The breakout from \"Will you fight for your country\".

[ElvenKind]

Originally posted by Sgt. Boomer, and edited out of the original thread. New thread opened on request from Turbo.
- EK -

[Sgt. Boomer walks into a quite room, leaves a little post and walks out. Comes back later, finds blood carnage and mayhem. He blushes a little with embarrassment, but then thinks “what the heck, it is a war-game sight.”]

isoFlux Wrote:Iraq isn\'t about "freeing the Iraqi people". its an imperialist venture to help secure the most needed natural resource. period. Iraq didn\'t threaten the U.S. More people have died during the US/Coalition invasion and occupation than in Saddam\'s rule. If you think this war is about all that ideological nonsense about "freeing all those poor Iraqi slaves", then open a history book. the US has had a very specific and focused interest in the Middle East since the end of WWII. excluding our support of Zionism, none of our policies, actions, and whatnot have ever supported "freedom in the Middle East". the Middle East is the breadbasket for industrialized countries. it\'s no coincidence that rencent the political amd military actions in Iraq were set forth by oil jockies tightly involved in the Middle East have decided to sacrifice thousands of lives to obtain political, social, and economic control over a cache of resources.

Nazi Germany invaded 9 countries in 1939 (including North Africa). they formed and implemented the most gruesome form of mass genocide known to man, and kept a tight and unwanted grip on all of it\'s territories.

our military actions since WW2 have not been defending and liberating millions of people from a corrupt, destructive, and unjust form of totalitarianism. all they have done is disrupt, polarize, and destory cultures and people for petty political reasons. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. i dont think all the lives lost for those wars were worth their outcomes. Korea so far is the only pseudo-success story, and even then there are some catches.

And Nazi Germany didn’t directly threaten Britain when it attacked Poland in 1939, nor did it ever invade or directly threaten the US. The US fought the Germans in Europe because they learned from Britain’s example: if you don’t fight them over there, you’ll fight them over here.

It’s easy to look back at WWII and say that it was clearly a case of good and evil. But it wasn’t so black and white at the time. They didn’t have the film footage of Auschwitz and other concentration camps, and many people during the war (including US soldiers) thought the camps were all Allied propaganda. Many socialists at the time (including a future Canadian Prime Minister) denounced “Churchill’s War” as a “racist imperialistic war”. Many Britons, and Americans, felt that fighting the Nazi’s wasn’t worth what it would cost in suffering and wealth, especially in light of WWI.

Britain could have accepted Hitler’s peace offer in 1940, saved its empire, its cities, ? million of its people, and left Europe, Russia, and Europe’s Jews to suffer enslavement and death under the Nazi’s without help or hope of deliverance. And like the millions of dead under communism, we’d never have had film evidence of the mountains of corpses to make the horror of the regime inescapably real.

Does that mean that it was the Allies “job” to save all those people and free Europe from Nazism? No, I don’t believe in entitlement. I don’t believe anyone is entitled to anything, particularly at someone else’s expense. However I do believe in honour; I do believe that some things are morally better than others, and occasionally so much so that they are worth fighting and possibly dying for. Time and the ability to see the whole truth of Nazism proved that WWII was one of those times.

As for Iraq, I think more people died under the UN’s oil for kickbacks sanction scheme that ended with the war. And before that, more people died during Saddam’s war with Iran.

I used to believe in Utopian politics, but unfortunately life is frequently a question of \"which is the lesser of several evils?\". The whole “no blood for oil” schtick was started by the people and governments that were making billions under the UN sanctions.

“May 2003 chart from the American Petroleum Institute web site. The top five crude oil imports from foreign countries to the U.S. breaks down as follows:
17.8% from Saudi Arabia
16.5% from Canada
12.8% from Venezuela
12.0% from Mexico
7.5% from Nigeria”

Yellowbelly Wrote:BS. Iraq was not about a much needed natural resource. If we were that desperate, we would have drilled in Alaska.

Or invaded Canada. I wish you’d invaded Canada, ‘cause we REALY need a regime change up here!!!!!

Actually, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I would be willing to fight for Canada if we elected a decent center or center-right regime instead of the bunch of corrupt, Marxist, scumbags that are currently ruining the country. Failing that, in a WWIII type of situation I’d enlist in the US army. I do agree that fighting for an ideal you believe in is better than blind patriotism. I just think it’s na?ve to expect any current event is going to appear as black and white as WWII does 60 years on.

Yes, fighting communism was disruptive, but it was just as evil and dangerous as Nazism. And yes, the way it was fought was often the worst possible strategy - the “dirty little wars” from the 50’s through the 80’s. But what’s a government supposed to do with a expansionist communist enemy that threatens US freedom (including economic freedom), a population that demands jobs and prosperity, and the generation that should fighting for freedom chanting “hell no, we won’t go”?

