictators they've supported, most of them in the name of the Cold War (which had nothing to do with securing markets for U.S. companies) is long and grizzly. "You can't expect democracies to produce toadies to the U.S." - Anonymous State Dep't official, quoted in the Wall Street Journal 10/8/90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hux Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 I agree 100% LD. To think the US is taking some high-handed moral crusade to the world, and ignoring obvious self-interest on their behalf is a dangerous street to walk down...(ie. Cheney's old company Haliburton receiving a $150 billion contract to build a pipeline in Iraq) I guess the cold hearted right-wingers would rather we stuck to the real problems, such as interrogating an actual ELECTED President for receiving fellatio, things like that... Stayin' left, bleedin' and proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stapes Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 I think what worries me most how hard they are trying to sell this war to us. Makes me wonder why they want us to focus on it so much. When we were getting rid of the Taliban (no matter how hard they tryed to give in to the Allies demands) That whole Enrond thing went down. Wonder what might be going on now that we aren't even paying attention to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Low Roller Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Maybe Bush is covering up his own Lewinsky scandal? Condoleeza Rice does have those big full lips... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stapes Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 quote:There is, in fact, very damaging evidence that the Iraqi leadership was providing considerable funding to Bin Laden's terrorist network for a decade prior to 9/11. The link between the 2 goes far beyond this however. This is the only thing close to "Very Damaging evidence" I could find on CNN which is writen in such away to lead you to believe there is a connection. But both parties clearly want nothing tto do with one another. What they do have in common is they are targets in the war on terror. click here What I did find out was that the Bush familly may have been in bed with Bin laddin familly back in the day click here quote:The US administration recognized this fact (along with their own previously self-induced complacentcy) They wern't as complacent as you may think. They just decided not to make a huge poll driving production about it. click here quote:They picked the 'big boy on the block' I would Hazzard a guess that North Korea would be more of a "Big Boy" seeing as they had nucular technology and actually stated that they would use it against the US. They also have a million man army not even 2 hours away from the capitol of South Korea(which has a large US presence). quote: Rest assured that George W. and the boys in Washington have not forgotten what happened that day. They are committed and determined to get rid of any and all threats to world security and I think they've mounted a pretty decent start. Saddly Constibal I have had more trouble resting since GW and the boys got this party started. I feel sorry that you believe that they are ridding us all of threats to world security. IMHO they have done more to shake world security than anything else that has happened in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 quote: Rest assured that George W. and the boys in Washington have not forgotten what happened that day. fo sure....they had it planned out and knew about it well before it happened... George W. 'and his boys' need to worry less about policing the rest of the world, and more about his own collapsing country. The States are being regarded in a very low light. Probably the lowest point in their entire history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.