ohhh yippee, a forum all about war, what a great turn...
Well, Im tired of stewing about my thoughts in silent, so out they shall come. I dont wish nor intend to offend anyone, this is just opinion, so take it as such, however thats not to say that some things I say wont be offensive. I add this disclaimer to everything I post in FYM since an unpleasantness, but even then sometimes I still take a royal earful from people who simply dismiss me as wrong and do not even attempt to analyse my ideas but rather to just make attacks. Im not attacking anyone, my opinion is opinion and nothing more, and theres no reason to take offense to it. I fully admit right now that my opinion is not fact, and opinion is wind which can change at any moment, whereas fact is stone and impossible to change, people are often threatened by negative facts, but I do not even make claim to presenting them. If you dont agree, say so, but dont attack. I dont believe Ive said anything aggressive, but if I have, let me know, and I will do my best to explain. I try to look at the bigger picture by building up smaller parts, but as individual peices out of context they make very little sense and are hardly relevant. Also, Ive mentioned in several long and drawn out writings of mine (not all located where they are accessable here mind you) that I do not hate America, I do not hate Americans, and I certainly do not believe that there is any cause for conflict between the US and Canada - However, I have had all but good experiences in this forum, and certainly if I do not clarify up front, someone will attack me as an 'American-hating Canuck', which is simply not true at all. Fact is, some of my closest friends have been, or are, American. Thats besides the point though...
First and foremost, I believe the UN is like the League of Nations and any other widespread attempt to create peace. It doesnt work, and never has, hell, their own laws prevent them from entering unwelcomed into a country without declaring it an act of war. However, where they 'succeed' in keeping the peace is a little bit different - more often than not, theyre used as mercenary/peacekeepers by the governments in the US's favour. Some people may bitch that the US hasnt paid its dues to the UN, the US would say that they have to support their own peacekeepers and that expense alone far outweighs the ''dues" they should be forced to pay like everyone else, but the US is getting away with it. Why? I cannot say for certain, the debt is building, will it be paid or will it be pardoned? Its ignored now simply because the US is the US. They hold 32% of the votes in the UN, world bank, world trade organization, and so forth. However, the largest military power in the world, they are feared by most, simply because they have more than 32% of the world's power. Seemingly infallible, and untouchable. The US can buy and sell everyones asses unless all of the other 6 world powers stand up and say no. It seems that is what is happening, in part, right now. The UN isnt really as much of a farce that I say it is though, its a tool of the western nations to keep from ripping each other apart, as I see it the problem isnt with the rest of the world, its a problem with ourselves.
With that in mind, the current war brewing. Canada has said reluctantly said no (we flat out cannot afford it, and even if we could, war has never been our chosen path), France has said no, Russia has said no. Both France and Russia have stake in the economic game that is being played, and in fact have a better hand than the US right now. However, its a lose-lose game for any of us. You heard Bush's speach, 'with or without the support of the UN, we are removing saddam from power for the good of this world', because, by and large, the US has historically represented the opinion of everyone because they have the power, but backed up most of the time because the rest of the countries agreed. However, old alliances are falling apart it would seem, due to the economic practices that have made us all so successful. The thing with closed systems, such as the peace between the western world, is that they can remain stable for great lengths of time, until acted upon by a force outside the system which upsets the balance. Iraq is that force.
Just ponder for a moment, put France where the US is right now, the US where France is right now, leave alone only each country's capitalistic economic policies: France has just experianced terrorist attacks, their economy is decaying, countries like Iraq and Korea are playing games with them, terrorists are plotting against them, they want military action on a country which only poses an major threat to them and at the same time would provide economic stability and cast all diplomacy to the wind. The threat is their ability to cause an economic power change by favouring a lesser power and causing a major strain on France by raising the price of one key resource to the functioning of the country - essentially squeezing them like a lemon, while someone "inferior" sips the lemonade. So, along comes the US with a chance at cheap oil, a chance to gain a competetive edge in the world economy, to sip that sweet lemonade. They criticize the actions of france, they call france 'warmongers', they proceed of their own accord for their own benefit alone, because such is capitalism. France turns back to them and starts writing on US imports 'purified with bovine blood', changes anything with 'US' in it to 'Freedom' or 'vive la France', try to make the US look like the enemy in order to save face, knowing full well that they are on the short end of the stick, something very dangerous for a country in their position as the world's only superpower.
Now, given that horrendous oversimplification of the events occuring, which side do you despise more for their prospective actions, the US or France?
In reality, the economic ways of the US and France are very similar, whether you want to admit it or not, as are the great majority of western nations. Is the outcry against france simply because they have finally been able to gain a slight advantage to the US and vito them in the UN court, and in the process endangering the lives of all people living in the world? Or is the outcry against france because the potential is there for some of that US infallibility to become lost, and there may be a small shift of power? I believe that the US would put claim in for that contract on cheap Iraqi oil in a heartbeat if they were in France's shoes right now, and that all the French would hate the US for doing so were they in American shoes. Thats just my view of things though.
As for Russia; Russia has in military equipment. However, if memory serves, they have let slip a major oil contract to France but are owed a great deal of money by Iraq. However, it would seem that selling non-WoMD arms to Iraq is ok, past or present, because that hasnt been a focus of any media representation. Makes you wonder though, whether this is about oil or whether its about bringing peace to the world. If it was about bringing peace, someone might actually give a rats ass that the US stands a risk of losing more troops with each peice of equipment Russia sells, or, maybe there is a belief that this will be over in a matter of days and that any weaponry sold really wont come into play against the US's massive and unstoppable army.