It was a terrible policy, but infinitely better than letting communism win and the U.S. (& Europe) wither into 3rd world countries and eventually be overrun.
What really kills me about the left is that for years they’ve been whining about US support of dictators, but now that a government is attempting to reverse that policy, they’re even more upset!!!! And while Korea is far from perfect, compared to North Korea it’s a bloody paradise.

I don’t agree that the US’s reasons were about oil. The opposition from the UN, France, Canada, Russia, several politicians and journalists who were getting kickbacks bribes and contracts from the Saddam regime – THAT was about oil. Whether it was the right thing is another question. But it was probably better than doing nothing and waiting for their next attack. You know – the best defense is a good offence.

Put it another way: CAMPING DOESN’T WORK! AND THE US AINT CAMPERS.

=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD Wrote:"During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. …

I would imagine they had their facts straight! But anyhoo, I was flaunting the unprecendented economical statistics of 8 years of largely minding own bidniss.

Yup, Clinton and Chamberlain, two masters at giving the world peace in their time. And while Clinton does get full marks for not screwing up the economic boom, the boom itself was caused by free trade and the personal computer, not Clinton.

=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD Wrote:It is the motives behind and the arrogant refusal to cooperate with the rest of the world in ousting him (you know: with minimal bloodshed – yeah, we wussie euros are strangely weird that way), that bugs us.

Well, my guess is the main motives for snubbing the UN were:
1. they wanted to keep the “oil for fraud” scheme going forever and would have stalled the US forever.
2. to drive a steak through the heart of the global governance movement (the new face of Marxist Utopian politics).

=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD Wrote:Oh, and the UN were founded to ensure that we never would see a war like WW2 again, through diplomacy, communication and understanding.

Exactly like founding the League of Nations after WWI to prevent … er, never mind. I think the bomb did a better job of keeping the peace than the UN.8)

P.S. good debate guys, and sorry for the long post. Cheers, Boomer.

[GaGrin]

\"Exactly like founding the League of Nations after WWI to prevent … er, never mind. I think the bomb did a better job of keeping the peace than the UN.\" - Sgt. Boomer

So very sadly true. But perhaps in part because the two superpowers of the time happened to be run by...

a) A totally corrupt dicatator with a view on world domination.
b) A series of figureheads controlled by the anti-socialist propaganda they were spewing.

On the other hand it gave us TV so it ain\'t all bad

[Yellowbelly]

I don\'t know about the invading Canada part. I\'m sure we could do it but lots of folks don\'t like Bush up there. But if you really want us to...

[=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD]

Saw an intensely interesting Frontline-documentary yesterday called \"Rumsfelds War\", about the tug-of-war between Pentagon, the army, Defense Department and State Department about how best to go about invading iraq. Reaffirmed my distrust in politicians, but happily also my admiration for the american army.

Im still pretty sure the invasion was more a strategic choice than anything to do with Oil, but it largely seems to have been fuelled by Rumsfelds and Wolfowitz\' having \"unfinished business\" (i.e. ousting Saddam)from last time the US paid a visit to the Gulf.

But I really feel bad for all those ol warhorses in the military having to take their orders from a guy who felt that 50 000 troops were more than enough to invade and stabilize Iraq.

Check it out here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/

[Sgt. Boomer]

Looks good turbs, I’ll watch it on the weekend.

And yes, do invade Canada. We need more American TV

[SoulSurfer]

Sgt. Boomer Wrote:Looks good turbs, I’ll watch it on the weekend.

And yes, do invade Canada. We need more American TV

after watching the superbowl the other night i must say i\'m happy with the good old BBC and no advert breaks

[Yellowbelly]

What in the world is this? Do canadians hate bush and america because we\'re probably not going to take Canada over?

[Sgt. Boomer]

Yellowbelly Wrote:What in the world is this? Do canadians hate bush and america because we\'re probably not going to take Canada over?

That could be Quebec’s problem. I think the French secretly LIKE getting conquered.

Seriously, there is a fair bit of anti-Americanism up here. It’s strongest in the East and weakest out here in the West. Overall the majority of Canadians are sick of it. Here are a couple of good articles by a Toronto writer that were in several newspapers across Canada. The first is on anti-Americanism, the second is the response he got to the first.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists...28563.html

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists...35561.html

[Sgt. Boomer]

Watched the Frontline-doc. Had a lot of great info about the power struggle in the Pentagon leading up to the Iraq war. The best line about Rummy was that he was the “most skillful bureaucratic knife-fighter in Washington”. Unfortunately his hands-on approach does seem to have made things worse in the post-war phase. Kind of like Churchill and some of his ideas- Norway, etc.

Overall, I think the grand strategy of going after the terrorists and state sponsors was the right one. Here’s a quote from an article a few months back:

“Look at the recently resurrected Osama bin Laden. Three years ago he was Mr. Jihad, demanding the restoration of the caliphate, the return of Andalucia, the conversion of every infidel to Islam, the imposition of sharia and an end to fornication, homosexuality and alcoholic beverages. In his latest video he sounds like some elderly Berkeley sociology student making lame jokes about Halliburton and Bush reading My Pet Goat.”
- Mark Steyn

It’s a pretty good sign when your enemy goes from a raving Hitler to a lame Jerry Lewis.

[Sgt. Boomer]

Here’s some more info about the “no blood for oil” slogan.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:q3J...n%22&hl=en

This one can’t be linked to (you have to subscribe) so I’ll post part of the article. My apologies for the length, but it’s really fascinating.


Most Canadians don’t know Paul Desmarais at all. But the few who do know him know him as the kingmaker behind Trudeau*, Mulroney*, Chr?tien* and Martin*. Jean Chr?tien’s daughter is married to Paul Desmarais’s son. Paul Martin was an employee of M. Desmarais’s Power Corp., and his Canada Steamship Lines was originally a subsidiary of Power Corp. that M. Desmarais put Mr. Martin in charge of. In other words, Paul Martin’s public identity--successful self-made businessman, not just a career pol, knows how to meet payroll, etc.--is entirely derived from the patronage of M. Desmarais.

That in itself is a remarkable achievement. Imagine if Jenna Bush married the chairman of Halliburton’s son, and then George W. Bush was succeeded by a president who’d been an employee of Halliburton: Michael Moore’s next documentary would be buried under wall-to-wall Oscars and Palmes d’Or. But M. Desmarais has managed to turn Ottawa into a company town without anyone being aware of the company. We’re a G8 economy; it would be reasonable to expect a prominent British or American businessman to number prominent political figures among his friends, but to have brought so many of them into his company and even family would surely excite some comment. Power Corp.’s other alumni range from Quebec premiers to Canada’s most prominent international diplomat, Maurice Strong*.

During the Iraq war, I mentioned en passant that Power Corp. is the biggest shareholder in TotalFinaElf, the western corporation closest to Saddam Hussein (it has since changed its name to the Total Group). Total had secured development rights to 25 per cent of Iraq’s oil reserves, a transformative deal that would catapult the company from a second-rank player into the big leagues with Exxon and British Petroleum. For a year, the antiwar crowd had told us it was “all about oil”--that the only reason Iraq was being “liberated” was so Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and the rest of the gang could annex in perpetuity the second biggest oil reserves in the world. But, if it was all about oil, then the fact--fact--is that the only Western leader with a direct stake in the issue was not the Texas oilpatch stooge in Washington, but Jean Chr?tien: his daughter, his son-in-law and his grandchildren stood to be massively enriched by the Total-Saddam agreement. It depended on two factors: Saddam remaining in power, and the feeble UN sanctions being either weakened into meaninglessness or quietly dropped. M. Chr?tien may have refused to join the Iraq war on “principle,” but fortunately his principles happened to coincide with the business interests of both TotalFinaElf and the Baath party.

As I said, I mentioned this curious footnote at the time. Stockwell Day picked up on it. The CBC, CTV, The Globe and Mail, Maclean’s and all the rest steered clear. A bland perfunctory 200-word CP story reporting M. Desmarais’s denial--“Power Financial Head Refutes Saddam Link”--was carried by far more media outlets than had bothered going anywhere near Day’s original remarks.

Well, okay. Let’s take M. Desmarais’s word for it. But, getting on for two years later, we’re in the middle of the UN Oil-for-Fraud investigation, the all-time biggest scam, bigger than Enron and Worldcom and all the rest added together. And whaddaya know? The bank that handled all the money from the program turns out to be BNP Paribas, which tends to get designated by Associated Press and co. as a “French bank” but is, as it happens, controlled by one of M. Desmarais’s holding companies. That alone should cause even the droopiest bloodhound to pick up a scent: the UN’s banker for its Iraqi “humanitarian” program turns out to be (to all intents) Saddam’s favourite oilman.

I’m not a conspiracy-minded guy, and, if I were, I’d look for a sinister global organization with a less obvious name. If “Power Corp.” was the moniker given to the sinister front operation for the latest Bond villain, critics would bemoan how crass the 007 franchise had become. And a “Power Corp.” that controlled the “Total Group” would have them hooting with derision. But it’s nevertheless the case that M. Desmarais’s bank functioned as the cashier for Saddam’s gaming of the global-compassion crowd: if a company agreed to sell Iraq some children’s medicine for $100 million, Iraq would invoice BNP Paribas for $110 million, pay the supplier and divert the skim-off into other areas. Everyone knew this was happening. It seems impossible, even with the minimal auditing, that BNP Paribas did not.

-From an article by Mark Steyn in “The Western Standard”.


*Maurice Strong is Kofi Annan’s special assistant at the UN and the main architect of the Kyoto treaty. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chr?tien and Martin are the 3 former and current Canadian Prime Ministers.