Out of sheer curiosity, assume the US puts all its eggs in one basket and sends over 75% of its forces to Iraq, sits them in the persian gulf, sits them in cities surrounding and within Iraq. Say Saddam finishes his little game, uses one of his not-so-alleged WoMD and hits an area containing US carriers, battleships, air bases, and temporary military bases. The US takes a major, but not devestating blow to its forces. Enraged, the US closes in on bagdad and Saddam unleashes unspeakable biological and chemical evil upon the ground troops, contaminating tens of thousands, and spitting in the face of the americans before they say 'hell with this' and bomb the living fuck out of him. Where would that leave the US? How would they propose to deal with N. Korea? China? Or how would they propose to stand up to France and Russia? In the press of a few buttons, the US could go from the largest super power in the world, back to a day that noone alive can even remember, the failure would mean the collapse of the economy, depression, loss of power, and weakness in the face of all those who have felt intruded upon in the UN acts of the past 50 years, who hate the US only because they were the only free power available to act on behalf of the western world. This would mean that all those who the US has protected would rise and take the place of the US, countries like France and Russia. Is that perhaps an unconcious realisation of the Bush government? Hence the ill-will to these countries?
Now, admittedly, that is not a very likely scenario so long as the US keeps their wits about them. But its still possible. Unlikely and terrible, but possible.
To roughly paraphrase Tolkien, 'the future rides on the edge of a knife, faulter just a little and you will fall'.
A long time it took me to say very little, but theres still more to come.
Im opposed to the war, I always have been. War is the failure of diplomacy, and the wars fought by the youth are incited by the old and diluted. The good of the world and the good of the US are not one-in-the-same anymore, the world has shown disapproval, even the American public has shown disapproval, but yet the war proceeds anyway. Diplomacy didnt last nearly the time to make it worthwhile, little has been found as proof of Iraq's actions, but the lack of proof seems to validate the belief that Iraq is hiding something - true though it may be that a war based on this non-proof would be better than widespread death and terror because of wrongly assuming the innocence of Saddam, the problem lies in the very fact that there is no solid evidence to indicate guilt to such a degree that calls for war rather than further diplomacy and inquisition. A war based on non-proof, by our definitions, is not war but rather is murder, how often are men sentanced to death in the US for crimes there is no proof they commited? The lack of evidence must mean that Joe Pocketlint did it, so lets kill him? Appauling in my opinion. Arguing though, that the Iraqi government murders its own people is invalid, Iraq is not the US, Iraq is Iraq, and they are free to govern as they are, agreed with or not, their business is their own, much with all other countries where conflict can be found - but, as usual, the keepers of the peace are ready to interfere and make more enemies, because the ideals of the largest power in the world must be the right ones. Thats what war is all about isnt it? One truth versus another? Which means that the eastern philosophy and the western philosophy will soon come together in the war to end all wars. Finally, I heard something from a friend about the US being 'a nation using war to ensure peace and freedom'. It irritates me that such a twisted thing can be said, either way the Iraqis will be living under an imposed idea that they may or may not agree with, democracy is fine for us but has proven untrustworthy at times in other nations, and whether they are dominated by Saddam, or by a puppet government of American freedom, they still cannot be free until they choose their path for themselves. Ironically, I believe they will be more free now than later, because as it stands, millions of Iraqi civilians could easily take on a limited few thousand of Sadam's loyal, all they lack is the organization - now, Im not one for organizing revolutions, and Im not at all saying that its an easy task, but if they really feel so hard-done by, theyll get rid of saddam themselves. However, once a western instituted government is put into place, they will have no choice in the matter and will be swatted down like flies if they fight back against it. Russia got rid of the monarchy, so did France. The US held two wars determining the leading of their country, one against britain (which, had france fought against the US instead of with them, the colony would have been crushed and remained under british rule), and the civil war of north versus south. Civil war is key to the development of an independant nation, else you can take the long and hard road like canada and attempt to institute a constitution which 11 provinces and 2 territories each with their own distinct cultures must agree on. The US was given their chance to determine their own path, France, Britain, most every western nation - but its denied to all countries since the US came to power because the path of their choosing may conflict in the future with the american way of life. If the support of freedom was there, they would be allowed to choose their own, but the US is just looking out for number one, the US. I value freedom very highly, and consider myself lucky to live in the world where I do, but I would not be pleased if someone walked in and said they were going to change all that whether I liked it or not. I am honoured by the freedom I have, to share a similar system of functional government with so many privileged individuals. However, I would not force my beliefs on anyone, nor do I allow other people's beliefs to be forced upon me without a great deal of care, effort, and thought on the matter - and even then, if I do not like it, I will resist to the last. Part of democracy is good government, fairly appointed leaders, justly ruling over the people, limiting only their freedoms when they would impede the freedoms of others - but as nations, we feel so confident that our way is the best way that we cannot help but impede the freedom of others for better or for worse, and we have yet to feel any major reaction from those who do not accept our principles, but it is all yet to come. These are dangerous times, and I am terrified of the future. I place no blame on anyone for what has happened, past or present, because through mistakes we find the path to virtue, however, we cannot be foolish and let past mistakes be made again, which they will be at the pace and path we are proceeding down. Again, though, that is my judgement only. I am not attempting to coerce anyone into my view, but as everyone else is free to discuss, I am also free to have a voice, and I very much do appologize if something I have said rubs someone the wrong way as I know it will if they do not keep an open mind, I would be more than happy to discuss it though, privately of course.
Well, thats that... horribly misguided I guess, but ultimately, I would prefer any peaceful resolution to the downward spiral that will come with war.
Arun!! 
Sure they are different but alphabets are the same except for a couple of letters
